WASHINGTON — Their reputations at risk, a coterie of President Donald Trump’s associates caught up in the swirling debate about Trump and Russia are turning to a similar if unusual playbook: volunteering to testify to Congress, before even being asked.

They are eager to come forward despite not having been compelled by subpoena to appear before the two committees investigating Russian meddling in the U.S. election and potential Trump campaign collusion. But testifying on such matters is an exercise most people would typically avoid, especially if there’s a chance they’re being scrutinized in a parallel FBI investigation.

So what gives?

“There’s only one way: Tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself,” said Lanny Davis, who was special counsel to President Bill Clinton during his impeachment hearings.

Davis, who frequently advises political figures on crisis management, said it’s wise for those whose names have emerged publicly as part of the investigations to seek proactively to clear their names. After all, Washington has seen more than its share of once-powerful people who failed to learn the lesson that the cover-up is often worse than the original sin.

“These questions are going to ultimately get answered,” Davis said. “You ought to answer them yourself.”

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, told the Senate intelligence panel this week he’d gladly answer questions about his meetings with the Russian ambassador and others. Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, made a similar offer to the House committee investigating. So did former Trump adviser Carter Page and associate Roger Stone.

Those aides haven’t publicly asked for any protections from prosecution to testimony. But former national security adviser Michael Flynn is in talks with congressional committees to receive immunity in exchange for being questioned, according to his lawyer.

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates agreed to testify before the House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes canceled the hearing.

The openness to testify publicly, in the absence of at least a public demand for immunity, is in stark contrast to how last year’s Capitol Hill investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server unfolded.

In that case, multiple witnesses — including the IT staffer who set up Clinton’s server — asserted their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and either did not appear at a hearing or refused to answer questions.