The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee paid more than $9 million to a law firm that, in turn, retained the political consultants who commissioned the now-infamous Trump dossier.

But nobody at the top is copping to knowing a thing about it.

Hillary Clinton is conspicuously silent on the new revelations, while Clinton World gives mixed messages about her knowledge. Her top campaign spokesman says “she may have known,” while an anonymous source is telling reporters she only learned about the dossier after BuzzFeed News published it early this year.

‘[Clinton] may have known, but the degree of exactly what she knew is beyond my knowledge.’

– Ex-Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon

“I don’t know what she knew or did not know,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told “Fox & Friends” on Thursday, adding: “I would find it pretty interesting if her campaign was making decisions at that level that she didn’t know about.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he can’t believe Clinton or a top official like then-campaign chairman John Podesta was not aware.

Video

Rep. Trey Gowdy talks investigation into Uranium One deal

“You don’t lay out that kind of money in a campaign unless you know” how and why it’s being spent, he told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.”

Clinton, though, hasn’t personally spoken up, and the rest of the Democratic brass are treating the dossier like a freelance project gone rogue.

A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who led the DNC at the time, told Fox News on Wednesday that, “She did not have any knowledge of this arrangement.”

A DNC official stressed that current Chairman “Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization.”

In a carefully worded response, former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN on Wednesday that he didn’t personally know – but left the door open as to his boss’s awareness.

A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said the former DNC chair had “no knowledge” of the arrangement with Fusion GPS.  (Reuters)

“I don’t know. I haven’t asked. I haven’t spoken to her,” Fallon said. “She may have known, but the degree of exactly what she knew is beyond my knowledge.”

TRUMP RIPS CLINTON-DOSSIER LINK AS A ‘DISGRACE’

The Washington Post reported this week — and Fox News confirmed — that the political consulting firm Fusion GPS was retained last year by Marc E. Elias, an attorney representing the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The firm then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to write the now-infamous dossier.

Seeking to clarify who knew what when, Fallon suggested on CNN that the campaign could have cleared the law firm to commission “some kind of research” – but as for the decision to retain Fusion GPS and Steele, Clinton “may or may not have been aware.”

The controversial dossier contained unverified and lurid allegations about dirt the Russians had on then-candidate Donald Trump and his campaign’s possible connections to Moscow.

Trump has long denied the claims, and he and his allies are now trying to turn the tables on Democrats who have alleged Trump-Russia collusion during the campaign.

“They’re embarrassed by it, but I think it’s a disgrace,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “It’s a very sad commentary on politics in this country.”

But Fallon, seeing the coverage of his own remarks on CNN, pushed back on Republicans highlighting his suggestion that Clinton might have known about the dossier.

“So what if she did? Looking forward to the RNC reaction when the identity of the GOP funder comes out,” he tweeted, in reference to reports that an unnamed Republican client paid for the research before the Democrats stepped in.

Fallon has remained defiant over the revelations, comparing the project to the kind of “oppo research” that “happens on every campaign.” In a statement, he said, “here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it. I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election.”

But the developments could raise legal problems

The Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group, filed a complaint Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission accusing the DNC and Clinton’s campaign committee of breaking campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the money spent on the Trump-Russia dossier.

“Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide,” Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center said in a statement to Fox News.

According to the Post, that money was routed from the Clinton campaign and the DNC through the law firm Perkins Coie and described on FEC reports as legal services.

But the Campaign Legal Center described the FEC reporting as “misleading.”

“Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed,” Fischer said. “But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”

Fox News’ Judson Berger, Brooke Singman, Alex Pappas and Mike Emanuel contributed to this report. 

The bombshell revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the controversial anti-Trump dossier last year has lawmakers and the media asking tough questions about how the dubious document was used by the highest levels of U.S. law enforcement – and why Democrats “lied” about its origins.

In the midst of a court case that threatened to reveal the dossier’s funding, it emerged overnight that political consulting firm Fusion GPS was retained last year by Marc E. Elias, an attorney representing the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The firm then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to write the now-infamous dossier.

The Washington Post first reported on the connections, which were confirmed by Fox News.

Not only did the Clinton campaign and DNC fund the firm through the end of October 2016, but the FBI reportedly arranged to pay Steele to proceed with intelligence gathering on Trump and Russia after Trump’s election. That deal was later nixed after the former intelligence officer was identified in news reports.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Wednesday that his biggest questions concern to what extent the FBI relied on that document to launch its Russia probe.

Video

Gowdy wants to know how much FBI relied on Trump dossier

“My focus has always been whether or not the Department of Justice and the FBI relied upon an unsourced CI document to launch a counterintelligence investigation,” he told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “I want to know whether the nation’s premier law enforcement agency relied on a document that looks like the National Enquirer prepared it. … And if they relied upon an unsourced, un-vetted document to launch a really important investigation … then I think our country is big enough to handle that truth.”

He noted that representatives with Fusion GPS pleaded the Fifth in a Capitol Hill appearance last week.

“Usually people plead the Fifth when they think the answer’s going to get them in trouble,” he said.

Further, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said at a Washington, D.C., event on Wednesday that the FBI has been “stonewalling” Congress’ request for documents, voicing frustration about learning this information through the media.

“The FBI needs to comply with the documents request that Congress has on their desk right now and they need to do it immediately,” Ryan said.

The controversial dossier contained unverified and lurid allegations about dirt the Russians had on Trump and his campaign’s possible connections to Moscow.

Perkins Coie was paid $5.6 million in legal fees by the Clinton campaign in a time period ranging from June 2015 to December 2016, The Post reported, citing campaign finance records. The DNC also paid the firm $3.6 million for “legal and compliance consulting” going back to November 2015.

Sources told The Post that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC specifically directed Steele’s work, labeling the intelligence officer simply as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.

But after the Post story broke, reporters with The New York Times blasted Elias and others on Twitter, accusing them of denying the connection for months.

“When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel tweeted.

“Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,” Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted.

Former Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon boasted on Twitter that, while he didn’t know about Steele’s hiring before the election, “If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him.”

He added, “I have no idea what Fusion or Steele were paid but if even a shred of that dossier ends up helping Mueller, it will prove money well spent.”

But he defended Elias on the issue of whether he denied the funding connection, tweeting: “Dont know what Elias may have said but if he was coy, he was prob just being a good lawyer honoring confidentiality.”

Haberman countered: “’coy’ is not responding at all. ‘Your sources are wrong’ is a bit different.”

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, stressed that only that the current leadership was not involved in the arrangement.

“Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization,” DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement. “But let’s be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened.”

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is set to plead guilty Monday to charges he endangered comrades by walking away from his post in Afghanistan in 2009 — the court case wrapping up just three years after a stunning Rose Garden spectacle in which former President Barack Obama, flanked by Bergdahl’s parents, triumphantly announced the soldier’s release from captivity.

Bergdahl was released in May 2014 after a highly-criticized deal in which five Taliban terrorists were set free. At the time, Obama administration officials said Bergdahl had “served with honor and distinction.”

Former President Barack Obama, right, watches as Bob Bergdahl and Jami Bergdahl discuss the release of their son, Bowe Bergdaghl.  (Reuters)

The U.S. Army said Bergdahl asked to enter his plea before the military judge at Fort Bragg. The Associated Press previously reported that he’s expected to plead guilty to charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

It’s not clear if Bergdahl, 31, has a deal with prosecutors to limit his punishment, or if he’s simply pleading guilty in hopes of leniency from the judge, Army Col. Jeffery R. Nance. The misbehavior charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, while the desertion charge is punishable by up to five years.

Bergdahl’s lawyers are expected to reveal in court Monday whether there’s a plea agreement in place to cap his punishment, or if he’s pleading guilty without such a deal in what’s known colloquially as a “naked plea.” In either scenario, his punishment won’t be known until after the judge holds the sentencing hearing that’s expected to start on Oct. 23. Bergdahl, who’s from Hailey, Idaho, previously chose to have his case heard by a judge alone, rather than a jury.

BERGDAHL DECLARED JIHAD IN CAPTIVITY, DOCUMENTS SHOW

A naked plea would be a risky move, Eric Carpenter, an assistant law professor at Florida International University and a former Army defense attorney and prosecutor, told Task & Purpose.

“It can backfire,” Carpenter said. “If he doesn’t have a deal, they could go in there and enter this naked plea and come out with a life sentence.”

Oct.16, 2017: Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, right, arrives for a motions hearing at Fort Bragg, N.C.  (AP/The Fayetteville Observer)

Guilty pleas would bring the highly politicized saga closer to an end eight years after Bergdahl’s disappearance in Afghanistan set off search missions by scores of his fellow service members. President Obama was criticized by Republicans for the 2014 Taliban prisoner swap that brought Bergdahl home, while President Donald Trump harshly criticized Bergdahl on the campaign trail.

Serious wounds to service members who searched for Bergdahl are expected to play a role in his sentencing. While guilty pleas would allow him to avoid a trial, he’d still face a sentencing hearing in late October. Bergdahl’s five years of captivity by the Taliban and its allies also will likely play a role in what punishment he receives.

At one point during his captivity, Bergdahl converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a “mujahid,” or warrior for Islam, Fox News reported in 2014, citing secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness account.

The reports indicate that Bergdahl’s relations with his Haqqani captors morphed over time, from periods of hostility, where he was treated very much like a hostage, to periods where, as one source told Fox News, “he became much more of an accepted fellow” than is popularly understood. He even reportedly was allowed to carry a gun at times.

The documents show that Bergdahl at one point escaped his captors for five days and was kept, upon his re-capture, in a metal cage, like an animal. In addition, the reports detail discussions of prisoner swaps and other attempts at a negotiated resolution to the case that appear to have commenced as early as the fall of 2009.

SEAL, SOLDIER INJURIES IN BERGDAHL HUNT TO BE FOCUS OF HEARING

Legal scholars have said that several pretrial rulings against the defense have given prosecutors leverage to pursue stiff punishment against Bergdahl, The Associated Press reported. Perhaps most significant was the judge’s decision in June to allow evidence of serious wounds to service members who searched for Bergdahl at the sentencing phase. The judge ruled that a Navy SEAL and an Army National Guard sergeant wouldn’t have wound up in separate firefights that left them wounded if they hadn’t been searching for Bergdahl.

The defense also was rebuffed in an effort to prove President Donald Trump had unfairly swayed the case with scathing criticism of Bergdahl, including suggestions of harsh punishment. The judge wrote in a February ruling that Trump’s campaign-trail comments were “disturbing and disappointing” but did not constitute unlawful command influence by the soon-to-be commander in chief.

“We may as well go back to kangaroo courts and lynch mobs that got what they wanted,” Bergdahl said to a British filmmaker in 2016 when asked about trials, according to an interview obtained by ABC News. “The people who want to hang me, you’re never going to convince those people.”

Defense attorneys have acknowledged that Bergdahl walked off his base without authorization. Bergdahl himself told a general during a preliminary investigation that he left intending to cause alarm and draw attention to what he saw as problems with his unit. He was soon captured.

But the defense team has argued that Bergdahl can’t be held responsible for a long chain of events that included many decisions by others on how to conduct the searches.

Bergdahl has been assigned to desk duty at a Texas Army base while his case unfolds.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Amid new North Korean threats to test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean, President Trump tweeted Friday that the rogue regime’s leader would be “tested like never before.”

Trump, during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, warned the U.S. would “totally destroy” North Korea if Pyongyang continued its provocative actions, leading North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to up the ante by calling Trump “deranged.” North Korea escalated the situation further when the nation’s foreign minister revealed Pyongyang could conduct the H-bomb test, and, between tweets about healthcare and “The Russia hoax,” Trump fired back.

“Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!” Trump wrote.

The Yonhap news agency reported Thursday on the hydrogen bomb threat from North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Ri framed the possible new nuke test as a response to Trump’s U.N. speech.

“This could probably mean the strongest hydrogen bomb test over the Pacific Ocean. Regarding which measures to take, I don’t really know since it is what Kim Jong Un does,” Ri said.

Such a test would be considered a major provocation by the U.S., South Korea and Japan. Ri was scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly on Saturday, a day later than previously scheduled.

Ri’s comments followed Kim’s extraordinary statement lashing out at Trump, vowing the American leader would “pay dearly” for his threat to destroy North Korea.

Kim’s first-person statement was published by North Korea’s state propaganda arm in response to Trump’s fiery speech at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday. South Korean media called it the first such direct address to the world by Kim.

Kim said Trump was “unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command of a country.” He also described the U.S. president as “a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire.”

Some analysts saw Kim’s statement as a clear announcement that North Korea would ramp up its already brisk pace of weapons testing, which has included missiles meant to target U.S. forces throughout Asia and the U.S. mainland.

On Tuesday, Trump mocked Kim as a “rocket man” on a “suicide mission,” and said that if “forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Kim characterized Trump’s speech to the world body as “mentally deranged behavior.”

He said Trump’s remarks “have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.”

Kim said he was “thinking hard” about his response and that Trump “will face results beyond his expectation.”