Editor's Note: (CNN National Security Analyst John Kirby is a retired rear admiral in the US Navy who served as a spokesman for both the state and defense departments in the Obama administration. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.)
(CNN) On its face -- and under less suspicious circumstances -- there would be nothing wrong with President Trump having an impromptu side meeting with Vladimir Putin. Such meetings are a staple of big, global confabs like the G-20. Indeed, it is often during these more intimate discussions that real progress on contentious issues can be made.
But we can't afford to take anything regarding Russia at face value right now. Putin's malevolence and the Trump administration's repeated failure to come clean about their interactions with Russian officials -- including this one -- raise legitimate questions about where this most critical of bilateral relationships is heading.
So, yes, in that context, this hour-long pull-aside matters. And, yes, it warrants scrutiny. First of all, we learned about it through media reporting, specifically an interview by NPR's Audie Cornish of Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer. The White House only acknowledged it when pressed by reporters following up.
Unless they're simply brief, chance encounters, meetings of this nature -- and certainly one between the President of the United States and the President of Russia -- are typically summarized by government officials. This readout, as it is called, accomplishes two things: it serves as a public record of the President's participation in the conference, and provides a way to advance his message about whatever issues were discussed.
That there was no overt acknowledgement of the meeting, let alone a readout, suggests either that the President's staff didn't know about it (troubling all by itself) or that the White House didn't want it known (more troubling, given ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election).
Of course, the only way the White House could produce a readout would be to ask the President to write it, because there was no one else present from the US side. Not a senior national security expert. Not a notetaker. Not even a translator. No one.
That's a problem.
Let's not forget how Mr. Trump once described the Russian leader and the risks inherent in trying to placate him.
Vladimir Putin, "of whom I often speak highly for his intelligence and no-nonsense way, is a former KGB officer," Trump wrote in his 2011 book, "Time to Get Tough." "No sooner did Obama move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than he began making concessions and sacrificing American power on the altar of 'improving relations' with Russia."
The dubious charge against President Obama notwithstanding, one could be forgiven for thinking Trump would be more cautious. One might think he wouldn't undertake a discussion with Vladimir Putin, even impromptu, without a strategy and without the backup and support of informed senior staff, who could help guide him through any minefields Putin might lay.
And one should expect that Trump would not want to rely on a Russian government translator to make plain the points he was trying to make.
There's a reason we employ our own translators. You can rest easy that they will accurately and scrupulously convey the meaning of every word you utter. Don't have one with you? Go get one before you huddle with a foreign leader for anything more than a quick hello.
Whatever those two talked about -- and we will likely never know, because Trump is not likely to write his own readout -- it probably touched on any number of real and vexing issues between our two countries.
Even the White House suggested as much.
"Throughout the G-20 and in all his other foreign engagements," said a White House official defending the meeting, "President Trump has demonstrated American leadership by representing our interests and values on the world stage."
So, safe to assume they didn't talk about sports or the weather in Hamburg.
And that brings up another legitimate worry over this "warm and friendly" chat, as Bremmer described it. It can't really be private, or at least it shouldn't be.
Mr. Trump isn't a private citizen anymore. He's not a CEO. He's the President. That means he belongs to us, the American people. And that means when he talks to foreign leaders on our behalf (especially heads of state ... especially the head of state of the Russian Federation ... especially Vladimir Putin) there needs to be a record of it -- if not for public consumption now, then at the very least for historians later.
In this case, only the Russians will have a record of it. It's hard to see how that serves us well. Because the record itself serves a greater purpose than just archival. It helps reinforce public trust and confidence in the institutions of government, in our very democracy. It reminds us that we are all Trump's employers.
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia summed it up nicely this morning on "New Day."
"Transparency in the public sector is much different than in the private sector," he said. "When you're in the public sector you have to gain the trust of constituents, those for and against you."
Of course, some might argue that Trump doesn't much care about earning the trust of those he deems are against him. And those who support him don't much care about holding him to account for all this Russia business. They share the President's conviction that it's all just a witch hunt.
But that's beside the point.
The point is that if, as the President maintains, there is nothing to hide with respect to Russia and if, as he asserted in a tweet, there was nothing sinister about the meeting itself, then it should have been better staffed, disclosed and documented.
Doesn't seem like too much to ask.
That same White House official -- the one who wouldn't give his or her name -- said it was "not merely perfectly normal, it is part of a president's duties, to interact with world leaders."
Couldn't agree more. There's nothing at all wrong with Trump and Putin having another discussion. There might even be good to come from it. But it's also not perfectly normal for there not to be disclosure of it and an accurate accounting.