US intelligence 'detected Russian officials discussing meetings with Trump associates in 2015'

They didn't know what to do with the information at the time, but are now taking a second look

Russian officials were overheard discussing associates of Mr Trump in 2015 (Getty Images)

Newly revealed intelligence shows Russian officials discussed meeting with associates or advisers to Donald Trump in 2015 just months before he declared his candidacy to become president, the Wall Street Journal reports.

At that time, intelligence analysts didn't really know what to make of the intercepted conversations, since Mr Trump was a global celebrity who had done business in Russia before. In light of recent emails posted on Twitter by Donald Trump Jr that detail a conversation to facilitate a meeting between himself and a Kremlin-connected lawyer in June of last year, intelligence officials are taking a second look.

Current and former intelligence officials told the Wall Street Journal that, since Mr Trump had produced the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and had sold properties in the country, they weren't alone alarming.

But, they were puzzling, and had people asking each other, "What's going on?" one former official said.

American suspicions that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 election grew in the spring of last year, when intelligence counterparts in Europe warned that Russian money might be flowing into the US presidential election, sources knowledgeable with the warning said. It's not clear which candidates were on the receiving end of that alleged cash flow, or if the money was diverting into outside spending groups.

That investigation would only grow over the course of the next year, following massive hacks and leaks of Democrat email servers just before the 2016 Democratic National Committee, and then again in October just before the election. The US government publicly accused the Russian government of meddling in the election late last year.

Mr Trump Jr, after a series of stories were published by the New York Times over the weekend showing that members of Mr Trump's inner circle had met with individuals associated with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign, publicly released emails from that time. Those emails detail the facilitation of a meeting in June of last year - just a month before Mr Trump would formally accept the Republican nomination to become president - and show an eager response to a promise that a Russian source would be able to supply the campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The meeting would take place days later, and included Mr Trump Jr, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and Mr Trump's son-in-law and now-senior adviser Jared Kushner. They met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who represents the son of a wealthy Russian oligarch, as well as several state owned businesses. The man acting as a liaison for the meeting said in the emails that the Russian government was keen on helping Mr Trump win the election.

Mr Trump Jr has adamantly argued that he did nothing wrong in the exchange, and says that he didn't receive any damaging intelligence from Ms Veselnitskaya during the meeting. Instead, they spoke about US-Russia relations, and other issues related to the two countries. Mr Trump Jr said in a statement accompanying the emails that he was releasing them for transparency purposes, and acknowledged that he could have handled the meeting better.

The White House has said that Mr Trump Jr didn't do anything wrong, and the President himself has also expressed support for his son. Mr Trump is reportedly furious about the coverage, and is angry that the media is focusing on the story instead of his policy proposals.

Still, the correspondence has raised concerns about the Trump campaign's ties with Russia last year, and many have said that the emails show that the three three men who attended the meeting had at least attempted to collude with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. Others have noted that the emails present even further concerns, including potential vulerability to treason charges, and potential vulnerability to charges related to breaking campaign finance laws should it turn out that they had actually accepted damaging information.