Washington is afire once again with a controversy pitting President Donald Trump against the U.S. intelligence community and the media. The allegations are deadly serious: In an Oval Office meeting, the president disclosed highly classified information from a friendly intelligence service to an adversary. The White House, in a series of carefully worded statements, denied the claims, first reported by the Washington Post and later confirmed by five other news outlets.
“The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false,” said National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. He added: “At no time—at no time—were intelligence sources or methods discussed…I was in the room. It didn’t happen.”
Washington reporters, always looking for spin and well attuned to language that provides rhetorical escape routes, noted that the Post story never quite alleged what McMaster was denying—that intelligence sources and methods were discussed—and focused on the “as reported” qualifier, which affords McMaster the appearance of issuing a blanket denial without actually offering a blanket denial. And the most categorical part of McMaster’s denial—”It didn’t happen”—requires an understanding of what the president’s top national security adviser meant by “it.”
This morning, President Trump offered two tweets that many reporters saw as a shift. Rather than denying that “it” happened, Trump seemed confirm that “it” did and then justify “it.”
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
Does this contradict McMaster’s denial? Not exactly—since McMaster denied something the Washington Post never claimed directly and never specified what he meant by “it didn’t happen.” But Trump did seem to acknowledge sharing classified—or at least highly sensitive—information by claiming an “absolute right” to have done so. (No one is objecting to Trump sharing unclassified or nonsensitive facts, making such a declaration from the president unnecessary.)
White House officials see the incident as another attempt by the intelligence community to damage the Trump presidency. There were six U.S. officials in the meeting: Trump, McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Deputy National Security Adviser Dina Powell, and two others. Unless all interactions in the Oval are surreptitiously recorded, per Trump’s tweet about his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, there is no “memorandum of conversation” of the meeting. The junior-most person at the meeting on the U.S. side is charged with taking copious notes—usually a mixture of direct quotes, close paraphrases and summaries of topics discussed. The White House believes that these notes—distributed to a small list of national security and intelligence officials after the meeting, perhaps two dozen—led to the Washington Post story. In their view, the notes do not support the main claims of the reporting and the conclusions in the Post piece require inference and speculation.
Many reporters and Trump critics, on the other hand, see the episode as yet another example of the president’s unthinking recklessness. According to the Post, Trump was boasting that he receives the best intelligence and, in effect, shared some to prove his point. The president may not have affirmatively disclosed sources and methods, they reason, but the intelligence he is said to have shared might well reveal those sources and methods itself if it was specific enough that it could have only come from one or two liaison intelligence services.
Trump supporters don’t believe the news reports. Reporters and Trump skeptics don’t believe Trump administration denials.
Who’s right?
There’s one way to find out—or to get us closer to that truth: Release the notes of the meeting.
The White House could consult with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and the bipartisan intelligence “gang of eight” on what, if anything, would need to be redacted. And it’d be important to make clear that such a disclosure would be extraordinary, not a precedent.
This would, of course, be a highly unusual move and under normal circumstances the White House might object to this kind of radical transparency on the grounds that such high-level diplomacy ought to be shielded from public scrutiny. And, in any case, those notes are classified.
These aren’t normal circumstances. The alleged details of this high-level diplomacy have been splashed across front pages worldwide. And, as the president tweeted this morning ultimate declassifying authority, he has the “absolute right” to release them as the ultimate declassification authority.
He should do so immediately.
