WASHINGTON — Allegations that President Trump’s campaign may have colluded with Russia to disrupt the 2016 campaign have produced such an ever-expanding list of investigations that even those leading them are having trouble keeping track of who should be doing what.
No fewer than five probes are underway, examining aspects of the Russia scandal from possible ties between Trump associates and the Kremlin to the president’s stunning firing of the FBI director at a time the agency was conducting a criminal investigation into the matter.
That Department of Justice probe is continuing, and the reins were handed over last week to former FBI di- rector Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel. Then there are four congressional committees conducting investigations, two per chamber, with separate but overlapping jurisdictional powers.
And there could be more.
A member of the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday suggested that agency, too, should get in on the action and investigate whether Russian agents used Facebook ads to attempt to affect the campaign.
On Tuesday, it was the House Intelligence Committee’s turn to take center stage in the daily Trump-Russia drama, as former CIA director John Brennan testified that he personally warned the head of the Russian intelligence service to stop interfering in the US election.
Brennan for the first time publicly revealed his own deep concerns that Russian officials had been successful in efforts to get help from Trump campaign officials in their election-meddling efforts.
“I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,’’ he said. “And it raised questions in my mind again whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.’’
The multiple investigations also increases the likelihood of more disclosures — either via leaks or public hearings — that would keep the Russia story at the forefront, bogging down the congressional agenda and continuing to distract the Trump administration.
With all of the investigations, there’s a fair share of big egos keen for a turn in the spotlight — with press conferences on a seemingly-daily basis — and the star witnesses are in high demand.
At the moment, the congressional committees are all eager to book former FBI director James Comey as a witness. It looked as if the House Oversight Committee would get the honors, but that hearing was postponed — date, TBD —when Comey begged off until he could consult with Mueller. Now it looks like the ousted G-Man — who was photographed by a selfie-taker at a barber shop in Falls Church, Va., on Tuesday — could first appear sometime after Memorial Day before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
When Comeyrebuffed the same request to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the snub drew a sharp rebuke from the panel leaders, Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California. “There is no reason he can’t testify before both the intelligence and judiciary committees,’’ the lawmakers huffed in a joint statement.
It’s gotten so complicated, Senator Lindsey Graham — who leads a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee — said his next hearing may feature “a panel to tell us what lane we should be in.’’
Specifically, the South Carolina Republican pointed to the appointment of a special counsel as changing the game for the various congressional probes. Lawmakers don’t want to interfere with Mueller’s investigation by calling witnesses or demanding documents that could undermine his inquiry, he said.
“I can’t think of a major witness that we would want to hear from, you would want to hear from, that Mueller doesn’t want to hear from. So you’ve got to protect the witness pools,’’ Graham said. “It means that we’ve got to be very mindful of what our role is, and I think it severely limits it.’’
Many of Graham’s colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, disagree. They say that Mueller’s arrival on the Russia scene should in no way sidetrack their ongoing investigations. Mueller’s investigation is designed to be secret, until he releases his results or pursues criminal convictions, while congressional probes are largely taking place in public view.
“The congressional committees . . . have a mission of uncovering the truth, making the American people aware of it, producing reports and recommendations as to how to avoid this kind of interference by Russia and others in the future,’’ said Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat and former US attorney.
The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee — which is pursuing what has been the highest-profile of the four congressional investigations — certainly subscribe to this point of view. Chairman Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, and top Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia, are trying to get Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn to comply with subpoenasthey have sent seeking business records. Flynn has so far declined to comply, citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
“There are multiple layers of turf battles here,’’ observed John Hudak, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning Washington think tank. Congress wants to wrest some of the investigative power from the executive branch. Then there’s the usual intra-congressional rivalry across chambers and committees with various jurisdictions.
“That creates this bizarre dynamic in and across Congress where everyone’s trying to be the lead investigation,’’ he said.
Still, Hudak is among those who don’t think Washington has veered into investigatory overkill. The seriousness of the allegations — that a presidential campaign, and possibly a president, colluded with a foreign adversary to affect an election — “is as serious a charge and as serious a threat to the institutions of democracy that exist,’’ he said.
Even those not involved in the specific committees pursuing Russia probes can find ways to participate. Last week, a group of senators were briefed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on the decision to fire Comey, the day after he appointed Mueller. The next day, House lawmakers got the same chance to meet privately with Rosenstein.
On Tuesday, Senator John McCain opened a hearing of the Senate Armed Services — not officially conducting a Russia investigation — by asking Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about the latest bombshell news story on the Russia affair.
Referring to a Washington Post report that Trump had asked Coats and another top intelligence official to publicly dispute that there is any evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia, McCain asked, “Is that an accurate reporting, Director Coats?’’
Coats said he couldn’t publicly comment on the news report nor any of his conversations with the president.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, later asked Coats if he would be willing to share such information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees — which can hold closed-door, classified sessions — should they ask.
“I do believe that the information and discussions that I’ve had with the president are something that should not be disclosed,’’ Coats replied. “On the other hand if I’m called before an investigative committee, I certainly will provide them with what I know and what I don’t know.’’
Sure enough, within a few hours, Warner and Burr held a press conference and said they would be asking Coats to testify before their committee.
Story, A7.
Victoria McGrane can be reached at victoria.mcgrane@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @vgmac.
