Politics

Putin did not specifically deny having 'compromising material' on Trump

putin helsinki
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the joint press conference with President Donald Trump in the Presidential Palace in Helsinki on Monday. Lehtikuva/Jussi Nukari via REUTERS
Read in app
  • At Monday's press conference in Finland, the Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire directly asked Russian President Vladimir Putin, "Does the Russian government have any compromising material on President Trump or his family?"
  • Putin did not immediately or directly say no. He gave a lengthy answer, toward the end saying "it's difficult to imagine utter nonsense on a bigger scale than this."
  • Whether that is a denial is open to interpretation.
  • Even if a rumored incriminating video exists, Putin is unlikely to ever acknowledge it.

In the wild joint US-Russia press conference on Monday in Finland, perhaps the most uncomfortable moment came when Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked whether he had "compromising material" on US President Donald Trump. The idea, kept afloat as Trump has consistently declined to criticize Putin even as he attacks US allies, can be traced back to the rumored existence of a years-old video said to feature Trump with two prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.

The gossipy allegation — vehemently denied by Trump — first emerged in the Steele dossier, a document listing everything that the former MI6 agent Christopher Steele heard from his intelligence sources about the Trump campaign's connections to Russia in 2016. Russian security services are known to gather compromising information on potential targets.

No such video involving Trump has ever been aired publicly.

On Monday, however, the Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire directly asked Putin, "Does the Russian government have any compromising material on President Trump or his family?"

Putin said:

"And now to the compromising material. Yeah, I did heard these rumors that we allegedly collected compromising material on Mr. Trump when he was visiting Moscow. Well, distinguished colleague, let me tell you this, when President Trump was in Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was in Moscow. I treat President Trump with utmost respect, but back then when he was a private individual, a businessman, nobody informed me that he was in Moscow. Let's take St. Petersburg economic forum, for instance. There were over 500 American businessmen — high-ranking, high-level ones. I don't even remember the last names of each and every one. Do you think that we try to collect compromising material on each and every single one of them? Well, it's difficult to imagine utter nonsense on a bigger scale than this. Please disregard these issues and don't think about this anymore again."

There is a lot going on in that answer, but nowhere does Putin directly deny the question.

The first few sentences avoided the question. Putin then — unprompted — began arguing that it would be impractical for the Russian security services to bug every attendee of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. But even then he didn't specifically say "we didn't do this."

Toward the end of his answer, the phrase "it's difficult to imagine utter nonsense on a bigger scale than this" could be read as a denial, but it comes after his discussing the logistics of bugging lots of people and not as a direct response to the original question.

So Putin's answer is open to interpretation. If you believe that Putin was being deliberately elliptical as a hint that he may have dirt on Trump — or as a way of making people think he does — that's your answer. Alternatively, it's a denial.

Of course, all this is academic: If an incriminating video does exist, Putin is unlikely to acknowledge it because doing so would eliminate any leverage its existence provides.

Trump seemed to hear the denial he wanted. "And I have to say if they had it, it would have been out long ago," he said in response to the same question.

Read the full transcript of the press conference here or watch it here.

Read next

Jim is the former editor-in-chief of Insider's news division.Previously he was the founding editor of Business Insider UK.He has also been managing editor at Adweek, an advertising columnist at CBS Interactive, and a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia Business School. His work has appeared in Slate, Salon, The Independent, MTV, The Nation and AOL.His investigative journalism changed the law in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S. v. Kravetz), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (North Jersey Media v. Ashcroft), New Jersey (In Re El-Atriss), and New York State (Mosallem v. Berenson).The US Supreme Court cited his work on the death penalty in the concurrence to Baze v. Rees, on the issue of whether lethal injection is cruel or unusual.He won the Neal award for business journalism in 2005 for a series investigating bribes and kickbacks in the advertising business.Here's a selection of his past stories:    The alleged betrayal in these photos, texts, and emails cost Snapchat $158 million    Inside the conspiracy that forced Dov Charney out of American Apparel    The Evolution of Ev: The creator of Twitter, Blogger, and Medium has a plan to fix the mess he made of the internet    THE "KNOCK-IN SHORT": Nigel Farage and the massive bet against the pound on the night of the Brexit vote    eBay worked with the FBI to put its top affiliate marketer in prison    How Dunkin Donuts ended up hiring a psychotic credit card thief as director of communications    BEJEWELED: The definitive, illustrated history of the most underrated game ever   • The CEO of Publicis told us how he stared down a furious internal rebellion to bet the future of his $11 billion company on artificial intelligence   • FBX: The billion-dollar Facebook business that never happened   • The €150 million check-kiting scam that bankrupted Leo Burnett in Greece   • My Polaroids of the September 11 attacks led me into America's secret court system for terrorist suspects   • YouTube deleted 130 rap videos to help police fight street gangs responsible for thousands of stabbingsDisclosure: I own shares of Twitter (TWTR).