Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Credit:AP In the eyes of many in Washington, the call was certainly inappropriate - and possibly illegal. In January, Pence went on Face the Nation, insisting that Flynn and Kislyak "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia", arguing that such a charge gave "credence to some of these bizarre rumours that have swirled around the candidacy". But as reported by The Washington Post, no less than nine intelligence officials "said Flynn's references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by president Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president. "'Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,' said a former official."

Russian ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak met Mr Flynn. Credit:AP Last Wednesday, Flynn denied discussing sanctions - asked if he had ever done so, he twice said: "No." But on Thursday, Flynn backed away from that explicit answer, with a spokesman saying that while Flynn "had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up". Then president-elect Donald Trump accompanied by chief of staff Reince Priebus, right, and retired general Michael Flynn in December. Credit:AP Given references in some reports to the existence of transcripts of the Flynn-Kislyak calls, the changed explanation by Flynn can be read as him belatedly realising - or perhaps having been informed - that the detail of his conversation is known in Washington because the US intelligence services were listening in - as, of course, they would be to a call when one of the parties is an ambassador whose country is about to be whacked with sanctions.

Pence, reportedly, is unhappy. Current administration officials are saying that, in explaining himself to the Vice-President before Pence defended him several times, Flynn had parsed the call as an exchange of pleasantries - Happy Christmas and all that. Ominously for the administration, the Post is reporting that the FBI is investigating Flynn's communications with the Russian, either as a stand-alone probe or as part of an ongoing, wider investigation into Russian interference in the election and/or the links between Trump's campaign and Moscow. And, while Democrats are demanding all sorts of action, including that Flynn's security pass be cancelled, Republicans are staying silent - not so much out of support for Flynn as from a belief in some quarters that Flynn was destined to self-immolate. Questions abound: • Can Trump afford to retain the services of a national security adviser who "can't remember" what he discussed with the ambassador for such a key world power?

• Why did Flynn repeatedly deny the substance of his call to the Russian ambassador unless he knew all along that it was inappropriate - and possibly illegal? • How could Flynn not have stopped before picking up the phone to consider the likelihood that the call would be recorded by US intelligence? • If no less than nine senior and current officials were willing to hang Flynn out to the Post, what sort of loyalty and respect does he command within the administration? • Did Trump, as president-elect, sanction the call? • If Flynn was prepared to undermine the then US president on the question of sanctions, what was the extent of his other communications with the Russian ambassador - and what was discussed?

The Trump-Flynn relationship was always going to intrigue, because national security is such a hot-button issue for Trump and because of a contradiction at the heart of a recent considered explanation by Flynn of how security policy might be conducted. On the one hand, he scoffed to The Washington Post's David Ignatius about micro-management by previous administrations, which he likened to a "5000-mile screwdriver", arguing that cabinet agencies should be allowed to do their jobs. On the other hand, he referred to Trump as the chariot driver in Ben-Hur, urging his horses forward. In January, when Iran tested a new missile, Flynn was quickly wheeled out to warn that Tehran was "on notice". But on Sunday morning, Flynn was conspicuously absent from the airwaves. Despite steady attacks and questioning, Trump has been loyal to Flynn. But much of that was based on Flynn's performance during the campaign - as a lone security establishment figure who would deign to share a stage with Trump, even leading the "lock her up!" chants, Flynn had great value. Now that Trump is in office, Flynn might well have reached his use-by date. During the campaign Trump had no hesitation in getting rid of his campaign manager Paul Manafort when awkward questions were being asked about Manafort's Moscow connections.

Another reason for Trump to rethink Flynn's tenure is last week's story of Trump calling Flynn in the middle of the night to ask if the US wanted a strong or weak dollar. Trump is furious about leaks from the administration - but surely that damaging leak had to have started with Flynn telling someone about the call from the President in the middle of the night? It's likely this thing has a way to go. The President's weekend claim that he knew nothing of The Washington Post's bombshell report from nine sources sounded disingenuous. At the same time his undertaking to "look into it" ought to cause discomfort for Flynn. Perhaps a greater warning to Flynn was the administration's failure - perhaps "refusal" is a better word - to field more talking heads for the round of Sunday morning TV talk shows. The only administration official to make an appearance was senior policy adviser Stephen Miller - and just hours after the North Korean missile test, Miller refused to say if Trump still had confidence in Flynn.

"It's not for me to tell you what's in the President's mind," Miller told NBC's Meet the Press. "That's a question for the President. Asked and answered." And asked if the White House had given him any guidance on Flynn's position, Miller said: "They did not give me anything to say." On ABC's This Week, Miller joshed: "I don't have any news to make you today [sic] on this point … " But that "no news" answer is news, because the White House is not taking Flynn at his word, as Pence had. Miller was not sent out to defend Flynn, which has to be read as hesitation by Trump and others over Flynn's reliability.

That they didn't give Miller a script speaks volumes. Here's an administration that is seriously sophisticated in mounting blizzard media appearances to defend itself or to change the debate. Instead, it opted to leave empty seats on the shows' panels that were taken by Democrats who tore at Flynn's credibility - leaving the image of a carcass hanging in the breeze. Loading And in not defending Flynn, Miller's performance earned an elephant stamp from the President, who tweeted: "Congratulations Stephen Miller on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!" Yup, there's blood in the water - and in these parts, sharks abound.