Money For Accusations - 12.16

Published Dec 16, 2017, 2:09 AM

The Hill's John Solomon published an amazing story that suggests there is some evidence that attorney Lisa Bloom has been trying to compensate women to bring their accusations of sexual harassment toward President Trump. Solomon is very careful not to suggest anyone was making false accusations but the exchange of money and the pressure to do this during campaign season is certainly interesting. "There is very little doubt, from the text message, that there was a political deadline [the election] and there were donors who had a political interest in the outcome," offered Solomon, "I think these are the issues that trouble people." The Sean Hannity Show is live weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Let not your heart be troubled. You are listening to the Sean Hannity Radio Show podcast. So, like many of you, I have trouble sleeping. I have insomnia. No matter what I tried, it wouldn't work until I met Mike Lindell and I got my very own my pillow. It has changed my life. What makes my pillows so different is my pillows patented adjustable fill. In other words, you can adjust the patented filter your exact individual needs so you get the support you need and want to help you get to sleep faster and stay asleep longer. Just go to my pillow dot com or called one six zero nine zero. Remember used the promo code Hannity. When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best off forever by one pillow and get another one absolutely free. My pillow made in the US a ten year unconditional warranty and it has a sixty day no questions asked money back guarantee. You have nothing to lose. So it's time for you to start getting the quality of sleep that you've been wanting and we need. Just go to my pillow dot com or call eight hundred six zero nine zero promo code Hannity take advantage of Mike's special two for one offer my pillow dot Com promo code Hannity. All right, we got an amazing show coming up today. We're gonna be checking in with Jay Sekulo. He is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. He is going to weigh in on James Comey the culture of corruption and collusion. Have a senator now. Johnson is now raising the question did the FBI? Is there a possibility that the FBI, and they're not talking about the rank and file at the highest levels of the FBI, did they interfere in the election? By the way, polls are now showing the public is lost confidence and the Mueller probe, how could they not? At this point, only people not losing confidence are the people in the mainstream media that are obsessed with regurgitating the same points they have made for a year, and that means it goes nowhere. By the way, Democrats are livid that Rod Rosenstein allowed the release of the smoking gun FBI text messages. Yeah, why would we let the little people here see what's actually going on? Uh, we'll have judicial watch, Uh. Chairman and President Tom Fitton on judicial watches, also filing a new fo your request after the big find that we told you about yesterday that an agreement was made with the Obama administrational that Hillary and Uma Aberdeen remove evidence. Will get to that today. Now they're looking at for your requests for FBI records on Trump pating investigators, which I think we all have a right to know because there's so much going on. I want to start with a different story today. And John Solomon of the Hill wrote this broke this. I've been hearing rumors about this and potential tapes, and you know, for honestly a couple of months now, Uh, this doesn't involve tape recordings, but I still heard people calling me to here's tape recording of this. You know there there's tapes of this. I don't know. I haven't heard them. I keep hearing that they're there, been hearing it for a long time that they're there. So the headline in the Hill today is exclusive prominent lawyer sought donor cash for Trump accusers. Okay, well known woman's rights lawyers sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the sixteen presidential campaign. According to documents and interviews, California lawyer you I'm sure most of you know Lisa Bloom, while her efforts included offering to sell alleged victims stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one of Trump accusers. Mortgages apparently paid off a mortgage attempting to secure a six figure payment for another woman who ultimately decided uh to come forward after being offered as much as seven and fifty thousand dollars in cash. The clients told The Hill. The women's accounts were chronicled and contemporaneous contractual documents, emails, and text messages that The Hill got to see, including the exchange of text between one woman woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during this effort. Now we know Lisa Bloom, her mom I've known for years, Gloria allread. But in this case, Bloom assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended At one point was working for Harvey Weinstein earlier this year. Anyway, she represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two of them went public to decline, and in a statement to The Hill, bloom acknowledge that she engaged in these discussions to secure donations for women who made or were considering making accusations against Donald Trump in the lead up to last year's election. I want to stop here for that. This is deep and profound. Now there is a reason why let me get let me backtrack. I interviewed women, and it had a profound impact on my thinking about Bill Clinton, that he was a predator. All basically came out in the end. Remember the first person to come out with Jennifer Flowers. He's a candidate, and Bill and Hillary go on sixty minutes and they just trashed Jennifer Flowers. Deny had ever happened. If you leap forward to the deposition, Well, then President Clinton admitted yet Jennifer Flowers had told the truth. They did have an affair. He didn't say all the details, but he did admit to the affair. Now that Hillary and Bill were part of the effort to smear Jennifer Flowers. I had interviewed Jennifer I found her credible. I never got paid. I interviewed Paula Jones, found her credible, never got paid, you know, uh, or never paid rather, And the same with Kathleen Willie, and the same with One Eye to Broderick and those interviews. That's why you have tabloid papers, you know, you have tabloid TV shows, and when news breaks on those outlets, it's not supposed to be as credible. Most people don't view it as credible as they would a major news source that's not willing to pay people to say things because money equals an incentive for people. Now they're saying here that it had no incentive. That wasn't their intention. They were doing it to protect the people. But there's a reason real news organizations don't allow it. Where I work, it's not allowed. And I've been offered things over the years that if only I pay for it, I can have the exclusive and the answers are straight up can't do it, won't do it, not gonna happen, uh, And stories that I would like to report on in case you're interested anyway, I say this as a as a backdrop here, because you know, now we have Lisa Bloom, who assisted dozens of women in these high profile, prominent harassment cases, defending Harvey Weinstein in his particular case till the pressure grew so so strong that she had to bail out of representing Harvey Weinstein. But you know, when you look at the practice of this, it is extraordinarily dangerous. And I'm gonna give you some specific outlets here. And by the way, she was apparently involved in issues involving Bill Cosby and Fox News. Is Bill O'Reilly? Okay? Now, if you hear somebody has paid money or their mortgage is paid off or offered money to go public, does it, in your mind in any way tain't their credibility? Now some would argue no, it just it makes it more possible for them to do and say the things that they want to do and say, I'm not so sure. If you know, this is a very serious question, especially when you get into the you know part of this. Uh. Lisa Bloom said their standard pro bono agreement for legal services provided that if a media entity offered to compensate a client for sharing his or her story, we would receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens, but on occasion a case generates media attention and interest, and sometimes not always, a client may receive an appearance fee. Well, it's not supposed to be any mainstream media outlet. They write. As a private law firm, we have significant payroll, rent, taxes, insurance, other expenses. But she was getting a piece of the action in these cases um now. Josh Schween is the communications director for Priority USA, action largest pro Clinton superpack. He told The Hill that that group had no relationship with Bloom and had no discussions with her about uh supporting Trump accusers. One Bloom client had received financial help from Bloom was the New York City makeup artist Jill Harth, former beauty contestant. Manager filed the sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump, withdrew that lawsuit. The news media discovered the litigation during the election. Heart's name became public in the summer of sixteen. She asked Bloom to represent her in that particular case and the fall after hearing Trump describe her allegations of false as false, and became a vocal critic of Trump. Anyway, Heart said she did not originally originally asked Bloom for money, even though her cosmetic business suffered from the notoriety of the campaign stories about her. Later, Bloom arranged the payment from the licensing of photos to the news media. By the way, this is a little game, uh, the way the media cheats when they pay people just we need pictures for the story. Can we license the pictures from you pretend dollars. It's a backdoor way of paying. And I know that happens, Yeah at big networks all the time. They won't admit it. They're not gonna say it's a payment. They're gonna say it's a licensing agreement, and it's common practice. And anyway, then they made an arrangement in that particular pay case to help Heart pay or for mortgage. She had a mortgage on a queen's apartment in New York a little under thirty thou dollars in that case case. Um, then a go fund meat thing was set up for her. Now, I just want to get into one case in particular that really I think explains how political this all is. Now. The Hill does not name the names of sexual assault or harassment individualists unless they go public on their own like Hearth, but they describe an instance where one woman did not go public with allegations, sharing the documents that she had with Lisa Bloom, and that woman and Hearth were friends, and and then both their cases they said that Bloom never, you know, asked them to make statements or allegations that they didn't believe to be true. But I don't see anything in this article that tells me there's any independent corroboration efforts on the part of anybody here. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but I don't see it anyway. Their text their emails indicate the Bloom held a strong dislike for President Trump, and in an email through this unnamed woman, Bloom said that her story was further evidence of what a sick predator this man is. All right, so we know that that Lisa Bloom as an agenda, it's a political agenda in this particular case. And then we have documents show Bloom's effort to get alleged victims of sexual assault and harassment to come out against Trump. And as we got close to the election day sixteen, everything became accelerated. You know. In one instance, Hearth, for example, informed Bloom that she had made a Facebook post urging other woman to come forward. Wow, Jill, that would be amazing. Twenty seven days to the election, and when a potential client backed out of a pre election conference. You know that she was supposed to allege sexual assault at thirteen. Bloom then went to another woman, and that woman, also a heart friend, went back and forth for weeks that there was an allegation of an unsolicited advance by Trump in the nineties on the beauty contest circuit. Give us a clear sense of what you need. We'll see if we can get it. How much money do you need? That's how I interpret that. What do you need? I'm scared, Lisa, I can't relocate. I'm I don't like talk taking other people's money, she said, and then brooms all right, let's not do this. We're running at a time. The woman texted back, demanding what does this have to do? What? What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump? You want my story to bury Trump? For what personal gain? See? That's why I have trust issues. The woman was smart enough to figure it out. The woman now told The Hill that in the interview, Bloom initially approached her in early October through hearth and she was considering going forward. In an account of an unsolicited advance solely to support her friend Jill Hearth and not because of her consternation with Donald Trump. Now here's where it gets interesting. Look at the timeline and as it unfolds, the woman said, Bloom initially offered her ten grand a donation to her church. Please keep confidential to you, except to your pastor. That was October fourteen, when Bloom found out the woman. Woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyers and friends and associates of the future president. She texted her request that jarred the woman, and it was when you have a chance, I suggest you delete the August Facebook post supporting Trump. Otherwise the reporter will ask how you can support him after what he did to you. Your call, but it will make your life easier. The woman declines that I hate to say it, but I still rather have Trump in office than Hillary, and then Bloom says, I respect that. Eventually the two decided their continued support was a benefit if if in fact, she went forward, Now, when we pick it back up here on the other side of this, we're gonna take you too and start out August October fourteen, sixteen, just before the election, We're gonna see how big the ten thousand dollar donation grows in the lead up in the final days of that election. Alright, only two words you need to remember while making your list and checking it twice this holiday season. Tommy John. They are the revolutionary men's underwear, T shirts, sock brand, and they have redefined comfort for men everywhere, including and especially me wall Tommy John underwear is crafted from the most comfortable fabric you'll ever use. It's impossible to be uncomfortable. And Tommy John plus their innovation never takes a day off of Tommy John even during the holidays. They're constantly thinking in new ways to give you the best product you've ever tried. Like they're patented undershirts I wear every day well, they stay tucked in and literally pull perspiration right off your body. And also Tommy John. Their underwear is backed by the best pair you'll ever wear guarantee or it's free from Tommy John dot com. So give the gift of life changing comfort for the holidays. Tommy John dot com slash Hannity you off your first order that's Tommy John dot com slash Hannity. Plus you get extra savings with exclusive holiday daily deals only at Tommy john dot com slash Hannity. Just not in this, just not feeling it yet. It's just the way to put I'm not there yet. Oh is it snowing? Sign? Are we getting any accumulation? And they know about accumulation, But it'll be a sloppy mess, that's for sure. That's nothing. Yeah, I don't know. What's annoying is when you know the New York City mayor puts mountains in the way of crosswalks and uh, you literally can't walk across the street because and he leaves it there instead of just bringing it. Walked away, walked today from Fifth Avenue and forty something Street up to our offices here right blocks. This should take me, at the speed of walk about ten minutes the way I walk right right, I'm flying. It took me twenty seven minutes. And why did it take me twenty seven minutes because there are huge police bulldozer blocks in the middle of the sidewalks, not even the street. Then they have all the streets blocked off. So the traffic is a disaster. The walking traffic is a disaster. Everybody's looking up at trees. I'm I'm ready to throw them all into the middle of the traffic. I'm like, this is enough. It's a tree with the lights on. I keep moving. You don't need to. It's enormous. You can still see it as you walk. What is happening? You know this? This forst that's what's happening. This is a far cry from follow la la la yesterday. I'll tell you that, follow la la la la la la la. But I can do two things that once. I can walk and sing. You can walk and sing. But if God forbid, if somebody doesn't walk fast enough on the streets and the York look, they got an earful today. I do the walk every every day and it's all I'm doing is is dodging and wating around the town. How many people have gotten pictures of me because they're taking all the pictures of people around where I go to work. Still listen, when you do it in high heels, we'll talk. What that's right, Let it marinate, Take it in, Take it all in. Why is this an attack on me? Because when you're a woman in New York City, every by the way, you do every option of bringing sneakers or other shoes with you, no classy New York ladies doing that so you can well, I don't think it's about it's about comfort and it's about practicality, all right. Can I get back to looking good is not comfortable? We'll get back to this after the break eight. When Shaun is a toll free telephone number paying women to tell their stories, how does it breakdown? We've got an anatomy of how this payment goes down. We'll continue, we'll pick it up in October Ober as the election gets closer, will the offers get higher? Straight ahead and rebuild the FBI. It'll be bigger and better than ever. But it is very sad when you look at those documents and how they've done that is really really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it. It's a very sad thing to watch. I will tell you that. And I'm going today on behalf of the FBI, their new building. And you know, but when I when everybody, not me, when everybody, the level of anger at what they've been witnessing with respect to the FBI is certainly very sad. About Michael. About Michael Flynn, would you consider a harden from Michael Flynn. I don't want to talk about pardons from Michael Flynn yet. We'll see what happens. Let's see. I can say this, when you look at what's going on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry. Let's put it this way. There is absolutely no collusion that has been proven. When you look at the committees, whether it's a Senate or the House, everybody walking my worst enemies, they walk out, they say there is no collusion, but we'll continue to look. They're spending millions and millions of dollars. There is absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it. That was a Democrat hoax. It was an excuse for losing the election. And it should have never been this way where they spend all these millions of dollars. So now even the Democrats admit there's no collusion. There is no collusion. That's it, and we got to get back to running a country. What we have found and what they have found after looking at this really scam, is they found tremendous whatever you want to call it, you're gonna have to make up your own determination. But they found tremendous things. On the other side. When you look at the Hillary Clinton investigation, it was you know, I've been sang it for a long time, that was a rigged system. Fox, that was a rigged system. When you look at what they did with the respect to the Hillary Clinton investigation, it was rigged. And there's never been anything like it in this country that we've ever found before. It's very very sad, very very sad. All right. That was the president and uh speaking before the FBI. Now, look, I wan't even get back into that in a second. So you've got this Hill article today prominent lawyers sought donor cash for some Trump accusers, all right, And I've just given you many of the examples, and we'll post the article up on my website, written by John Solomon of The Hill. I just want to give you and back end you. I think as the election got close, the offers, the intensity, it just became massive. Um And what you have is Lisa Bloom, the attorney is now offering this woman first offered her ten thousand dollars and anyway Bloom initially approached her. She told the hell in October through this other woman, Jill Harth, who had her mortgage paid off, and she said she was considering coming forward with her account of an unsolicited advance by Donald Trump solely to support her friend Hearth, not because she had any consternation with Donald Trump. Now, the woman said that Lisa Bloom offered her ten thousand dollars in a donation to her favorite church, an account backed up by text messages that the Hell obtained. Quote. Please keep the donation off her confidential except to your pastor, Lisa Bloom, wrote the woman in October. On October fourteenth, when Bloom found out the woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyer's friends and associates of the future president, she texted her request quote the Hill says that jarred the woman. When you have a chance, I suggest you delete the August Facebook post about supporting Trump, Bloom texted, Otherwise, the reporter will ask you how you could support him after what he did to you. Your call, but it would make your life easier. The woman declined. I hate to say it, but I'd still rather have Trump in office than Hillary. The woman texted back. Bloom answered, okay, I respect that then don't change anything. Eventually, the two decided that the women's continued support of Trump was actually a benefit to her narrative that if she went public with her accusations against Trump. Now there's other messages quote, I love your point about being a Trump supporter too. Also from October fourteen, The text messages show the woman made escalating request for more money by early November. Now this is just prior to the election. It the woman said Bloom's offer of money from donors had grown from fifty had grown to fifty thousand dollars to be paid personally to her, and then even higher. Another donor has reached out to me, offering relocation security for any woman coming forward. I'm trying to reach him, Bloom texted this woman on November three. This is five days now before the election. In later, she added, call me, I have good news. The woman responded that she wasn't impressed with the new offer of a hundred thousand dollars starts at ten Now we're in a hundred now only five days out of the election, and that she had a young daughter. Quote, Hey, after thinking about all this, I need more than a hundred thousand dollars college money would be nice for her daughter, plus relocation fees as we discussed well, then the figure, getting closer to the election, jumps to two hundred thousand dollars. In a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman, the support was promised to be tax free. How do you well stop right there for sing, How do you make an offer? Now? There are legal ways to give money to people. You can give fourteen thousand dollars a year as a gift. I know this for a fact because I try to do it to as many people in my life that I care about as possible. So anyway you can give somebody fourteen thousand dollarge, you can't give them two hundred thousand dollars anyway. We can get back to that later. Support was promised the two dollars to be tax free and also included changing her identity and relocating her according to documents and interviews. Now, Bloom told The Hill that the woman asked for money as high as two million dollars in the conversations, an amount that Bloom said was a non starter, but the lawyer confirmed she tried to arrange donations to the woman in the low six figures. Quote she has to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security, and over time increased her request for financial compensation to two million dollars, which we told there was a nonstarter. This is Lisa Bloom telling the hell. We did relay her security concerns to donors, but none were willing to offer more than a number in the low six figures, which we felt was more appropriate to address her security and relocation expenses. Now, the woman said that when she initially talked to Bloom, she simply wanted to support her friend Jill Hearth and had no interest in being portrayed as an accuser or receiving money. But when Blooms mentioned of the potential compensation became more frequent, the woman said she tried to draw out of the out the lawyer to see how high the offer might reach and who might be behind the money. She wanted to know where's this money coming from, a lot of money we're talking about here now. Just a couple of days before the election, the woman indicated it she was ready to go public with her story. Then the woman, for unknown reasons, ended up in the hospital and fell out of contact with Lisa Bloom right now. We're four days out of the election anyway, So the lawyer Lisa Bloom is repeatedly texting one of the woman's friends on November four, but the friend declined to put the woman on the phone, instead sending a picture of the woman in the hospital bed. Bloom persisted, writing in a series of text to the friend of this woman in the hospital that she needed to talk to her hospitalized client because it could have a significant impact on her life and a big impact on her daughter if she did not proceed with her public statement as she had planned. Woman's in a hospital bed, she is in no condition for visitors, The friend texted back to Lisa Blue quote, if you care about her, you need to leave her be until after she's feeling better, the friend said in another text. Well. Bloom's response to that, no, she hopped on an airplane from California to go see the woman in Virginia in the East Coast, according to text messages and interviews now, the next day, the woman finally reconnected with Bloom now we're three days out of the election, and informed her she would not move forward with making the allegations public. Bloom reacted to this in a string of text messages after getting the news that she wasn't gonna move forward. Quote, I'm confused. He sent me so many nice text Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and canceled the press conference. So now Bloom is obviously frustrated. Bloom obviously as an agenda, she didn't want Donald Trump to win. Bloom texted November five, now, and this is three days out of the election. That meant a lot to me. There is that you said you wanted to do this if you could be protected and relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through. So one other person had pulled out and said no, they didn't want to do it. And as she thinks this person is being put you know, she was told not to come, but she came anyway to the East coast. And now it's getting pretty contentious. You can see tensions rising as the election day gets closer. Anyway, a little later, she added another text, you have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect, as much as humanly possible. I have not made a dime off your case, and I have devoted a great deal of time. Doesn't matter. I could have done so much for you, but you can't stick to your word even when you swear you will. Well, can we slow down here a second? Maybe there are a lot of good reasons the woman doesn't want to tell her story. That doesn't sound That sounds like really putting the hammer, guilt trip and and pressure on this woman to do something that she's not inclined to do. Shouldn't it be the woman's choice. Shouldn't it be up to them? Shouldn't they? Is it wrong? You know? Does it make a difference if you're offering bigger and bigger? It starts at ten, then it's fifty, Then it's two hundred thousand dollars, and now maybe more, and then maybe a new house and relocation or whatever the relocation protection means, and it goes on. After the woman was released from the hospital, all right, two days out of the election November six, they agreed to meet at a hotel room, just two days before Donald Trump's unexpected victory over Hillary. It's at that meeting, this woman tells The Hill in an interview. This hotel encounter at least a bloom increased the offer of donations to her to seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but she still declined to take the money. The woman texted Bloom that day that she didn't mean to let her lawyer down. You didn't let me down, Bloom, rope back. You came and spoke to me and made the decision. That's right for you. That's all I wanted, all right. So she obviously had calmed down by then. At last a Bloom confirmed to the Hill that she flew to Virginia to meet with the woman after she had changed her mind several times about whether to go public and the accusations, etcetera, etcetera. We invited her to meet with us at a hotel room, etcetera, etcetera. Bloom said the donor money was never intended to entice women to come forward against their will. Nothing can be further from the truth. Now, some photos asked for photo licensing feast. By the way, the photo licensing thing is a scam that networks used to pay people to give their stories. It just is. That's how I see it anyway. Hearth and the woman who decided not to go public said they never gave They were never given any names of the donors. But Bloom told the woman who declined to come forward that she had reached out to political action committee supporting Clinton. It was my understanding that there's some Clinton super pac money that could help out if we did move forward, the woman wrote Bloom on oct Over. If we help the Clinton campaign, they in turn could help or compensate us. Bloom rope back, Uh, let's please do a call. I've already reached out to a Clinton superpack and they're not paying. I can get you paid for some interviews. However, this is the problem. There is Look, I'll let others go to the ethics of all this. There is the reason historically, these tabloids that pay for stories are not viewed as credible as real news organizations that don't take money. You see the intensity the desire to get this woman. It starts at ten grand, it ends it's seven and fifty thousand dollars. Talk of security and talk of relocation, then talk of assistant. You know, how are we? And you see the feverish pace it takes as we get closer to the election. Now, let's say the woman did come out two days before the election. Would anybody know that that woman was paid seven dollars if she had done that. No, because the media never asked that question. All it would do is using it's a political agenda, obviously to influence an election. By the way, it's like the fix was in with Bernie Sanders. The fix was in as it relates to Hillary Clinton and the email server investigation. And what we're seeing here is a level of of unethical behavior and by any means necessary, What is this going to do to real victims of harassment? What is it gonna do in their case? And if you're incentivizing somebody with money, you know, and you're not they're not vetting those stories. They just say tell the truth. Well, they don't know if it's true or not. They just want the political hit on whoever they're going after. All right. John Solomon, who wrote this article, joins us next, it's not I'm not feeling it. That's the problem. And you all laughing at there. All right, we have John Solomon on his exclusive report, uh prominent attorneys seeking donor cash to pay women involved in these accusations against Donald Trump. I don't see any coverage on the news today on this. To you, I don't see anything on any of the networks. We'll do it on Hannity tonight, and we got Jays Secular stopping by today and Sydney Powell and Tom Fitton will continue the job the media will never do. That's telling you the truth. Next our Shoes, Sean Hannity Show, Glandier with US eight nine for one, Shawn, you want to be a part of the program, Big blockbuster. It is on the Drudge Report right now. It is eight what pages long? The headline exclusive prominent lawyers sought donor cash for Trump accusers. Now everyone's heard of Lisa Bloom. I mean, we've seen around television a lot and with some women making accusations again against men anyway, So a series apparently of text messages have emerged and the Hills John Solomon got ahold of all of these, and I'll let him tell the story and take it from there. But um, it raises a lot of questions when people are being offered money to quote tell their stories, and where that money comes from, and is their politics involved? And at what point do we reach it an ethical tipping point that this is, you know, just not the right way for people to tell stories, because what is it doing in the case of raising doubts in the minds of individuals or maybe credible people that want to make accusations and tell their stories. What impact does this all have? John Solomon is with us, John, how are you. I'm doing well, Sean, Thanks for having me up. All right, let's start at the beginning. Let's talk about this because these are women that were basically being paid to make sexual misconduct allegations against the president. They certainly were being offered money. Whether the money was specifically to make the allegation, Uh, you know, for other people to make a decision of But there is not any doubt that Lisa Bloom, the daughter of Gloria Alred, arranged for donors to do the following things. Uh. Set up a go fund Me site for one of the accusers, Jill Hart, who came public, pay off the mortgage of Jill Hart. And I know a lot of people would love to have their mortgage faith off on your show, I'm sure, um. And then engage in a long running conversation with a woman who was contemplating coming forward but wasn't sure she was still a supporter of Trump. Uh, and they wanted her to come forward, and they began by offering her ten thousand to her church and fifty thousand for her personal pockets, not a hundred thousand for personal pocket, two hundred thousand for a personal pocket. And on the final few days before the election appeared, they up the anti the seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. This is Lisa Bloom talking to the woman, trying to get her to come out. And if you look at the text messages, there's just a lot of raw, very UH never intended for public discussion. That I can sell your story for ten to fifteen thousand dollars. I have donors lined up. I've talked to the Clinton super PACs. There's politics, there's finances, there's money. UH. And then there's one other interesting thing. Lisa Bloom instructs the woman who's thinking of coming forward to UH change her Facebook page in a race her post supporting Donald Trump because she feared feared that the woman supported Donald Trump would make her accusation less believable. And I think people will weigh all that and say, is that what attorneys do and UH, And then what's in it for Lisa Bloom will ask that question, and the answer is she made these women sign a contract that required them to a thirty three percent commission on anything they sold to the Tabloid TV program. So that's what the text messages show, and Lisa Bloom confirms there's not any at LESA. Bloom confirms that she did these things. So let me let me go through the process. Here is it that she hears that these women may have some information and then goes discusses and and wasn't a woman's mortgage paid off as part of the deal? Right? Yea? That was the first thing, one first transaction. So there's a woman named Joel Hart. She was an unwilling accuser at the beginning. She didn't want to come out originally, but the news media found her lawsuit against Donald Trump years ago, twenty years ago, and they published it and then she sort of got forced into the limelight. And as the attention grew, uh, somebody suggested that Joe Hart reach out to Lisa Bloom and get her as a lawyer. She comes on as a lawyer. What we know in that relationship is early on they sold some photos for some money, some Donald Trump, uh Joe Hart photos. Then Joe Hart is trying to get other people to come out to support her story. She reaches out to a woman who's very pro Trump, very uh supports the President, doesn't think he did anything wrong to her per se, but is willing to come forward with a story to story of unfulicited advance and Uh. Joe Hart introduced the subloom to her. Lisa Bloom sends her a contract with the with the UH terms of the thirty percent commission. And then this woman UH starts to wait, do I come forward? Do I not come forward? And that's when the offers of money start to be got bantied back and about and forth, and it grows from ten thousand and fifty two hundred. Then out of the blue, uh, Joe Hart has a go fund me page. Shut up. Now, when Joe Hart started, there's no talk of money. Now Joe Art has a go fund me page, online fundraising page shut up for her by the by Lisa Bloom, the attorney. And then when that doesn't raise a lot of money, Lisa Bloom goes out and arranges a donor to come in and write a check. We've leave it's under thirty dollars. There so a lot of money and to pay off Jill Hart's mortgage and that's not in dispute. Everybody, including Joe Harts acknowledges that. And in the days leading up to the election, as things were getting closer, you know, the Mouney one as high as seven dollars. That would be like a almost You're almost paying somebody at the most sensitive moment in a career, in a campaign to say something that's so blockbuster that I don't know if any candidate can recover. And you talked in the piece about maybe some of this money coming from a political action committee tied to Hillary. Yeah. In fact, one of the women is recounting their conversations in a text message saying, Hey, we talked about helping out Hillary Clinton in the Clinton super pac and you see if you get me some money from the Clinton superpack. And then Lisa writes back, I've already talked to the super PACs. They're not paying right now, but I can sell your story for sure. And uh and in not paying right now, does that suggest that Clinton superPAC money was being is to pay We don't know. We don't know. What we will say is at Lisa Bloom will not answer the question and whether she had contact with the Clinton superpact. He will not identify the donors who um ultimately came up with the money for the seven and fifty dollar offer, which by the way, was never paid because the woman didn't go forward, but or who paid for the UH for the donation that paid off the mortgage. So she's not talking about those two things. We talked to one of the superfacts who say it wasn't us, but there are a lot of them, and of course they could have gone and just talked to individual donors. I think the most important thing you you see in these text messages, the election is chronically cited as a deadline. We gotta get this time before the election. There's twenty one days left the election, of twenty seven days left the election. There's only a little bit more time. And one of the women, the women, one of the women, the woman who did not ultimately decide to come forward. It gets mad at one point, saying why does there have to be a deadline? Is this just about hurting Trump for the election, or is this is about me and my my p some issues. And I think when people read through the full, very long story, a lot of text messages in there, they'll see something very interesting they will see a lawyer who's representing these women actually attack the woman. Uh. One woman who um uh didn't come forward, she was going to come forward to have a press conference and led she was sexually assaulted when she was thirteen years old. When she doesn't do that, Lisa Bloom writes to another woman, she wasted my time? What does that mean? Wasted my time? If you're trying to help the woman another woman who decided not to come forward. The text message says, I told you, don't jerk me around. And you can see that there's this pressure and it's almost personal for Lisa Bloom that these women won't come out like she wants him to do. And I think a lot of people will look at this and ask, you know, who's the client here and and what did these text most just say about the nature of the representation and uh, you know, is it is it appropriate to have be having political money discussions with accusers? I read your sin It's obvious, all right, she's she is a pretty radical left person hates Donald Trump. It's very clear in the text messages here. But this, this is very key to the entire story here. There is a political motivation to get stories out, especially in the critical days leading up to an election, for the very purpose of derailing Donald Trump's campaign, and then there's money associated with it. All. I think that that one particular individual that said why is why? Is this really about getting Trump? Or is it about me? I think speaks volumes here. Um. I don't have a problem that Lisa Bloom and her mother are, you know, prefer Hillary Clinton. I don't have a problem with their politics over the years, I've had many debates with Gloria Allread. I do have a problem with you know, is there any evidence that they want to check the stories, check the veracity, do the research, get the background of these stories, or is it just as long as they say it, it's okay? And what what do you need to get this done? What do we need to get this to come out? I mean, I didn't notice in any of the text messages I saw and your piece that said, okay, I really need to know what you're telling me is true? Right? I will say this. All the women I talked to stated that they were asked only to make truthful statements, so no one asked them to lie or make up a story. They're very clear about that. But that's very different than actually vetting the story for the purpose of the the Bloom u There are text messages and emails showing that Bloom was looking to get corroborating witnesses to come forward to corroborate these women's stories. Did you tell people contemporary you seen it? In fact, one of the women who decided not to come forward did provide some corroborating witnesses. They were contemplating paying one of the corroborating witnesses money too. Money was going to change hand if that second corroborating witness would come forward. So uh, there was an effort of due diligence. There was. The women claimed they weren't being forced to make up a story, but there is not. There's very little out from the text messages that there was this pressure. There was a political deadline the election. And then there are donors that most likely had a political interest in the outcome of these women coming out making the donations. Since the discussion is about donors and the Clinton superpacts, and I think those are the issues that trouble people. The people I've talked to, lawyers who know about ethics and lawyers who know about election law, was this an election operation or was this really a sincere effort to help the women? And I think people will look at the evidence and come up to their own conclusions. Yeah. Well, and and that's how you write pieces. I mean, that's why you were with the a P for twenty years. And and this is the type of you know, real reporting. I think that needs to be done. I will take a quick freak John Solomon's big blockbuster piece and the hail we'll get back to more of the details, will get reaction to from d c uh McAllister is going to join us on the program. And then in the next hour we got Jay Sekulo, Sydney Powell, and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. As we continue, I doesn't continue. John Solomon is brand new piece out today, prominent lawyer seeking cash donor cash uh to make for women that are gonna make accusations against Donald Trump. An unbelievable story when you look at it on its surface, it's like, all right, let's try and take this that guy down any way we can. And if you need money, that's gonna incentivize you to tell your story. Uh here, how much do you need? She's even asking people what do you need. And then and as we get closer to the election, well then the need well, you know, the offers get higher. I think it started at a ten thousand, then a hundred thousand, and then as high as seven and fifty thou dollars, you know, three or four days before the election, because everybody that follows elections knows that if somebody comes out and makes an allegation against the president or a candidate four days before the election, there's not a lot of time, if at all, to recover from that. That's right, that's right. And you know, there's a there's a great anecdote in there Sean that shows the level of pressure. The woman that was going back and forth ultimately did not go for with her story. Uh ends up in the hospital three or four days before the election, and Lisa Bloom is frantically trying to get her to return her cause she's to an ivy, very sick in the hospital. Her friend writes her back, leave her alone, if you care about her, let her get better first. And Lisa Bloom comes all the way across the country from California lands in the East Coast to try to meet this woman as soon as she gets out of the hospital and um. And she's when the woman finally contacts if she gets released in the hospital, and she says this, I've just decided I'm not going to do it. You can see Lisa Bloom's frustration. She first attacks an earlier woman in the text message, saying she wasted my time by not coming out against Donald Trump. I don't know a lawyer trying to help a woman to make a very important legal decision, whether it's a waste of time just because she chose not to. Then she then she says to the other woman, you can't keep your word, even when you swear to it. She scolds her, and she and she says, um, trying to remember the exact very caustic language. I told you, don't jerk me around. And you see this frustration that you don't normally see between a here in the client when when the client's wishes or what are supposed to be pre eminent. And I think people will look at those text messages and say, wow, this is a lot of pressure. You fly across the country, set up a hotel room hoping sh'll come out of the hospital come right to see you. I think those are some of the things that you know jumped out to the people. I've talked to the lord, but that story was unbelievable. I mean, you know, the woman's in the hospital and and somebody is saying, she can't talk to you. She's kind of incapacitated at the moment, and she's being taken care of and our health should come first. And Lisa Bloom flew, I guess you said the state or the Commonwealth of Virginia, and flew there and and got frustrated even more. Yep. And there's even a moment where the friend you know sends a picture of the woman just with her I d in the arm and not so and Lisa Bloom says, I want to face picture to show she's really a hospital, and then they have to go take a picture of the woman like like she didn't believe the one was in the hospital. It's the very unusual exchange, and it shows an awful lot of pressure built around the approaching election. And you know, people will make up their own mind. My job was not to make any conclusions, but to put all these facts out there to verify them. We we validated and verified every text message and uh, we went through all she acknowledged them. I mean, so there's no issues there. She did, uh, and she acknowledges she said, I did try to get six figures in donations for this woman. What did you think of the the the excuse and the statement that she put out there about about her role in this. I mean, because I know for a fact numerous times I can I'll find the tape and play it on TV tonight. Didn't she say I'm doing this pro bono. That doesn't sound like pro bono if you're getting a third and you're getting money associated with it. And I'll tell you the other bigger question is you know what rolled would any Clinton superpack have and is that in any way of violation of campaign ethics? There could be some campaign laws this. I mean, someone when we're talking to legal electors to try to understand if there was any election activity that this would be governed by since the election clearly was being mentioned and it's obvious that it was a deadline and connection for these donors. All right, quick break right back will continue more in this explosive story, lawyers seeking donor cash to pay Trump accusers unbelievable. And then in the next hour we got Jay Sekulo, Sydney Powell, and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. As we continue alight till the top of the hour, we continue John Solomon's break through column today. Uh, Lisa Bloom, prominent lawyer, daughter of Gloria Allred, sought donor cash to pay those that would be accusing Donald Trump of some type of sexual misconduct. This story is massive. We continue with John Solomon. A right, John, can you elaborate just a little more for my audience here on that there's a there's a great message about the right. It is true that she doesn't charge him or doesn't charge much for the legal representation, but then the legal representation is really just focused on one thing according to the contract, and that is, you know, getting you in front of media. And it says the con fact for uh, the woman who didn't come forward but signed the contract, it says, you're gonna pay me thirty And the first time she, uh, the woman who doesn't come forward, but the first time she's engaged by Bloom, Bloom says something third of fact, I can get you on these tabloid TVs. And I think I can get you ten to fifteen thousand dollars minus my one third commission she makes. He makes it really clear, I'm getting my cut if I do this. Uh, you'll see those in the text messages, and there's not you know, there's no doubt there was a financial component to this. There's no doubt that there's a political component to this. That doesn't mean that the women uh didn't have their own stories that they wanted to tell, that they didn't have legitimate concerns. But I think we write these stories every day as journalists at the new TUSA comes out it's black and white. And what these tech show is that there's a very complex picture involved here. There are people hovering around them. They might have a political or financial interest. These women have a lot of concerns such as safety for themselves or do I want my children to know about my past and those sort of things. And these sexual harassment sexual assault stories are much more complicated than the way they're often boiled down in the news meeting. I think these text mixes is really give us a very clear picture of that. I absolutely read this article and I am stunned. And I don't get stunned very often. I am shocked now, Well, I know how Look, politics is a blood, dirty sport. It just is. And you know, looking at this and thinking of what if three or four days, seven fifty thousan dollars is passed three or four days before an election, what impact that would have on an election? It is I mean, it's just to me is mind numbing. And you've got to wonder what it's going to do to people that are real victims of some type of harassment, if they're if they're being incentivized with cash or political motivations involved in this and kind of being worked over a little bit by by people that have different agendas. It's it's a little chilling and a little frightening to think this is going on behind the scenes that could have major impacts on how people feel about candidates. It's a really great question, and you said something really really profound that I think came up and talking to some of these women that I talked to, a lot of these women had very personal reasons not to be thrust into the media line, like very very serious issues of related to family health safety, unrelated to anything involving the election or the president or anything else. And it's a really uh. It raises a great question when someone tries to use money to try to overcome those concerns. Can I can I take enough money? Is there enough money I can give you that your safety or your your family concerns, or your medical concerns could be erased. And I think that's an interesting ethical question that people will look at it. I don't think it's I don't think i'd call a pay to play. I would how what would I call it? I call it uh play to get paid? Yeah, or if you play you might get paid. I think that's I mean, I think that's the I think that that's the inference of these things. And then again pay to play has such a negative connotation because its politics. But there's definitely if you come forward element to this, there's a chance for me to get your cash. I mean that's what Hey, if you tell your story, I think I can sell it. Pretend to fifteen thousand minus my one three. That's a real text message. And and if you come forward, you're gonna get seven fifty thousand. The woman told me the story of the final meeting she had two days before the election. Sunday before the election, she shows up at the hotel. Lisa Bloom and her husband are there's a woman that was in the hospital before. Yes. She gets out of the hospital, she tells her, I don't want to do it, and then they agree at least to meet one more time. And because Lisa slowed all the way across the country to meet her, and she goes to the hotel and she tells us anecdote, this is how they structured the seven hundred fifty thousand, because we've had a hard time getting you to say yes and no. We'll give you a three fifty right now, and then if you record your statement, you'll get the next three fifty after you record that statement. A very business like transaction that seems to like have a carrot and stick intend to it, which is right. You'll get half your money. Now, sit down to your interview. We put your interview spotted out there, and then you'll get your other half. And that's how she described the meeting to us. And uh, and she said it was kind of it was kind of just concerning to me, and it was it was all uncomfortable. And I got the follow up question to that, I mean, this is two days before presidential election. If in fact this woman took the money, the American people wouldn't know she got paid. The three fifty thousand dollars, seven hundred thousand dollars is a real serious number. That is a lot of money, and and it certainly opens the door for people that are unethical to make false charges just to get paid. Number one. And and similarly, I it's just mind numbing the degree to which people will go to destroy a candidate in the presidential race. It takes my breath away. You know, you add to that the salacious dossier, John, you add to that, you know, uh, leaking intelligence to her people, or maybe the phony dossier used for a FISA warrant. You know what this is? This is, this isn't politics at a level that we've ever seen before. Well, there's a really you mentioned something about the scoldure and just think about this. And I I've talked to Joe Hart and she's a very nice lady, and she was very kind to go over the facts of the story with me and try to get the story right. And I greatly appreciate that. But she's been out there for many months against originally against her will, and she didn't originally want to come out at all. In fact, there's evidence that she was trying to be friendly to Trump in the early eight days of the campaign, and her name gets forced out there from the old lawsuit. But she's been out there for a year. Name has been mentioned, there's been press conferences and interviews. Until this story, nobody knew that she had her mortgage paid off through a donor arranged by this lawyer. And and if if you only watched the press UH TV stories, is it now an obligation of the media if somebody does come out and make an allegation that, one of the first questions needs to be are you being were you paid at all to tell this story? Well, I will tell you I've been in this circumstance before, and and I wrote an entire book, and I've been credited with helping another woman who was sexually I think strong evidence was sexually assaulted by dominic stress Khan, one of the most powerful men in the all back in two thousand eleven hotel housekeeper. And when I did the interview, the very first one of the very first questions I did, when I sat across it, I have to ask you this don't take offense from it, but as a due diligence, I have to ask you, has anyone paid you to come forward to make these statements? Did you ask for anybody? Did you seek any money? And I will tell you each one of these women when I interviewed them, I asked them, is anyone forcing you to come forward and anyone pay you to talk to me? But I can't think during this process of anybody in the media asking these women. And by the way, there's a reason why tabloid news that pays for interviews that they are viewed with far more scrutiny and skepticism because they're money involved. That's always been the case, and that's why you know, good news rooms don't have a policy they never pay for a story because it taints the story. That's right. I think that's exactly right. And I think that this story does raise that question. Have we reached a point in journalism where, even in the very sancro set and very serious issue of sexual sexual assment, which we now know to be very pervasive, that we may have to ask every accused and accused or whether there's any payments occurring because we've seen so much evidence of it. Remember what got Lisa Bloom in trouble with Harvey Weinstein, an allegation that she was trying to buy the silence of a sexual assault victim. Money apparently is used in these cases in many different ways, and we as reporters, if we want to be cheerful, I think we need to ask. As uncomfortable as the question is, we're probably gonna have to ask it going forward, because this story makes clear money was clearly at the center of all. I can tell you this when I interviewed Paula Jones, and I interviewed Dolly Kyle Browning, and when I interviewed Kathleen William when I interviewed wanting to Broaderic back in the day, I and I have never paid for an interview of anybody ever, you know. And and by the way, if I did, I think the media headline would be Annay paid for that lie or whatever, you know, and that's the media would They would jump down my throat so hard. I don't know if I'd survive it for crying out loud. I really don't know. There's no doubt here that they can't contemplate it. The only media payments I can find among these two women is that Joe Hart does acknowledge that a small number of photos that I think of her and Donald Trump that were sold off to some media outlets. They made some money on that. By the way, that's a little secret in the business too. They won't pay for your story on the networks, but they'll pay for the pictures and exorbitant yeah, licensing pictures. And that's just a backdoor way of what buying the story certainly, certainly a way to bit put cash in the pocket of the person that is the subject or interview subject. But when you when you see the beginning overtures to the second woman, Lisa um Bloom is very clear, I think I can sell your story. I mean I think it's gonna think one of the quotes, or I think I can get you ten to fifteen thousand minus my one third commission. It's very transactional sounding. It almost sounds like, you know, we're selling a car or selling a uh, you know, a widget. And and these are very to these women. Having talked to both of them, these are very personal stories with very personal consequences and and it's sort of jarring to them when they look back at their text messages. Now, that was one of the things when we went with the women. We went through the text messages. How jarring some of these requests for hey, you've been or delete your Facebook and get that pro Trump stuff out of there because they might not believe you I could get Koud's not enough money. When they look back at it a year later, there was a sense of transactional nature to it that made them, you know, I think they one of them use the word it's very jarring to go back and look at these right now. All right, John, I gotta tell you, I I this story has just thrown me and I'm looking at some response we're getting for a loop. I thank you for that. We're gonna go full bore on this tonight on Hannity UH nine Eastern on the Fox News Channel. It this takes my breath away, very very scary what we're reading here. And uh, I think you did a good service to expose that this has been going on and the politics behind it and everything else. Thank you. Hey, listen, I love Liberty Safe. I have six of them. And the great news is long before they were an advertiser, I did my own research and what did I find out, Well, it's American made the best service in the entire industry and the best built safes on the planet and and you get the best deal at Liberty Safe now, right now, at liberty is Safe, They've given you a rebate and savings up to get this five hundred bucks off the top of the line saves they have and you know you have to protect your valuable as your important papers, your firearms. Plus if you're ready for this, you get eighteen months interest free financing and payments as low as twenty bucks a month on approved credit. And right now at Liberty Safe you can say big on all their top of the line safe and now is your chance, say five hundred bucks on Liberty's top of the line Presidential Safe and get it with eighteen months interest free. Now. The reason I bought liberty is just clear. I did my own research. They are the best in price. It's American made, they have amazing lifetime warranty and customer service second to none. They'll install it in your home now. They're over three fifty Liberty Safe dealers around the country. They'll come and install it for you. Or you could just go to liberty Safe dot com and mention you heard it from your friend Sean Hannity, because they're offering the best deal of the year. That's Liberty Safe dot com. Liberty dot com will continue joining us now. D C. McAlister and she writes for The Federalist and d C. I know you've been listening to John. I want to hear your response to that. Well, this is why people don't believe these victims when they come forward the last minute in election, because their suspects it's all politics. And I mean, I'm not really surprised that it's happened. I think a lot of people were suspects at the time that this kind of thing's going on, which is why they didn't believe it, which is why they put Trump into White House. Well, I'm just trying to understand, just days before an election, you're gonna offer somebody seven under fifty grand. How does any you know the public wouldn't have known that she was paid, and how do you candidate can't recover so you can literally almost buy someone an election. I mean, and everyone's worried about Russian interference, what about political interference and paying people off to say stories, whether you know, and how do we ever determine if it's true or not? I mean, tabloid stories are viewed as tabloid because they do pay for stories. You know, news organizations are not supposed to pay well. And we hear the left all the time talking about the loss of our democracy, how our democracy is falling apart because the Trump or any anyone else on the Republican side. But this is the kind of thing that really does attack ours our democracy. We're getting lies being told about candidates so that the our force not to vote for them, and if we do vote them, even though we don't believe them, then we're maligned in the public eye by supporting someone who is the sexual harassmer when we didn't believe it the first place. This is the kind of thing that is just going to undermine our politics and undermine our country in our trust in one another. And we're just not going to be able to have good people in office because there happen to run for office because it who knows what, don't be achieped what what? How will this change? This me too movement? Now, what's going to change? Well, there's already a lot of suspicion about the METO movement because it has been brought from for someone hitting on you in the office. We have to be out on a date is compared to raping someone. And so we're having these broad brush accusations of sexual assault against men in the office, and I mean, already men are getting ange in pushing back against this. I've written a couple of pieces already about criticizing this kind of thing and not understanding how people interact in the office and not accusing everyone all the time of sexual harassment or sexual assault when that's not what's happening involved. It's a power play and people are just doing it for their own agendism. I'm not saying that there aren't real cases out there, but the problem is is that when you start having all these fake cases, the real cases are not going to be believed in the future, and so women are the ones who are going to be actually really hurt in the end by all of that. Yeah, well, I mean I certainly in credibility. And now if there's somebody that is an honest victim, and the first question in the media has now got to be did you get paid? Did you talk to anybody with political associations? Are you doing this for political reasons? You know, that's why you know, I always am suspicious about an October surprise I'm always suspicious, you know. I I got excoriated for saying that. I think we always have to believe in the presumption of innocence, especially when it's a he said, she said, And I consistent, I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat. I've been right more than wrong in my life because I have held to that view well. And perception of innocence is also in the public layer, and a lot of people are saying with that's just in the court, but now it's giving people that benefit of the doubt. That's the way we have a civil society. And again, if we're gonna have this kind of thing happening, and we think that we have to believe every woman the renoe that they were being paid to say these things, I mean, this is really going to undermine women who aren't really the victim. And we're saying that this is going to free women to be able to be able to seek out No, it's not. It's actually going to shut them down in the future. So we're not because they're not can know the truth about it. It's all about power. It's all about you know, advancing some kind of political game and it's not about women at all, and they're going to become the real victims of that in our country. I think in many ways what I'm reading here this is victimhood. I mean, I think there's an expectation that you you said, you do this. What do you mean You're wasting my time? What is this all about? And you know it didn't seem exactly compassionate many instants is um and and then I don't, well, yeah, I mean that's they They definitely there's a political agenda and they want these women to talk because it advances that agenda. I don't see them working so hard against the people that they disagree with politically, exactly. Alright, alright, d C McAlister, thank you so much. Eight one Sewn, you want to be a part of the program. Uh, now we're going to get back into our Judicial Watch investigation. Also, Sydney Powell is going to join us and much much more. J Secular will check in. Eight nine four one, Shawn is a toll free telephone number. You want to be a part of the program. There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling a very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret Special Access Program at the time they were sent and received. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since two thousand and nine, was hacked successfully, but given the nature of the system and if the actors potentially involved, we assess we will be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily a way a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges, their obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandley of possibo information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional nis conduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. Let me go back, if I can, very briefly. Two. The decision to publicly go out with your results on the email. Was your decision influenced by the Attorney General's tarmac meeting with the former President Bill Clinton. Yes, in in a ultimately conclusive way. That was the thing that kept it for me that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department. Where there are other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session, there were other things that contributed to that one significant item I can't I know that committee has been briefed on. There's been some look accounts of it, which your nonsense, but I understand that committee has been briefed on the classified facts. Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk of an open setting is that at one point the Attorney General had directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly, right, So they got Hillary Clinton, James callmey. Hillary's team was extremely careless. Oh, let's get rid of the words that really matter and that means gross negligent the legal standard. Uh, then you have called me. It's possible hostile actors likely gained access to her email. Well, he removed earlier, it was likely that happened. Now we know it did happen, and then call me despite all the evidence of law breaking, No reasonable prosecutor would bring criminal charges, really and then call me My decision to go public with this decision was affected by Loretta Lynch and the tarmac meeting. All right here to break it all down. This man of the FBI director literally written on May the second, and Hillary wasn't even interviewed till the fourth of July weekend. We have the president. The chief counsel for the American Center for Law in Justice, J. Sekula also Counsel to the President. What's going on, sir, How are you well, Sean, I'm doing okay, but I think the state of the Republic I'm concerned about with this situation within the FBI. I mean, this is very serious. Now we've got these edits and as we did an analysis of those edits today, I mean, it's it's kind of breath taking in scope from what James Coby wrote to what Peter Strock and uh, maybe Andrew mcabe or whoever else was working on this allowed to go forward. I mean, it's you. You can go line by line and it is pretty outrageous. You mentioned the gross negligence, which is the key words, by the way for a ten USC seven ninety three f and that is the disposition of basically classified information. This would have gone to the server issue, and there is, as originally drafted, he said, there is evidence to support worth the conclusion that Secretary Clinton and others used the private e mail server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect in the handling classified information. And the statute itself phrase is through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from his proper place of custody. So he changed, he writes that what comey rights, it's changed in the edit process too, extremely careless. Now, by the way, technically extremely careless means gross negligence, but he they were specific in taking that language out. So that's that's point number one here, and and that is the starting point to show you that this declination which was I mean, this was you know, you and I both lived in Atlanta, and I I'm a member the Georgia Bar, and I went to law school in Georgia, and of course you know I practice primarily watching to see these days, but I'm still in active member the Georgia Bar. When you try a case in South Georgia, they called it home cooking. I mean, was this case involved home cook In other words, was the was the the was already done? And the answer to that is unequivoally, especially when you can see this memo, there's no question. One way to say that's so another way to say that is the fix was in. Fix was in and the home cooking was done. That's exactly right. So that's the way. Is that point is just point one. Well, look, there's multiple parts of this that are illegal, and that is, first of we got the ethical portion where there's ethical issues and then the legality issues of what was going on here. I don't know how in the world James called me could have become you know, it became FBI director and attorney general, and they just let that go. I don't understand how. For instance, in the original draft of the document, it says the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as secret at the time that it was discussed on email supports and inference that the participants were grossly negligent and they're handingly of the information. Sheer volume of information changed to in addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly class marketed secret by the U S intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. Now, first of all, even that one was an emission of liability. But to go from the sheer volume of information to us a statement about highly sensitive information is rather drastic in its scope. Then you have this one. This is especially concerning because all of these emails, and Sean, this goes to the heart of what you and I were talking about for a year. This is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on servers not supported by full time security staffs like those found at the departments and agencies of the US government. That was the cook the server in the Colorado townhouse restroom. Uh. And then you had the one that was in their basement. They completely that was in So James Comy's report is as he drafted it. This is especially concerning because they were not housed and secure servers. It is completely removed. Let me ask out a top Republican senator. Now we now know Ron Johnson is raising a pretty profound question about the FBI's role and possible interference in the two sixteen election, and his letter reveals specific edits that are made in this particular case because there's more. You know, the original draft had likely that foreign actors and sources. We've since confirmed that five foreign intelligence agencies did have access to that email server in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet. They did have it there. Changing gross negligence to extreme careless is that's a big deal. And other changes were made as as well. In this particular thing. You know, we're removing the intel community, uh, in that particular statute. Look, here's what we know. We know that Hillary Clinton did have classified top secret Special Access Program information on the unsecure server. We do know that she deleted thirty three thousand emails that had been subpoena. We do know that she used acid wash bleach bit to remove the evidence or any chance that the FBI forensically could recover it. We do know that devices that had the same information would smash with hammers. Now, Jay, look, I don't you don't have to be a lawyer like yourself that has argued multiple times twenty some odd times before the United States Supreme Court to figure out that this is an obstruction case, mishandling a classified information, destruction of classified information, and that's just the beginning. How about the destruction of evidence that that's called destruction of justice yet under the under the authority of the Department of Justice and the FBI. How about the fact that this document was written to May five and there had been sixteen witnesses schedule that had not been interviewed with, many of which were given immunity. And as a colleague of mindset who was former U S attorney who gives immunity and then doesn't interview that witness before they make their conclusion, Well, what should happen at this What what should happen to? James Comey and Peter Struck. Struck of course, the pro Hillary anti Trump guy who's involved it seemingly in every every case we discuss. But he's the one that that changed the language in this, edited this and was part of the exoneration in early May, before Hillary was even interviewed. In July. Here's here's the situation. I mean, they're they're distinct in one sense, but they're connecting another distinct in that Comey was the director of the FBI. He could have said, you know what, I'm not going with these changes, but he didn't. Okay, that's that's number one. Number two. Peter Struck, he was the I mean, think about who he is interviewed. He has interviewed Hillary Clinton at the end of this, and Huma Aberdeen and Cheryl Mills. He was the lead investigator on that case while all the nonsense was going on with him in Lisa Page. Then he was put on Bob Mueller's team and after about two and a half months taken off that team because of the emails and text messages and people have told me, I mean I heard Jerry Natler congressman from New York who I know, and and Jerry's out there saying, hey, everybody hasn't tunneled to the First Amendment free speech rights. That is true. What is not true is you cannot be the investigator of the case when you have expressed expressed this kind of information, because now you're not just a person. I mean, it's like, what, what, how did you interpret their clients? I don't agree with I mean, that's what lawyers do. But you know this is different. You're the investigator here, so it's not unbiased and it's not equal justice under the law. So Peter structs whole and look, he his reach into all of this is unbelievable, except he's still an employee of the Department or the FBI and asked this question, and they had this conversation. One of the emails talks about between him and Lisa Page about our conversation in Andy's office. I'm assuming, and it's assumption that this is Andrew McCabe, this is the insurance. Well, well no, they refer to it then classify it as an insurance policy, and then they talk specifically that Lisa Page, another Mueller employee, another FBI employee is telling Peter Struck that, you know, he's the guardian of our Democratic republic that and I mean, it sounds to me like their plan B, their insurance policy, in all likelihood wasn't Andrew McCabe's office. And it sounds to me because if you look at the timing, it's it's awfully coincidental that that's the beginning of the quote Russia probe Well, I think, look, I think all of those questions you ask are and you're right, here's the thing that and this is what Senator Johnson wants to get to and I do too. What is the time frame of all of this? Now there's where were they in the investigation as these changes were being made, Because you asked yourself, why were they writing a resoneration letters three months before they any of the principles? But that's easy. You can't put any of this stuff aside. Here's the problem with all of this, Sean. You look at this situation and you say to yourself, how could this possibly be happening? I mean, in the United States of America, this stuff is going on, and then you've got a complicit media and all this we talked about that earlier in the week with this NBC nonsense that I dealt with earlier and we which seems like a lifetime ago now. But the fact is, you look at all of this and say to yourself, how in the world is this good for the constitutional republic we live in. The answer is it's not so I think that what Chris Ray has to do. And that's why I by the way, I don't you know. I know they have got an inspector general. I get it, but this is beyond an inspector general in my view. I mean, they say Jeff Sessions is looking at whether there needs to be a special counsel. Here. We have you put the Peter Strock situation with the Fusion GPS, Bruce or Bruce or his wife. Now we know the wife was hired to work on the dossier. That or me and and her husband, who's a d o J number four and d o J is meeting with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson. And you put all this together and you say to yourself, this is not justice. This is not the way a credible investigation is supposed to go forward. This is not the way it works in the United States of America. This stuff has got to be fixed because this is not good for us. When I say us, I'm talking about the American people called the Constitution. J I know, we're not even talking about surveillance, unmasking, leaking intelligence. Uh, we're not even talking about asking. I mean, and it's the is with the Fusion GPS, fake dossier used as a basis upon which they obtain a FISA warrant. General Flynn pleads guilty Flint. General Flynn pleads guilty, and then the judge that's sentencing is the judge that took the plea then accuses himself before sentencing judge. I have no idea. I mean, I'm not speaking of will to judge. Maybe the judge mature. The judge thought he had to recuse himself, but everybody with Sheryl looked to you don't have the right to know this, but nice to know why, because there's a lot of stuff I'd like to know. If that phony, you know, Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dossier was the what was the reason that the FIZER warrant was granted? All right, quick break, we'll come back. Jay Seculo is with us. More of the Sean Hannity show straight ahead. All right, as we continue, Jay Secular is with US Counsel to the President and the Chief Council of the American Center for Law injuice. I'd like to know why if we're supposed to interview, you know, be investigating Russian collusion, Uh, why we don't view the Hillary Boughton paid for phony dossier as collusion of some kind because Russian propaganda was paid for, allies were paid for to influence the American people. By the way, did you see John Solomon's piece today? I mean, three days before the election, you have people being offered seven fifty thousand dollars to accuse Trump to you, no, no, okay, right, so here here, No. What's shocking to me is it's so deep, and it's so profound, and that our constitution is literally being shredded before our eyes and the rule of law and equal justice under the law maybe nonexistent if they get away with us. That's what. Yeah. So, but I want to go to something you just said about a minute and a half ago. People need to understand if that dossier was the basis of a FISA warrant that resulted in the unmasking of Americans and we know that the first time they went in for the FIZES warrant they didn't get it, which is like unheard of, right, and then they get it. And if it's based on that Christopher Steel dossier, you're talking about a whole host of constitutional issues. You've got a whole host of them right there. Serious stuff, all right, Jay Sekulo, American Center for Law Injustice. We'll join us on TV tonight as well. John Solomon will break for the first time on TV is blockbuster column from earlier today. And we have so much more to get to eight nine for one, Shaun is a toe free telephone number. Refill the FBI. It'll be bigger and better than ever. But it is very sad when you look at those documents and how they've done that is really really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that of seeing it. It's a very very sad thing to watch. I will tell you that. And I'm going today on behalf of the FBI their new building. And you know, but when I when everybody, not me, when everybody the level of anger at what they've been witnessing with respect to the FBI is certainly very sad about Michael. About Michael Flynn, would you consider a harden from Michael Flynn. I don't want to talk about pardons from Michael Flynn yet. We'll see what happens. Let's see. I can say this, when you look at what's going on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very very angry. When you look at the Hillary Clinton investigation, it was you know, I've been saying it for a long time. That was a rigg system, folks. That was a rigg system. When you look at what they did with respect to the Hillary Clinton investigation, it was rigged. And there's never been anything like it in this country that we've ever found before. It very very sad, very very sad, so true everything we now know. Yeah, the the election, the whole process was rigged against Bernie Sanders and let's speak volumes, you know, and then we find out the fix was in and it was rigged and she was never even going to get a full, complete, accurate, real investigation into the email server scandal and all of the different incidences that we know crimes were committed. And we know in this now this early May, early May exoneration of Hillary before she's even interviewed or other of the main witnesses interviewed that James Comey and Peter Struck are writing her exoneration, and even things that they say, like, for example, likely that foreign actors had hacked into her system, her server that was in a mom and pop shop bathroom closet. We we do know for a fact that happened. Mishandling a classified information is a felony. She did that by setting up this system to begin with. Then the thirty three thousand subpoenab emails that were deleted on purpose, they were they weren't. She didn't get to decide what emails she can delete or not delete. And then of course she lies and says there was no classified information on the email server sent or received or marked classified. Uh. That turned out to be a lie to. And then just to make sure it's gone forever all then we use bleach bit and we acid wash any evidence in any proof and just by any chance that it might be on a a blackberried device as well, well, we'll just have an age smash those with hammers. That would be called obstruction of dust justice. That would be called destroying you know, top secret classified Special Access Program information five foreign intelligence sources. So James, comey. You know they change it from gross negligence to extremely carelessness. That's a legal term. That was a purposeful legal distinction. He was gonna tell the story how foreign countries and foreign intellis agencies has gotten that that he pulled that out of the letter and he pulled a whole lot else out on an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton. Unbelievable anyway. Joining us now to discuss this and much more, we have Sydney Powell, federal appellate attorney, former federal prosecutor, author of the book Licensed to Lie, exposing corruption in the Department of Justice. Tom Fitton is with us and he is the president of Judicial Watch. Welcome both of you to the program. Let me start with you, Sydney Powell. And you know when you look at all of these developments at this point and then you got Peter struck so pro Hillary, he's up to his eyeballs and everything here and the team that Muller put together and call me colluding to put the fix in for Hillary, not even mentioning the inappropriate meeting on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton. You begin to see a pattern here, destroy the Trump people and exonerate guilty Clinton people. There's definitely a pattern here, Sean. I've been writing about it since I've published an article for The Observer called the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton two years ago, and over a year ago called in The Observer for Comie and Lauretta Lynch to be impeached for whitewashing Clinton's crimes. And one of the things people need to realize is this went all the way up to the president. The whole secret server thing, the approval of the Clinton Foundation, UM deciding not to prosecutor. President Obama was emailing Hillary Clinton under an alias at that secret server. He knew she had set up a private server at her residence. He either had to explicitly or implicitly approve that for it to happen. The same is true with the Clinton Foundation, so his fingerprints are all over that too. And anybody who emailed her at Clinton email dot gov, I mean dot com had to have known they weren't sending messages to a secure server. So it goes wide and it goes deep. It does indeed. Um. Now I guess the question of Tom Finton a judicial watch. They obtained documents that actually showed the Clinton and Uma Aberdeen were literally allowed to remove physical and electronic records with the approval of the Obama administration from the State Department that they claim were unclassified and personal. Uh, here's the problem. That included her entire schedule who she met with. Now we know from past information that, uh, the people that got to see Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State, the overwhelming majority of them or people that donated to either the Clinton Foundation or some Clinton connection in some place money, serious amounts of money. Uh. And that you know, average American citizens, they weren't so high up on the list of visitors when it came to the Clintons. Oh, it's even worse than that. The documents show Humanity's emails show that she was the go between between for the foundation and who was demanding favors for its donors and the State Department, and she was making it happen. And then you have now these new documents showing that Hillary Clinton walked away with these documents. And it's even worse because the State Department promised, don't worry your callogs and your schedules won't be made available to the public under the Freedom Information Act, which is bunk. Isn't that against the law. You can have a secret agreement to keep me through Yeah, so what how did she make a special deal? And is there evidence that the Obama administration and who when the Obama administration approved it? You know, I don't know. You've got to figure out that the State Department that knew also to put the context as they also knew about the emails, and they allowed her to walk away with the emails. So you have sixty government emails, including class for information that goes walking out the door. She's allowed to take care of schedule. She's not allowed to take materials about her gifts, gifts that she received her Secretary of State. Can you say, foundation, Well, exactly what we're only finding out about this now? And and where is the competent investigation as you pointed out, Sean, where this all should have been vetted last year And in fact, the Justice Department and fb I could tell you they were this is what happened. Judicial Watch would get a court order for discovery and the FBI would announce, Oh, we want to talk to those people that Judicial Watch is about to talk to, and we get another order. Oh, we really want to talk to those people judicial Watch is about to talk to. And the only reason any of these guys were interviewed, in my view, was because they knew they were going to have to come in and talk to Judicial Watch. So it was all grudging. And then we now know that the Lynch Clinton tarmac meeting took place, We know that Comey had other concerns about what the Justice Department was up to. And then as you point out, he was also editing this this letter where he predetermined that they were never going to prosecute him prior to them being interviewing any of these people. You know, I gotta tell you this, Bama was running this from the get go, and all the edits seemed to fall nicely into Obama's theory of the case. But you seem to have everybody around Obama doing the dirty work. I mean, you have you know, a U. N Ambassador Samantha Power, and you know, unmasking Americans at a rate of nearly one a day. Why would why would a U. N Ambassador ever need to do that? Or Susan Rice's role in any of this, and what was Ben Rhodes's role in any of this. I mean, you know, if you if you look at all of this and you put it all together, you know, and everything involving Peter Struck and everything involving Comy, and everything involving Comey's relationship with Muller and both their relationships with Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe. And then you look at the Peter Struck text messages with his girlfriend pro Hillary anti Trump, and then they come up with an insurance policy. What is the insurance policy. Well, if you look at the date and the time, it's around the time they began all this Russia investigation. So you know, to me, it's what you got a deep state, a group of actors for political reasons, doing everything that they possibly can do with insurance policies to make sure Donald Trump is never the president, or if he was, he was impaired to the greatest extent possible and set up for impeachment. And that's what's happening, and that's where we are now. But look, you're a lawyer, Sidney, you worked at the Justice Department. How hard is it going to be to untangle this mess? Well, it's coming to light more every day thanks to the work that Tom and his team are doing and the other avid journalists, and I would encourage everybody to read License to Lie and look at the articles in the tweet I just tweeted at you at Sidney Powell won because I've documented all of it, uh much of it long before any of this came up. And I think Obama and Hillary made an unholy alliance back when she was running for president against him in the primary and then he decided to make her Secretary of Stage graceful and that and that primary, the Clintons and Obama's hated each other. Bill Clinton was out there saying that the Obama camp played the race card and that they did it on purpose, and they did it multiple times. There there was bad blood there. Yeah, they hated each other, but they reached this unholy alliance pursuing which she would become Secretary of State. That set her up with her international experience as she lacked. Well, I mean, she would be the anointed one in exchange for you know, him covering for her for the rest of her career. You're a federal of federal appellate attorney or a former federal prosecutor. Uh, let's say that you see that the FBI director is working in conjunction with some subordinates at the FBI, and that they're writing an exoneration letter for a particular subject of investigation before they do the investigation. Uh, would that be called obstruction of justice in your mind? It certainly would. And why any of these people are still working for the government is beyond my comprehension. I mean, Mr Stroke, who is at the center of all of these misconduct allegations and and the whitewashing of all of Clinton's things and the investigation against President Trump, he's still there. On top of that, he's in the HR Department where he could blackmail every FBI agent that's there. So it's so true. It's so true. And you get the leadership of the FBI and Justice Department Rosenstein and Ray saying, well, we're gonna wait for the i G to act. No, they have an independent obligation to figure out what's going on. If Andy McCabe and a Lisa Page and Peter Stroke to three top FBI officials, we're talking about up ending a presidential election, they should be hauled out of the offices and until they figure out what went on, they shouldn't be anywhere near FBI headquarters. Doesn't you know we've worked with whistle blowers. You all work with while whistle blowers, you know what happens when the government thinks that you did something wrong. But why is it that these guys are being protected? It's it's it's it's not appropriate to put it terribly. Let me go back to the Judicial Watch case. Because you were able to uh discover and uncover Clinton's calls and schedules were literally hidden from view. That does violate the Records Act. Uh. They were blocked from being seen by the public. Uh. And we also and also she was a how to remove physically remove documents uh and files that she had. Now, when you consider an article from the Associated Press from last August the team with the headline many donors to the Clinton Foundation met her at the State Department. The article goes on to say at least eighty five of the hundred and fifty four people from private interests who met and had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledge commitments to international programs. According to a review of State Department calendars released so far, to the AP. Combined, the five donors contributed as much as a hundred and fifty six million dollars and at least forty donated more than a hundred thousand dollars each and twenty gave more than a million dollars each. So maybe is that part of the records that Uma and a Hillary removed from the State Department? You know? And uh, you know, part of the ones that were washed with bleached fitt and acid from her computers. Of course they are. The whole purpose of the secret server was to enable to pay to play scheme at the State Department. Unbelievable. Alright, eight nine for one, Shauna's at free telephone number. Thank you both for being with us. We'll have this blockbuster report by John Solomon, prominent attorney paying women to make allegations against Donald Trump. It's part of the process, obviously to undermine the president in the in the days, especially close to the election. Uh watch the mainstream media try to ignore this story. All right, that's gonna wrap things up for today and for this year. We can't thank you enough. It has been an amazing, hard fought year for all of us. Next year is the year the House of cards collapses. That is how we're going to view it. Hannity tonight, my final show of the year, John Solomon is big breaking story. Lisa Bloom paying people to tell stories. Will get into that. Also, the explosive new sport that we had last night from Sarah Carter, the legal reaction to the Comey draft letter, which is unbelievable, President Trump on the deep state sabotage that is going on, and Mueller's witch hunt. All right, that is it for us this year. God bless you and your family's Merry Christmas, Happy hanukkah uh. We will see you back here January second, unless news warrants I come back from my long vacation of the year. I wish you and your family is the best. We can't do this without you. You made us are are? You made this the number one show on TV and cable for the entire year in total audience and in demo and we have had a record rating year on radio. Can't thank you all enough. We're gonna fight even harder next year. That's my resolve. Have a great, happy Merry Christmas, hanukah, and we will see you next year. We have a lot of work to do

The Sean Hannity Show

Sean Hannity is a multimedia superstar, spending four hours a day every day reaching out to millions 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 4,460 clip(s)