Here’s the Problem With the White House’s Story on the Papadopoulos Scandal

The White House tried to downplay the significance by saying Trump campaign’s foreign policy team met just once. That’s not quite right.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders during a press briefing at the White House in October 2017.Alex Brandon/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Just how many times did the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team meet?

The answer to that seemingly unimportant question is suddenly a key element of the deepening scandal surrounding the campaign’s contacts with Russia, following revelations that one member of the team, George Papadopoulos, communicated with Russians connected to the Kremlin. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said several times that the answer is one, implying that the foreign policy council was an unimportant body and Papadopoulos was a minor player in the campaign.

But after congressional testimony by Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to the campaign, it’s become clear that members of the council met at least twice. 

Papadopoulos admitted to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team that he had ongoing contacts with Kremlin intermediaries during the campaign. The White House quickly downplayed the significance of the revelation last week, claiming that Papadopoulos was barely involved with the campaign. The campaign was certainly aware of his connections to Russia because Papadopoulos suggested using them to set up a meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a March 2016 meeting of the foreign policy team with Trump present. But Sanders has emphasized that that was itā€”that the campaign’s foreign policy team, a group of volunteer advisers headed by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, met only that one time.

“I’m telling you that he was a volunteer member of an advisory council that literally met one time,” Sanders said during a press briefing on October 30.

But on Thursday, Page told the House Intelligence Committee that he spoke to Sessions at a dinner in Washington, DC, in June 2016 about an upcoming trip he was making to Russia. According to CNN, the dinner was a gathering of members of the foreign policy council. “A source familiar with the meeting told CNN that the encounter occurred at a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club, attended by members of the Trump national security team, including Sessions,” the network reported. “Near the end of the dinner, Page approached Sessions to say hello and thanked the then-senator for the dinner, and Page also mentioned he was headed to Russia. Sessions didn’t respond and moved on to the next person waiting to shake his hand, this source said.”

A White House official sought to clarify the discrepancy. “Sarah’s referring to formal convening of the organization,” the official, who asked not to be named, told Mother Jones. “They only had one formal meeting in which they kind of met as a group in an official capacity, certainly only one in which the council assembled and met with the president, then the candidate.” But the official acknowledged that some members of the council met for dinner “once or twice or a few times” and did not know how many of those gatherings Page or Papadopoulos attended.

Reports have placed Sessions at two gatherings of the group thus far, and Russia reportedly came up both times. Unlike Sanders, Sessions has not stated publicly that the foreign policy team met only once, though he has denied that it played a significant role in the campaign. “We met a couple of times,” he testified during a hearing earlier this year before the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Maybe a couple of people did. We never functioned as a coherent team.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate