You're linking a lot of articles, but they aren't saying what you think they are.
These are objective facts
These are allegations, not "objective facts". Like, the article itself literally refers to them as allegations. Do you know the difference between an allegation and an objective fact? Furthermore, in the introductory paragraph, Politifact makes it clear that these claims are unverified. Yet in your mind these are all objective facts. I just... I don't even know what to say.
lies made by Trump reps
What lies? The only Trump rep I see in this article is Sarah Sanders, who says that the media has covered the wiretapping of Trump Tower. She then gives articles proving it.
It's not a complete truth, but it's also not an outright lie. Pretty much exactly how I feel about most of the statements being made regarding the Trump-Russia conspiracy - furthering the similarities between the two which proves my point.
"SESSIONS DID MEET WITH THE RUSSIANS".
Yes, he was ordered to by Obama's state department as a member of the Armed S. The question specifically asked if he met with the russians as a trump surrogate. Claire McCaskill's couldn't have made a better case for sessions' innocence if she had been trying(re: her twitter embarrassment).
"FLYNN MET WITH THE RUSSIANS"
Sure. And then he lied to the VP about it. And then he was asked to resign.
While we're on the subject of Flynn, let me address your question:
Why is Trump decrying the "illegal" leaks?
Because classified information is being leaked to the media by moles in an attempt to undermine the Trump Administration. This is a much, much bigger threat to out democracy than any sort of russian election interference nonsense. Bloomberg had an article that explains it really well.