If indeed he has nothing to hide, it is in the self-interest of President Trump to have a full, fair and objective investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election, carried out in such manner that the public will have confidence in the results.

It should by now be clear to the president that allegations and speculation concerning the interaction of people associated with the Trump campaign and Russian officials will continue to leak out in dribs and drabs. The president has said he wants to get a lot done. Having to constantly react to new allegations, and dealing with a Congress that may be spooked by the prospects of scandal, will make getting things done more difficult.

“There continues to be no there, there,” said Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, responding Wednesday to speculation of collusion between Trump campaign surrogates and Russians.

On Feb. 15, we called for appointment of an independent, bipartisan commission, with the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, to dig into the matter. New developments strengthen the argument for such a commission.

If indeed there is “no there, there,” then the president should welcome such a probe, confident it will show no malfeasance on the part of his campaign, allowing his administration to fully focus on policy.

New reports show that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, only recently sworn-in, did have contact with a top Russian official during the campaign season, in seeming contradiction of his testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing.

During the hearing Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., noted the reports suggesting meetings took place during the presidential campaign between intermediaries of the Russian government and people involved with the Trump campaign. The senator asked how, as attorney general, Sessions would proceed if it appeared the reports were true.

“I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign,” Sessions testified. “And I didn’t have, did not have, communications with the Russians. And I’m unable to comment on it.”

New reports, however, show that on July 18, during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, after giving a speech at an event for ambassadors, Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak and a group of other ambassadors.

More disconcerting was a subsequent meeting with Kislyak, this time in his Senate office, on Sept. 8.

Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said Sessions met with the ambassador in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee and had not misled the Senate committee.

“He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign, not about meetings he took as a senator,” said Flores.

But knowing the sensitivity of the Russian issue, why was Sessions not forthcoming? Why not acknowledge to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had met with the Russian diplomat, while noting it had nothing to do with the campaign.

Others on the committee said the Armed Services Committee was not conducting any business that would have called for a meeting with Kislyak.

Some Democrats are calling for Sessions to resign. That may be in order if, as Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal noted, the attorney general cannot “provide a credible explanation.”

At least Sessions had the good sense Thursday to recuse himself from the Justice Department investigation into the Russian matter.  At the same press conference, however, he passed on a chance to explain why he did not acknowledge the Kislyak meetings in his Senate testimony, only acknowledging that he should have.

Calls are also increasing for appointment of a special prosecutor. Appointment authority rests with the attorney general. Creating the bipartisan commission should be the first order of business. If evidence of criminality surfaces, then it will be time for the special prosecutor.

As for the Senate and House intelligence committees already investigating the matter, one has to wonder whether, given their many other responsibilities, they can give adequate attention to this matter in a timely manner. A special commission could fully focus on it.

With evidence surfacing of Russians trying to influence European elections as well, any information uncovered by a special commission could prove important to our allies.

It is also worth noting the Senate and House intelligence committees are partisan, controlled by the Republicans, leaving their conclusions open to question.

Congress should appoint a special commission. The president should welcome it. The country needs to know.