In Interviews With Congress, John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Denied Knowing Who Paid for the Dossier

Despite the fact that it was them, through their lawyer Marc Elias.

Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz both privately denied to congressional Russia investigators that they had any knowledge about an arrangement to pay for opposition research on President Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN. The interviews happened before this week's disclosure that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for the research. Senate investigators may seek to further question the two top Democrats and dig deeper on the origins of the so-called Trump dossier, one of the sources briefed on the matter said. Their remarks to congressional investigators raise the stakes in their assertion that they knew nothing about the funding because it's against the law to make false statements to Congress.

By the way, this being #FakeNews CNN (and I don't suggest you click), the next sentence is something very much like "Republicans have seized upon this controversy as a way to deflect..." You know -- Republicans are epileptics. Always seizing, seizing, seizing.

Or pouncing.

Shorter CNN: Republicans are seizing on this proven lie to Congress to distract from Democrats' unevidenced claims of lawbreaking.

This gets better. I mentioned earlier that Marc Elias was both Podesta's and the DNC's lawyer -- as well as being the pointman at the law firm that actually laundered Clinton's and the DNC's money to pay Fusion.

But I didn't notice the context in which he served as their lawyer.

Marc Elias, representing both Podesta and Wasserman-Schultz, said nothing as his clients made false statements to Congress about having "no idea" who funded Fusion, and despite himself being in a position to know with certainty.

Whether or not this testimony was under oath, it is a crime to provide false testimony to Congress. Elias certainly knew about the funding and its connection to the DNC and Team Hillary, and yet remained silent. He may not have been a witness, but as the attorney representing Podesta -- who served as Hillary's campaign manager -- wouldn�t he have at least leaned over and advised his client not to answer that question? And given that sources close to Hillary Clinton claim she found out about it in January, long before this probe began, wouldn't Podesta have known about it by the time he answered this question?



CNN is already tipping how they'll play this -- arguing against the White House suggesting that the gag order on the Uranium One informant be lifted.

That is, they're arguing against government transparency.

BTW, Sessions says he's aware of no such suggestion and he was discussing this with the Senate for a while now.