Those women who accused then-candidate Donald Trump of sexual harassment in the final days of the 2016 election mysteriously seemed to drop off the radar after he won the presidency, only to reappear in recent weeks, conveniently coinciding with the latest wave of sexual impropriety scandals facing Republicans and Democrats alike. It’s impossible not to be at least a little suspicious of the timing, and now a new detail may confirm what many have long suspected.
In a bombshell report, The Hill says that contractual documents, emails, text messages, and interviews expose left-wing feminist lawyer Lisa Bloom as having essentially bribed women to go public with their claims of being harassed by Trump. Oh — and super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid might have been in on it.
One accuser got her mortgage paid off. Another was offered a whopping $750 grand — but rejected it and declined to come forward. And naturally, Bloom took commissions on TV gigs she secured for clients.
[Beauty contestant manager Jill] Harth said she did not originally ask Bloom for money, even though her cosmetics business suffered from the notoriety of the campaign stories about her.
But later, Bloom arranged a small payment from the licensing of some photos to the news media, and then set up a GoFundMe.com account to raise money for Harth in October 2016. “Jill put herself out there, facing off with Donald Trump. Let’s show her some love,” the online fundraising appeal set up by Bloom’s husband declared.
The effort raised a little over $2,300.
Bloom then arranged for a donor to make a larger contribution to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City. The amount was under $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016 […]
Documents also show Bloom’s efforts to get alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment to come out against Trump intensified as Election Day 2016 approached.
When Harth, for instance, informed Bloom she had just made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward about Trump in October 2016, the lawyer texted back: “Wow Jill that would be amazing. 27 days until the election.”
Bloom — who initially defended disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and is the daughter of notorious legal hack Gloria Allred — admitted to attempting to secure financial “help” for women who came forward, as well as taking commissions, but insisted everything was aboveboard.
Curiously while denying direct coordination with the Clinton campaign, Bloom neglected to comment on the involvement of any pro-Hillary super PACs. Josh Schwerin, who served as communications director for major pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, denied to The Hill that his group had any relationship or communications with Bloom. We have no reason whatsoever not to take Hillary boosters at their word, TFPP readers, now do we?
The women maintain that Bloom never attempted to get them to say anything that wasn’t true, though one anonymous woman — who also said that Trump “ended the advance when she asked him to stop” and still supported him for president — expressed suspicion and alarm that Bloom was more interested in influencing the election than seeking justice:
“Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded [a week before the election]. “We are just about out of time anyway.”
The woman then texted back demanding to know why there was a deadline. “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!!”
This report lends credence to something Bill O’Reilly told Glenn Beck earlier this week that didn’t get much attention:
There is a tape, Beck, an audio tape of an anti-Trump person offering $200,000 to a woman to accuse Donald Trump of untoward behavior […] But I can tell you that Donald Trump knows about the tape. And I’m, for the life of me, sitting here going, Why on earth are you allowing a movement to try to smear you when you have a powerful — and I mean it’s powerful — piece of evidence that shows that this is an industry. That there are false charges and money changing hands.
O’Reilly claimed in that interview he couldn’t give more specifics because it was related in some way to the legal troubles that got him ejected from Fox News, but it’s very interesting all the same. Still, all of this is very interesting…
What do you think it means, and what will happen next? Sound off below!
Hat tip: The Daily Caller