In a meeting last week with top Russian officials, President Donald Trump discussed classified information regarding an Islamic State threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The revelations sparked outrage in Washington, even among high-ranking Republicans, and raised international questions about whether the U.S. under Trump is a reliable intelligence-sharing partner.

According to the Washington Post report, Trump shared an ISIS plot involving commercial aircraft and laptop computers with the Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The president also reportedly shared the name of a Syrian city in which the intel was collected by an unnamed ally in the Middle East. White House officials denied the report, and said Trump did not disclose how the classified intelligence was gathered, or by which Middle Eastern ally.

But early Tuesday morning, Trump took to Twitter to confirm that he did indeed share intel with the Russians concerning an ISIS plot, for “humanitarian reasons.” The president tweeted:

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Still, the main concern is that Russia, which is backing Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, could glean how and from whom the U.S. receives its intelligence in regard to the fight against ISIS. A senior European intelligence official, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press on Tuesday morning that if the Post’s report was accurate, his country, which the official did not want to be named, could stop sharing intelligence with the U.S.

Top Republicans were dismayed by the report that the Trump Administration was embroiled in yet another controversy, less than a week after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey. “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Sen. John McCain, perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of Trump, called the intelligence sharing “deeply disturbing.” He continued, in a statement on Tuesday: “Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future.” Top Senate Democrats also responded with concern:

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians. https://t.co/CRiSC024F7

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) May 15, 2017

Before the Post story was published on Monday, the White House denied its claims. For its part, the Kremlin derided the report as “complete nonsense.” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the sources and methods of the intelligence gathering was not discussed in the meeting, “and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” In a press conference on Tuesday, McMaster indicated that Trump was unaware the information he shared with the Russian officials was classified, and that the discussion that took place was “wholly appropriate.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Confirms He Shared Classified Intel with Russian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration’s connections to Russia have worried both Democrats and Republicans, with lawmakers from both parties calling for special prosecutors, committee investigations, and intelligence probes into the matter. Late Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, had met with Russia’s U.S. ambassador twice before–in July and September–despite denying any contacts with Russian officials in his confirmation hearing in January.

A bi-partisan chorus has been building over the past few weeks for the Justice Department to investigate the administration’s ties to Russian officials. Lawmakers’ concerns were amplified when former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month after misleading the vice president about his contacts with the same ambassador Sessions met with, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions, the man who would lead a Justice Department investigation into Trump’s Russian contacts, might be embroiled in the investigation himself. Now lawmakers are calling on him to recuse himself or, like Flynn, step down completely.

A handful of prominent Republicans on Wednesday and early Thursday said a special prosecutor should investigate the Trump Administration’s contacts with Russia, instead of Sessions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Sessions should recuse himself:

AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) March 2, 2017

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) initially echoed that sentiment, but hours later said he is “not calling on [Sessions] to recuse himself.” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it “would be best for [Sessions] and for the country” to recuse himself. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during a CNN town hall Wednesday evening, also seemed to embrace the idea of a special prosecutor in lieu of Sessions. Graham said that “if there’s something there that the FBI thinks is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor.” 

Of course, a senator is allowed to meet with Russian officials, and at the time Sessions met with Kislyak, he was a senator from Alabama. But Sessions denied having any contact with the Russians during the campaign (“I have no idea what this allegation is about,” he said in a statement), and during his hearing he swore under oath that he did not have contact with Russian officials. At worst, Sessions committed perjury, in which case he would certainly be forced to step down. And at best, he misled Congress, which many Democrats see as reason enough to resign.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sessions “is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said Sessions should “resign immediately, and there is no longer any question that we need a truly independent commission to investigate this issue.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a vocal critic of Sessions when he was nominated as attorney general, said Sessions “should have never been confirmed in the first place,” and that he should resign. “We need it now,” she added.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Jeff Sessions Recuse Himself from the Russia-Trump Investigation? appeared first on Law Street.

The resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and the subsequent revelations that Trump aides communicated with Russia during the campaign have raised a lot of questions in Washington. Clearly some sort of relationship exists between Russia and Trump–or at least his orbit of advisers and aides. But how deep does it go? How nefarious does it get? And, perhaps most importantly, what will happen next?

For one, the FBI is continuing to review the communications between Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Flynn was pressured to resign after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his calls with Kislyak (they talked about U.S. sanctions, but Flynn told Pence they did not).

It is unclear if Trump, or any other top administration officials, directed Flynn to discuss the sanctions with Kislyak, or if Flynn acted of his own accord. But Trump, for one, is not happy about the leaks coming out of his administration:

The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by “intelligence” like candy. Very un-American!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

On Tuesday, top Senate Republicans hinted that they would be calling for an investigation into the relationship between Trump, his aides, and Russia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said a probe is “highly likely.” Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), also called for an investigation.

“We are aggressively going to continue the oversight responsibilities of the committee as it relates to not only the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, but again any contacts by any campaign individuals that might have happened with Russian government officials,” Burr said on Tuesday.

Republican Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Roy Blunt (MO) echoed the call for a Senate investigation, which would likely include a subpoena for Flynn to testify. Republicans in the House, however, struck a different tone Tuesday.

“I’ll leave it up to the administration to describe the circumstances surrounding what brought [Flynn] to this point,” said Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Ryan did not call for a House Intelligence Committee investigation.

The decision to launch a House investigation into the Russia-Trump Administration relationship is unilaterally controlled by one man: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the House Intelligence Committee Chairman. In contrast with many of his Republican colleagues, his counterparts in the Senate, and Democrats, Nunes sees a bigger problem than Trump’s potential Russia ties.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” Nunes said on Tuesday, referring to the FBI’s recording Flynn’s call with Kislyak. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

In other words, Nunes likely won’t be launching a House probe any time soon.

The opaque, yet unmistakable, ties between Trump and Russia first came to light in the summer of 2016. In July, he flippantly implored Russia to dig deeper into Hillary Clinton’s emails. In August, his campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, quit amid reports about his past business dealings with Ukrainian government officials who were backed by the Kremlin. And in the waning months following Trump’s election win, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that Russia–perhaps directed by President Vladimir Putin–interfered in the election with the goal of netting Trump a victory.

Then, just over a week before Inauguration Day, reports of a salacious dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer began to leak. The dossier claimed that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russian officials during the campaign in their hacking of Democratic operatives’ emails.

While U.S. intelligence officials have made some progress on corroborating the claims in the dossier, nothing too incriminating has been confirmed yet. They are continuing to probe the dossier, as well as Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), never one to mince words, called Russian interference in the U.S. “very disturbing” in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. He added: “Any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”

Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Russia: What Will Happen Next? appeared first on Law Street.