this attorney mark elias is in a precarious position. he was the general counsel of the campaign. two reporters have accused him of expressly saying there was no relationship with the clinton campaign and the dossier. he was actually sitting next to john podesta when podesta made the same denial. that gets you into very difficult area, that s when false statements are given to federal investigators. that has to be of concern. it doesn t mean that crime occurred but it s an obvious concern. can you think of an alternative explanation? i will take off the table the idea that the head of the campaign and the head of the party didn t know about millions being spent on opposition research. is there some other way they could explain their behavior before that committee? well, that s what the investigators really have to look at. it s hard to argue that this isn t appropriate for investigation. there are serious questions here. it doesn t mean there s crimes
this attorney mark elias is in a precarious position. he was the general counsel of the campaign. two reporters have accused him of expressly saying there was no relationship with the clinton campaign and the dossier. he was actually sitting next to john podesta when podesta made the same denial. that gets you into very difficult area, that s when false statements are given to federal investigators. that has to be of concern. it doesn t mean that crime occurred but it s an obvious concern. can you think of an alternative explanation? i will take off the table the idea that the head of the campaign and the head of the party didn t know about millions being spent on opposition research. is there some other way they could explain their behavior before that committee? well, that s what the investigators really have to look at. it s hard to argue that this isn t appropriate for investigation. there are serious questions here. it doesn t mean there s crimes
you re right. this attorney mark elias is in a precarious position. he was the general counsel of the campaign. the new york times reporters, two of themou have accused him f expressively saying there was no relationship with the clinton campaign in the dossier. he was actually sitting next to john podesta when podesta made the same denial. thatat gets you into very difficulto area, that s when false statements are given to federal investigators. that has to be of concern. it doesn t mean that crime occurred but it s an obvious concern. m can you think of an alternative explanation? i will take off the table the idea that the head of the campaign and the head of the party didn t know about millions being spent on opposition research. is there some other way they could explain their behavior before that committee?co well, that s what the really have to look at. it s hard to argue that this isn t appropriate for investigation. there are serious questions here. ithe doesn t mean t