As the threads of the Michael Flynn scandal are pulled, each one reveals a deeper pit of Russian intrigue and raises more questions about the integrity of the 2016 election. Now, it is time to ask the central questions at the rotten core of the Flynn imbroglio: did Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin engage in a plot to interfere with the 2016 election and, if so, was Flynn their middleman?

This is not the stuff of conspiracy nuts. Respectable, experienced Democratic national security experts, including the former ambassador and state department official Daniel Benjamin, are among those giving credence to such questions.

They doubt Flynn would have called Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak without being instructed to, by someone much higher up in Trumpworld. Similarly, they doubt Flynn would have been in contact with Kislyak during the campaign, as he reportedly was, without having been asked by higher-ups. The New York Times reported Tuesday night that other campaign officials and Trump associates were also communicating with senior Russian intelligence officials.

I met Benjamin, who now directs Dartmouth’s John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, when he left the Clinton administration and was writing a book, The Sacred Age of Terror. I was then the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times and leading coverage of al-Qaida, Benjamin’s specialty.

As someone who knows Flynn, Benjamin, in an important article he penned for Politico, pointed out that Flynn was an unusual choice for the post of national security adviser. A former general, he had no diplomatic experience and was known for recent undiplomatic, even erratic behavior. (Barack Obama fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency).

Nonetheless, Flynn’s admirers were surprised when he signed on as an early adviser to Trump in February 2016. At the Republican convention in Cleveland, some were dumbfounded and disgusted by his shrill partisan display, leading chants of “Lock Her Up” against Hillary Clinton.

The hacking of DNC emails became known four days later, on the eve of the Democratic convention, when Wikileaks published them. The embarrassing messages disrupted the start of the convention and cost DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a big Clinton ally, her job.

Before the November election, Obama was informed by intelligence officials that Russia was almost certainly behind the DNC hack, as well as the theft of emails from top Clinton campaign officials. Both incidents looked like a bold, hurtful effort to derail Clinton and help get Trump elected.

Obama blamed Putin directly. On 29 December, he announced sweeping sanctions on Russia for interfering in the US election.

It is unclear how well Putin and Flynn knew each other or whether they ever discussed Trump’s candidacy. They sat next to each other in late 2015 when Flynn was paid to appear on a panel at an anniversary celebration in Moscow for Russia Today, the state-backed broadcasting network. Flynn did communicate with ambassador Kislyak before 8 November, although it isn’t known how many times they spoke.

After Obama ejected Russian diplomats and issued his sanctions, Trump did not directly comment on the matter. He said he’d meet with intelligence officials, adding: “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.”

The flurry of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak came the same day Obama punished Russia. Although Flynn initially denied it, the calls did involve the sanctions and were recorded by US intelligence. The very next day, Putin surprised the world by not retaliating and Trump praised him on Twitter for being “smart”.

Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2016

Was this the Smoking Tweet?

At Trump’s suggestion, did Flynn reassure the Russians that the new administration, once in office, would go easy on them? If so, it could be a violation of the Logan Act.

Soon after Putin surprised the world by not retaliating immediately, Trump was appointing Russia-friendly people to top administration jobs, including Flynn, whose position did not require a Senate confirmation.

Now that Flynn has had to resign just hours after Kellyanne Conway said he had the president’s “full confidence”, this sordid chain of events is only beginning to be understood.

The new disclosures of wider communications between Trump confidantes and the Russians during the 2016 campaign raise questions of whether there might have been collusion on the hacking. But, at least “so far”, the Times’ intelligence sources, “have seen no evidence of such cooperation”.

Can we expect to get more information from the FBI, led by James Comey, who himself is under investigation for election interference by reviving the Clinton email scandal 10 days before the campaign ended? How about the zealous Republican Congress, which investigated Benghazi and Clinton ad nauseam?

“I think that situation has taken care of itself,” said Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, about Flynn. But it really has not.

Under mounting pressure, from the press and the public, they may have to mount a serious investigation or find an independent body to do so.

It’s clear what needs to be investigated. As Daniel Benjamin succinctly asked on Tuesday: “Who Told Flynn to Call Russia?” That’s a question we all deserve an answer to.

