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.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
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 MyPillow.
It has changed my life.
What makes MyPillow so different is MyPillow's patented adjustable fill.
In other words, you can adjust the patented fill to 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 mypillow.com or call 1-800-919-6090.
Remember, use the promo code Hannity.
When you do, Mike Lindell will give you his best offer ever.
Buy one pillow and get another one absolutely free.
MyPillow, made in the USA, 10-year unconditional warranty, and it has a 60-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 mypillow.com or call 800-919-6090.
Promo code Hannity.
Take advantage of Mike's special two-for-one offer, mypillow.com.
Promo code Hannity.
All right, we got an amazing show coming up today.
We're going to be checking in with Jay Seculo.
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.
I 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 2016 election?
By the way, polls are now showing the public has lost confidence in the Mueller probe.
How could they not at this point?
The 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?
We'll have Judicial Watch chairman and president Tom Fitton on Judicial Watch is also filing a new FOIA request after their big find that we told you about yesterday, that an agreement was made with the Obama administration to let Hillary and Uma Abedeem remove evidence.
We'll get to that today.
Now they're looking at FOIA requests for FBI records on Trump hating investigators, which I think we all have a right to know because there's so much going on.
I want to start, though, 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.
This doesn't involve tape recordings, but I still heard people calling me, there's a tape recording of this.
You know, there's tapes of this.
I don't know.
I haven't heard them.
I keep hearing that they're there.
I've 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 women's rights lawyer 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 2016 presidential campaign.
According to documents and interviews, California lawyer, I'm sure most of you know, Lisa Bloom.
Well, 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 to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000 in cash, the clients told the Hill.
The women's accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails, and text messages that the Hill got to see, including the exchange of texts between one 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 Allred, 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, two declined.
And in a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged 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 just stop here for a this is deep and profound.
Now, there is a reason why, 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 was Jennifer Flowers.
He's a candidate, and Bill and Hillary go on 60 minutes, and they just trashed Jennifer Flowers, deny it ever happened.
If you leap forward to 1998 and the deposition, well, then President Clinton admitted, yeah, 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, 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, or never paid rather.
And the same with Kathleen Willey, and the same with Juanita 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'd pay for it, I can have the exclusive.
And the answers are straight up, can't do it, won't do it, not going to happen.
And stories that I would like to report on, in case you're interested.
Anyway, I say this 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 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 going to give you some specific outlets here.
And by the way, she was apparently involved in issues involving Bill Cosby and Fox News as Bill O'Reilly.
Okay, now if you hear somebody is paid money or their mortgage is paid off or offered money to go public, does it in your mind in any way taint their credibility?
Now, some would argue, no, it just 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.
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.
Now, Josh Schween is the communications director for Priority USA Action, largest pro-Clinton super PAC.
He told the Hill that that group had no relationship with Bloom and had no discussions with her about 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 a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997, withdrew that lawsuit.
The news media discovered the litigation during the election.
Harth's name became public in the summer of 2016.
She asked Bloom to represent her in that particular case in the fall after hearing Trump describe her allegations as false and became a vocal critic of Trump.
Anyway, Harth said she did not originally, originally ask 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, the way the media cheats when they pay people.
Just we need pictures for the story.
Can we license the pictures from you for $10,000, $20,000, $30,000?
It's a backdoor way of paying.
And I know that happens at big networks all the time.
They won't admit it.
They're not going to say it's a payment.
They're going to say it's a licensing agreement and it's common practice.
And anyway, then they made an arrangement in that particular case to help Hearth pay off her mortgage.
She had a mortgage on a Queen's apartment in New York, a little under $30,000 in that case.
Then a GoFundMe 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 individuals 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 in both their cases, they said that Bloom never 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 that Bloom held a strong dislike for President Trump.
And in an email to 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 Lisa Bloom has 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 election day, 2016, everything became accelerated.
You know, in one instance, Hearth, for example, informed Bloom that she had made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward.
Wow, Jill, that would be amazing.
27 days till 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 13, Bloom then went to another woman.
And that woman, also a Hearth friend, went back and forth for weeks.
There was an allegation of an unsolicited advance by Trump in the 90s 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 don't like taking other people's money, she said.
And then Bloom's, all right, let's not do this.
We're running out of time.
The woman texted back demanding, what does this have to, 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.
Well, 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 as it unfolds.
The woman said Bloom initially offered her $10,000, a donation to her church.
Please keep confidential except to your pastor.
That was October 14th.
When Bloom found out the woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyers and friends and associates of the future president, she texted a request that jarred the woman.
And it was, when you have a chance, I suggest you delete the August 2015 Facebook post supporting Trump.
Otherwise, the reporter will ask how you can support him after what he did to you.
You're a call, but it'll make your life easier.
The woman declined, said, I hate to say it, but I'd 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, in fact, she went forward.
Now, when we pick it back up here on the other side of this, we're going to take you to and start out October 14th, 2016, just before the election.
We're going to see how big the $10,000 donation grows in the lead up in the final days of that election.
All right, 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-shirt sock brand, and they have redefined comfort for men everywhere, including and especially me.
All Tommy John underwear is crafted from the most comfortable fabric you'll ever use.
It's impossible to be uncomfortable in Tommy John.
Plus, their innovation never takes a day off at Tommy John, even during the holidays.
They're constantly thinking of new ways to give you the best product you've ever tried.
Like their 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 TommyJohn.com.
So give the gift of life-changing comfort for the holidays, TommyJohn.com/slash Hannity.
You get 20% off your first order.
That's TommyJohn.com slash Hannity.
Plus, you get extra savings with exclusive holiday daily deals only at TommyJohn.com slash Hannity.
Just not in this, just not feeling it yet.
It's just a way to put it.
I'm not there yet.
Oh, is it snowing outside?
Are we getting any accumulation?
Anything?
I don't know about accumulation, but it'll be a sloppy mess, that's for sure.
What?
How many inches are we getting?
Three.
That's nothing.
Three is nothing.
Three is annoying.
Yeah.
Well, no, what's annoying is when, you know, the New York City mayor puts mountains in the way of crosswalks, and you literally can't walk across the street because, and he leaves it there.
Instead of just bringing in.
I've walked.
I am not exactly.
I've walked with it.
I've walked today from Fifth Avenue and 40-something Street up to our offices here, right?
Yeah.
It's like 10, 15 blocks.
This should take me at the speed of walk, about 10 minutes the way I walk, right?
Right.
I'm flying.
It took me 27 minutes.
And why did it take me 27 minutes?
Because there are huge police bulldozer blocks in the middle of the sidewalk, 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 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 it.
Keep moving.
You don't need to stop.
It's ginormous.
You can still see it as you walk.
What is happening?
You know, that's what's happening.
This is a far cry from Ms. Fa la la la la yesterday.
I'll tell you that.
Fa la la la la la la la la, but I can do two things at once.
I can walk and sing.
You can walk and sing, but God forbid if somebody doesn't walk fast enough on the streets in New York.
Look, I don't.
Oh, they got an ear full today.
I do the walk every day, and it's all I'm doing is dodging and weeding around the tourists.
It is a zigzag.
You know 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.
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, everybody's going to be a little bit more.
By the way, you do have the option of bringing sneakers or other shoes with you.
No classy New York lady's doing that.
Uh-uh.
No.
So you're going to.
Well, I don't think it's about comfort and it's about practicality.
All right.
Can I get back to you?
Looking good is not comfortable.
We'll get back to this after the break.
800-941 Sean is our toll-free telephone number.
Paying women to tell their stories.
How does it break down?
We've got an anatomy of how this payment goes down.
We'll continue.
We'll pick it up in October.
As the election gets closer, well, the offers get higher straight ahead.
To 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 Flynn, would you consider a pardon for Michael Flynn?
I don't want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet.
We'll see what happens.
Let's see.
I can say this.
When you look at what's gone 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 the Senate or the House, everybody, 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 spent all these millions of dollars.
So now even the Democrats admit there's no collusion.
There is no collusion.
That's it.
And we've 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 going to 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 saying it for a long time.
That was a rigged system, folks.
That was a rigged 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's very, very sad.
Very, very sad.
All right, that was the president and speaking before the FBI.
Now, look, I'm going to 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.
And what you have is Lisa Bloom, the attorney, is now offering this woman, first offered her $10,000.
And anyway, Bloom initially approached her.
She told The Hill in October through this other woman, Jill Hearth, 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 $10,000 in a donation to her favorite church, an account backed up by text messages that the Hill obtained.
Quote, please keep the donation offer confidential except to your pastor.
Lisa Bloom wrote the woman in October on October 14th of 2016.
When Bloom found out the woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyers' friends and associates of the future president, she texted a request, quote, the Hill says that jarred the woman.
When you have a chance, I suggest you delete the August 2015 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 14, 2016, the text messages show the woman made escalating requests for more money by early November.
Now, this is just prior to the election.
The woman said Bloom's offer of money from donors had grown to $50,000 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 3rd, five days now before the election in 2016.
Later, she added, call me, I have good news.
The woman responded that she wasn't impressed with the new offer of $100,000.
Starts at $10,000 now.
We're at $100,000 now.
We're 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 $100,000.
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 $200,000 in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman.
The support was promised to be tax-free.
Well, stop right there for a second.
How do you make an offer?
Now, there are legal ways to give money to people.
You can give $14,000 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 gift somebody $14,000.
You can't gift them $200,000.
Anyway, we can get back to that later.
Support was promised to $200,000 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 $2 million 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 asked to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security, and over time, increased her request for financial compensation to $2 million, which we told her was a non-starter.
This is Lisa Bloom telling the Hill.
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 Harth and had no interest in being portrayed as an accuser or receiving money.
But when Bloom's mention of the potential compensation became more frequent, the woman said she tried to draw 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?
It's a lot of money we're talking about here.
Now, just a couple of days before the election, the woman indicated 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.
All 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 4th, but the friend declined to put the woman on the phone, instead sending a picture of the woman in a hospital bed.
Bloom persisted writing in a series of texts 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 Bloom.
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: well, she hopped on an airplane from California to go see the woman in Virginia on 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 going to move forward.
Quote, I'm confused.
You sent me so many nice texts 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 has an agenda.
She didn't want Donald Trump to win.
Bloom texted November 5th now, and this is three days out of the election.
That meant a lot to me.
Thursday, 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 now she thinks this person's being, 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 sounds like really putting the hammer, a guilt trip, 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?
Does it make a difference if you're offering bigger and bigger?
It starts at 10, then it's 50, then it's $200,000, 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 6th, 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, that Lisa Bloom increased the offer of donations to her to $750,000, 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 wrote 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.
Now, Lisa 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, et cetera, et cetera.
We invited her to meet with us at a hotel room, et cetera, et cetera.
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 ask for photo licensing fees.
By the way, the photo licensing thing is a scam that networks use to pay people to give their stories.
It just is.
That's how I see it.
Anyway, Harth 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 committees 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 October 11, 2016, if we help the Clinton campaign, they in turn could help or compensate us.
Bloom wrote back, let's please do a call.
I've already reached out to a Clinton super PAC and they're not paying.
I can get you paid for some interviews.
However, now this is the problem.
There is, look, I'll let others go to the ethics of all this.
There is a 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 $10,000.
It ends at $750,000.
Talk of security and talk of relocation and talk of assistance.
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 $750,000 if she had done that?
No.
Because the media never asked that question.
All it would do is using 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 unethical behavior and by any means necessary.
What is this going to do to real victims of harassment?
What is it going to do in their case?
And if you're incentivizing somebody with money, you know, and you're not true, 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.
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, do you?
I don't see anything on any of the networks.
We'll do it on Hannity tonight.
Then we got Jay Seculo stopping by today, and Sidney Powell and Tom Fitton will continue the job the media will never do.
That's telling you the truth.
Next.
All right, Howard 2, Sean Hannity Showglancher with us, 800-941 Sean.
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 her on television a lot and with some women making accusations against men.
Anyway, so a series apparently of text messages have emerged, and the Hills John Solomon got a hold of all of these, and I'll let him tell the story and take it from there.
But 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 there politics involved?
And at what point do we reach an ethical tipping point that this is 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 on.
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 is, 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.
Set up a GoFundMe site for one of the accusers, Jill Hearth, who came public.
Pay off the mortgage of Jill Hearth.
And I know a lot of people would love to have their mortgage paid off on your show, I'm sure.
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, and they wanted her to come forward.
And they began by offering her $10,000 to her church, then $50,000 for her personal pocket, then $100,000 for her personal pocket, $200,000 for her personal pocket.
And then on the final few days before the election appeared, they upped the ante to $750,000.
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 never intended for public discussion that I can sell your story for $10,000 to $15,000.
Lisa Bloom instructs the woman who's thinking of coming forward to change her Facebook page and erase her post supporting Donald Trump because she feared that the woman's support of Donald Trump would make her accusation less believable.
And I think people will weigh all that and say, is that what attorneys do?
And then what's in it for Lisa Bloom?
We'll ask that question.
And the answer is she made these women sign a contract that required them to pay 33% commission on anything they sold to the Tableau TV program.
So that's what the text messages show, and Lisa Bloom confirms.
There's not any, Lisa Bloom confirms that she did these things.
So let me go through the process here.
Is it that she hears that these women may have some information and then goes discusses and wasn't a woman's mortgage paid off as part of the deal?
Right?
Yep.
That was the first thing, one of the first transactions.
So there's a woman named Jill Hearth.
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 25 years ago, 20 years ago, and they published it.
And then she sort of got forced into the limelight.
And as the attention grew, somebody suggested that Jill Hearth 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, Jill Hearth photos.
Then Jill Hearth is trying to get other people to come out to support her story.
She reaches out to a woman who's very pro-Trump, Supports the president, doesn't think he did anything wrong to her per se, but is willing to come forward with a story of an unsolicited advance.
And Jill Harth introduced Lisa Bloom to her.
Lisa Bloom sends her a contract with the terms of the 33% commission.
And then this woman starts to wait, do I come forward?
Do I not come forward?
And that's when the offers of money start to be bantied back and about and forth.
And it grows from $10,000 to $50,000 to $100.
Then, out of the blue, Jill Harth has a GoFundMe page set up.
Now, when Jill Harth started, there was no talk of money.
Now, Jill Harth has a GoFundMe page, online fundraising page set up for her 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 believe it's under $30,000, but still a lot of money, and to pay off Jill Harth's mortgage.
And that's not in dispute.
Everybody, including Jill Hearth, acknowledges that.
And in the days leading up to the election, as things were getting closer, you know, and the money went as high as $750,000.
That would be like a almost, you're almost paying somebody at the most sensitive moment in a campaign to say something that's so blockbustered 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 and the Clinton Super PAC.
Can you see if you can get me some money from the Clinton Super PAC?
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 again, not paying right now.
Does that suggest that the Clinton Super PAC money was being used to pay women to tell stories?
We don't know.
We don't know.
What we will say is that Lisa Bloom will not answer the question of whether she had contact with the Clinton Super PAC.
She will not identify the donors who ultimately came up with the money for the $750,000 offer, which, by the way, was never paid because the woman didn't go forward, or who paid for the donation that paid off the mortgage.
So she's not talking about those two things.
We talked to one of the super PACs 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 see in these text messages, the election is chronically cited as a deadline.
We've got to get this done before the election.
There's 21 days left to the election, 47 days left the election.
There's only a little bit more time.
And one of the women, one of the women, the woman who did not ultimately decide to come forward, 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 about me and my personal 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.
One woman who didn't come forward, she was going to come forward, have a press conference, and alleged she was sexually assaulted when she was 13 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 them to do.
And I think a lot of people will look at this and ask, you know, who's the client here?
And what do these text messages say about the nature of the representation?
And, you know, is it appropriate to be having political money discussions with accusers?
I read your piece, and it's obvious.
All right.
She is a pretty radical left person, hates Donald Trump.
It's very clear in the text messages here.
But 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 one particular individual that said, is this really about getting Trump or is it about me?
I think speaks volumes here.
I don't have a problem that Lisa Bloom and her mother prefer Hillary Clinton.
I don't have a problem with their politics.
Over the years, I've had many debates with Gloria Alred.
I do have a problem with, 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 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 in 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 Bloom, 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 contemporaneously?
And 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 there was an effort of due diligence.
The women claimed they weren't being forced to make up a story.
But there's very little doubt 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 super PACs.
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 that's how you write pieces.
I mean, that's why you were with the AP for 20 years.
And this is the type of real reporting I think that needs to be done.
We'll take a quick break.
John Solomon's big blockbuster piece in the Hill.
We'll get back to more of the details.
We'll get reaction too from D.C. McAllister's going to join us on the program.
And then in the next hour, we got Jay Seculo, Sidney Powell, and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch as we continue.
All right, as we continue, John Solomon, his brand new piece out today, prominent lawyer seeking cash, donor cash, to make for women that are going to 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 guy down any way we can.
And if you need money, that's going to incentivize you to tell your story here.
How much do you need?
She's even asking people, what do you need?
What do you need?
That's right.
And as we get closer to the election, well, then the need, well, you know, the offers get higher.
I think it started at $10,000, then $100,000, and then as high as $750,000, 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 great anecdote in there, Sean, that shows the level of pressure.
The woman that was going back and forth ultimately did not go forward with her story ends up in the hospital three, four days before the election.
And Lisa Bloom is frantically trying to get her to return her call.
She's hooked to an IV, 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 when the woman finally contacts her, she gets released from the hospital and she says, Listen, 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 says to the other woman, you can't keep your word even when you swear to.
And she scolds her and she says, I'm 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 lawyer and a client when the client's wishes are what are supposed to be preeminent.
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 she'll come out of the hospital and come right to see you.
I think those are some of the things that jumped out to the people I've talked to.
That story was unbelievable.
I mean, the woman's in the hospital and somebody's saying she can't talk to you.
She's kind of incapacitated at the moment and she's being taken care of and her health should come first.
And Lisa Bloom flew, I guess you said, the state or the Commonwealth of Virginia and flew there 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 IV in the arm and not show.
And Lisa Bloom says, I want a face picture to show she's really in the hospital.
And then they have to go take a picture of the woman like she didn't believe the woman was in the hospital.
It's a very unusual exchange and it shows an awful lot of pressure built around the approaching election.
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 validated and verified every text message and we went through all issues there.
She did.
Then she acknowledges.
She said, I did try to get six figures in donations for this woman.
What did you think of the excuse and the statement that she put out there about her role in this?
I mean, because I know for a fact numerous times 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 role would any Clinton super PAC have?
And is that in any way a violation of campaign ethics?
Yeah, there could be some campaign laws.
I mean, someone, well, we're talking to legal experts 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 in connection for these donors.
All right, quick break, right back.
We'll continue more on this explosive story.
Lawyers seeking donor cash to pay Trump accusers.
Unbelievable.
And then in the next hour, we got Jay Seculo, Sidney Powell, and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch as we continue.
All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
We continue John Solomon's breakthrough column today.
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.
All right, John, can you elaborate just a little more for my audience here on that 33%?
There's a great message about the 33%, right?
It is true that she doesn't charge them 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 getting you in front of media.
And it says the contract for the woman who didn't come forward but signed the contract.
Says, you're going to pay me 33%.
And the first time the woman who doesn't come forward, but the first time she's engaged by Bloom, Bloom says something to her to say, I can get you on these tabloid TVs, and I think I can get you $10,000 to $15,000 minus my one-third commission.
She makes it really clear, I'm getting my cut if I do this.
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 didn't have their own stories that they wanted to tell or that they didn't have legitimate concerns.
But I think we write these stories every day as journalists.
A new CUSE that comes out.
It's black and white.
And what these texts show is that there's a very complex picture involved here.
There are people hovering around them that 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 media.
And I think these text mixes 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.
Well, I know how, look, politics is a blood, dirty sport.
It just is.
Sure.
And, you know, looking at this and thinking of what if three or four days, $750,000 is passed three or four days before an election, what impact that would have on an election.
It is, I mean, it just, to me, is mind-numbing.
And you got to wonder what it's going to do to people that are real victims of some type of harassment if they're being incentivized with cash or political motivations involved in this and kind of being worked over a little bit by people that have different agendas.
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.
John, you said something really, really profound that I think came up in 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 related to family health, safety, unrelated to anything involving the election or the president or anything else.
And it's a really, it raises a great question when someone tries to use money to try to overcome those concerns.
Can I take enough money?
Is there enough money I can give you that your safety or your family concerns or your medical concerns could be erased?
And I think that's an interesting ethical question that people will look at.
I don't think I'd call it pay-to-play.
What would I call it?
I'd call it a 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 again, pay-to-play has such a negative connotation because it's politics.
But there's definitely an if-you-come forward element to this, there's a chance for me to get you cash.
I mean, that's what, hey, if you tell your story, I think I can sell it for $10,000 to $15,000 minus my one-third.
That's a real text message.
And if you come forward, you're going to get $750,000.
The woman told me the story of the final meeting she had.
It's two days before the election, Sunday before the election.
She shows up at the hotel.
Lisa Bloom and her husband are there.
Is this the woman that was in the hospital before?
Yes.
She gets out of the hospital.
She tells her, I don't want to do it.
Then they agree at least to meet one more time.
And because Lisa's floating all the way across the country to meet her.
And she goes to the hotel and she tells this anecdote.
This is how they structure the $750,000.
Because we've had a hard time getting you to say yes or no, we'll give you $350,000 right now.
And then if you record your statement, you'll get the next $350,000 after you record that statement.
A very businesslike transaction that seems to like have a carrot and stick intent to it, which is, all right, you'll get half your money now.
Sit down, do your interview.
We put your interview, exploit it out there, and then you'll get your other half.
And that's how she described the meeting to us.
And she said it was kind of disconcerting to me.
And it felt uncomfortable.
I got a follow-up question to that.
I mean, this is two days before a presidential election.
If, in fact, this woman took the money, the American people wouldn't know she got paid.
$350,000, $700,000 is a real serious number.
That is a lot of money.
And it certainly opens the door for people that are unethical to make false charges just to get paid, number one.
That's right.
And similarly, it's just mind-numbing the degree to which people will go to destroy a candidate in a presidential race.
It takes my breath away.
You know, you add to that the salacious dossier, John.
You add to that, you know, leaking intelligence to her people, or maybe a phony dossier used for a FISA warrant.
You know, this isn't politics at a level that we've ever seen before.
Well, there's a really, you mentioned something about disclosure, and just think about this.
And I've talked to Jill Harth, 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'm greatly appreciative of 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 days of the campaign.
Then her name gets forced out there from the old lawsuit.
But she's been out there for a year.
Her name's been mentioned.
There's been press conferences and interviews.
Until this story, nobody knew that she had her mortgage paid off to a donor arranged by this lawyer.
And if you only watch the press TV stories of the money.
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 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 Stras-Kahn, one of the most powerful men in the world back in 2011, hotel housekeeper.
And when I did the interview, one of the very first questions I did when I sat across was, 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 any money?
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?
Did 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 of the money involved.
That's always been the case.
And that's why good newsrooms 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 sanctroset and very serious issue of sexual assault, sexual harassment, which we now know to be very pervasive, that we may have to ask every accused and accuser 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 careful, I think we need to ask, as uncomfortable as the question is, we're probably going to have to ask it going forward because this story makes clear money was clearly at the center of all the people.
Well, I can tell you this.
When I interviewed Paula Jones, and I interviewed Dolly Kyle Browning, and when I interviewed Kathleen Willey, and when I interviewed Juanita Broderick back in the day, I have never paid for an interview of anybody, ever.
No.
And by the way, if I did, I think the media headline would be, Hannity paid for that lie or whatever.
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.
There's no doubt here that they can't contemplate it.
The only media famous I can find among these two women is that Joe Harth does acknowledge that a small number of photos that I think of her and Donald Trump 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, an exorbitant book.
Licensing.
Yeah, licensing pictures.
And that's just a backdoor way of what?
Buying the story.
It's certainly a way to put cash in the pocket of the person that is the subject or interview subject.
But when you see the beginning overtures to the second woman, Lisa Bloom is very clear.
I think I can sell your story.
I mean, I think one of the quotes are, I think I can get you $10,000 to $15,000 minus my one-third commission.
It's very transactional sounding.
It almost sounds like we're selling a car or selling a widget.
And these are very, to these women, having talked to both of them, these are very personal stories with very personal consequences.
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 and we went through the text messages.
How jarring some of these requests were.
Hey, you better delete your Facebook and get that pro-Trump stuff out of there because they might not believe you.
I can get you $10,000 to $15K.
$100,000 is not enough money.
When they looked back at it a year later, there was this sense of transactional nature to it that made them, you know, I think one of them used the word.
It's very jarring to go back and look at these right now.
All right, John, I got to tell you, 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 going to go full bore on this tonight on Hannity, 9 Eastern on the Fox News channel.
This takes my breath away.
Very, very scary what we're reading here.
And 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 you get the best deal at Liberty Safe.
Now, right now, at Liberty Safe, they're giving you a rebate and savings up to get this 500 bucks off the top-of-the-line safes they have.
And, you know, you have to protect your valuables, your important papers, your firearms.
Plus, if you're ready for this, you get 18 months interest-free financing and payments as low as 20 bucks a month on approved credit.
And right now at Liberty Safe, you can save big on all their top-of-the-line safes.
And now is your chance.
Save 500 bucks on Liberty's top-of-the-line presidential safe and get it with 18 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, there are over 350 Liberty Safe dealers around the country.
They'll come and install it for you.
Or you could just go to LibertySafe.com and mention you heard it from your friend Sean Hannity because they're offering the best deal of the year.
That's LibertySafe.com, LibertySafe.com.
We'll continue.
Joining us now, DC McAllister, and she writes for the Federalist.
And DC, 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 at the last minute in election.
They're suspects.
It's all politics.
And I mean, I'm not really surprised that this happened.
I think a lot of people were suspect at the time that this kind of thing was going on, which is why they didn't believe it, which is why they put Trump in the White House.
Well, I'm just trying to understand just days before an election, you're going to offer somebody $750,000.
How does any, you know, the public wouldn't have known that she was paid.
And then how do you a 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?
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 of Trump or anyone else on the Republican side.
But this is the kind of thing that really does attack our democracy.
We're getting lies being told about candidates so that we are forced not to vote for them.
And if we do vote for them, even though we don't believe them, then we're maligned in the public eye by supporting someone who is a sexual harasser when we didn't believe it in the first place.
And this is the kind of thing that is just going to undermine our politics and undermine our country and our trust in one another.
And we're just not going to be able to have good people in office because they're not going to run for office because who knows what they'll be accused of.
How will this change this Me Too movement now?
What's going to change?
Well, there's already a lot of suspicion about the MeToo movement because it has been broadened from where someone's hitting on you in the office to ask you out on a date is compared to raping someone.
And so we're having these broadbush accusations of sexual assault against men in the office.
And I mean, already men are getting angry and pushing back against this.
I've written a couple of pieces already about criticizing this kind of thing and 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 agenda.
I'm not saying that there aren't real cases out there.
But the problem 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 this.
Yeah, well, I mean, certainly 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 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 was consistent.
I didn'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 were saying, well, that's just in the court.
But no, it's in the public layer.
But giving people the benefit of the doubt is the way we have a civil society.
And again, if we're going to have this kind of thing happening and we think that we have to believe everyone that we know that they were being paid, say these things, I mean, this is really going to undermine women who aren't really the victims.
And we're saying that this is going to free women to be able to be able to speak out.
No, it's not.
It's actually going to shut them down in the future.
Because we're not going to know the truth about it.
It's all about power.
It's all about advancing some kind of political game.
And it's not about women at all.
And they're going to become the real victims of this and 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 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 in many instances.
Well, yeah.
I mean, that's, 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.
They're being pawned.
All right, D.C. McAllister, thank you so much.
800-941-Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
Now, we're going to get back into our Judicial Watch investigation.
Also, Sidney Powell is going to join us and much, much more.
Jay Secula will check in.
800-941-Sean 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 of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven email chains concern 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 2009 was hacked successfully.
But given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess we would 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 weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.
There are 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 mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct 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 to 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 an 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.
Were there 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 the committee's been briefed on.
There's been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee's been briefed on the classified facts.
Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in 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.
All right, so there you got Hillary Clinton, James Comey.
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.
Then you have Comey, 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 Comey, despite all the evidence of law breaking, no reasonable prosecutor would bring criminal charges.
Really?
And then Comey, 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 memo of the FBI director, literally written on May the 2nd, and Hillary wasn't even interviewed till the 4th of July weekend.
We have the president, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Seculo, 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 kind of breathtaking in scope from what James Comey wrote to what Peter Strzok and maybe Andrew McCabe or whoever else was working on this allowed to go forward.
I mean, 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 18 USC 793F, and that is the disposition of basically classified information.
This would have gone to the server issue.
And there, as originally drafted, he said there is evidence to support the conclusion that Secretary Clinton and others used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.
And the statute itself's phrase is, through gross negligence, permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.
So he changed it.
He writes that.
That's what Comey writes.
It's changed in the edit process to extremely careless.
Now, by the way, technically, extremely careless means gross negligence, but they were specific in taking that language out.
So that's point number one here.
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'm a member of the Georgia Bar and went to law school in Georgia.
And, of course, I practice primarily in Washington, D.C. these days, but I'm still an active member of the Georgia Bar.
But when you tried a case in South Georgia, they called it home cooking.
I mean, was this case involved home cooking?
In other words, was it already done?
And the answer to that is unequivocally, especially when you see this memo.
There's no question.
But there's one other way to say that.
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 his point, is just point one.
Isn't that illegal?
Well, look, there's multiple parts of this that are illegal.
And that is, first of all, 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 Comey could have become, you know, he 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 an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of the information.
Sheer volume of information changed to, in addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email.
Now, first of all, even that one's an admission of liability, but to go from the sheer volume of information to just 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 U.S. government.
That was the cook, the server in the Colorado townhouse restroom, and then you had the one that was in their basement.
They completely, that was in.
So James Comey's report is, as he drafted it, this is especially concerning because they were not housed in secure servers.
It is completely removed.
Let me ask.
A top Republican senator now, we now know.
Ron Johnson.
Ron Johnson is raising a pretty profound question about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016 election.
And his letter reveals specific edits that are made in this particular case because there's more of, 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 carelessness, that's the big deal.
And other changes were made as well in this particular thing.
You know, removing the Intel community 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 33,000 emails that had been subpoenaed.
Do you 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, you don't have to be a lawyer like yourself that has argued multiple times, 20-some odd times before the United States Supreme Court to figure out that this is an obstruction case, mishandling of classified information, destruction of classified information, and that's just the beginning.
How about the destruction of evidence?
That's called obstruction of justice.
Under the authority of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
How about the fact that this document was written May 5th, and there had been 16 witnesses scheduled that had not been interviewed with, many of which were given immunity.
And as a colleague of mine said, who's a former U.S. attorney, who gives immunity and then doesn't interview that witness before they make their conclusion?
Well, what should happen to this?
What should happen to James Comey and Peter Strzok?
Strzok, of course, the pro-Hillary anti-Trump guy who's involved seemingly in every case we discuss, but he's the one 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 the situation.
I mean, they're distinct in one sense, but they're connected in 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 number one.
Number two, Peter Strzok.
He was the, I mean, think about who he has interviewed.
He has interviewed Hillary Clinton at the end of this, and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
He was the lead investigator on that case while all the nonsense was going on with him and 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 Nadler, a congressman from New York, who I know, and Jerry's out there saying, hey, everybody has entitled to their 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 this kind of information.
Because now you're not just a person.
I mean, it's like a lot of 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 Strzok's whole, and look, his reach into all of this is unbelievable, except he's still an employee of the Department or the FBI.
And ask this question.
Andrew, 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 an assumption, that this is Andrew McCabe.
This is the insurance policy.
Well, no, they refer to it, then classify it as an insurance policy.
Yes.
And then they talk specifically, Lisa Page, another Mueller employee, another FBI employee, is telling Peter Strzok that, you know, he's the guardian of our Democratic Republic.
And I mean, it sounds to me like their plan B, their insurance policy, in all likelihood, was in Andrew McCabe's office.
And it sounds to me, because if you look at the timing, 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 timeframe of all of this?
In other words, where were they in the investigation as these changes were being made?
Of course, you asked yourself, why were they writing a resonan letter three months before they interviewed any of the principals?
But that's 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 in all this.
We talked about that earlier in the week with this NBC nonsense that I dealt with earlier in the week, 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?
And 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.
You put the Peter Strzok situation with the Fusion GPS, Bruce Orr, Bruce Orr's wife.
Now we know the wife was hired to work on the dossier, that Orr's meeting and her husband, who's a DOJ number four in DOJ, 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, Jay.
And we're not even talking about surveillance, unmasking, leaking intelligence.
We're not even talking about it.
I'm asking, I mean, was the Fusion GPS fake dossier used as a basis upon which they obtained a FISA warrant?
Great question, Jay.
General Flynn pleads guilty.
General Flynn pleads guilty.
And then the judge that's sentencing is the judge that took the plea then recuses himself before sentencing.
What's that?
It happens to be a FISA judge.
I have no idea.
I'm not speaking to Will the Judge.
Maybe the judge, I'm sure the judge thought he had to recuse himself, but everybody would sure look to know, you don't have the right to know this, but nice to know why, because there's a lot of stuff.
Well, I'd like to know if that phony, you know, Hillary Clinton bought and paid for dossier was the reason that the FISA 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 Seculo is with us, counsel to the president and the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
I'd like to know why, if we're supposed to interview, you know, be investigating Russian collusion, why we don't view the Hillary bought and paid for phony dossier as collusion of some kind, because Russian propaganda was paid for, lies were paid for, to influence the American people.
By the way, did you see John Solomon's piece today?
I did.
I did.
I mean, three days before the election, you have people being offered $750,000 to accuse Trump.
Is any of this shocking to you?
No.
No.
Okay, right.
So 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 may be non-existent if they get away with this.
That's what's shocking.
Yeah, so, but, Joe, I want to go to something you just said about a minute and a half ago, and 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 FISA warrant, they didn't get it, which is like unheard of, right?
Then they get it.
And if it's based on that Christopher Steele dossier, you're talking about a whole host of constitutional issues.
You got a whole host of them right there.
Serious stuff.
All right, Jay Seculo, American Center for Law and Justice, will join us on TV tonight as well.
John Solomon will break for the first time on TV his blockbuster column from earlier today.
And we have so much more to get to.
800-941 Shauna's Otofri telephone number.
We're going to 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 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 Flynn, would you consider a pardon for Michael Flynn?
I don't want to talk about pardons for 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 rigged system, folks.
That was a rigged 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's very, very sad.
Very, very sad.
So true.
Everything we now know.
Yeah, the election, the whole process was rigged against Bernie Sanders.
Doesn't that 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 exoneration of Hillary before she's even interviewed or of the main witnesses interviewed that James Comey and Peter Strzok 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.
Well, we do know for a fact that happened.
Mishandling of classified information is a felony.
She did that by setting up this system to begin with.
Then the 33,000 subpoenaed emails that were deleted on purpose, she doesn'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 mark classified.
That turned out to be a lie, too.
And then just to make sure it's gone forever, well, then we use bleach bit and we acid wash any evidence and any proof.
And just by any chance that it might be on a BlackBerry device as well, well, we'll just have an aid smash those with hammers.
That would be called obstruction of 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 extreme carelessness.
That's a legal term.
That was a purposeful legal distinction.
He was going to tell the story how foreign countries and foreign intelligence agencies had gotten that.
Then 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 Sidney Powell, federal appellate attorney, former federal prosecutor, author of the book License to Lie, exposing corruption in the Department of Justice.
Tom Finton is with us, and he is the president of Judicial Watch.
Welcome both of you to the program.
Let me start with you, Sidney Powell.
And, you know, when you look at all of these developments at this point, and then you got Peter Strzok, who's so pro-Hillary, he's up to his eyeballs and everything here, and the team that Mueller put together, and Comey 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 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 Comey and Loretta 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, deciding not to prosecute her.
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 clintonemail.gov, I mean, .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.
Now, I guess the question now, Tom Fitna Judicial Watch, they obtained documents that actually showed that Clinton and Uma Abedine 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.
Here's the problem.
That included her entire schedule, who she met with.
Now, we know from past information that the people that got to see Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State, the overwhelming majority of them were people that donated to either the Clinton Foundation or some Clinton connection in some place, money, serious amounts of money, 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, Yuma Abedin'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 call logs and your schedules won't be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, which is bunk.
Isn't that against the law?
Sure, sir.
Because there's a federal record going to have a secret agreement to keep material.
Yeah.
So how did she make a special deal?
And is there evidence that the Obama administration and who in the Obama administration approved it?
You know, I don't know.
You've got to figure out that the State Department knew also, put the context is they also knew about the emails, and they allowed her to walk away with the emails.
So you have 60,000 government emails, including classified information that goes walking out the door.
She's allowed to take care of her schedule.
She's allowed to take materials about her gifts, gifts that she received as Secretary of State.
Can you say foundation?
Well, exactly.
We're only finding out about this now.
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 FBI, I could tell you, 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 letter where he predetermined that they were never going to prosecute them prior to them being interviewing any of these people.
You know, I got to tell you this.
Obama 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, you know, unmasking Americans at a rate of nearly one a day.
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' role in any of this?
I mean, if you look at all of this and you put it all together, and everything involving Peter Strzok and everything involving Comey and everything involving Comey's relationship with Mueller and both their relationships with Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe.
And then you look at the Peter Strzok 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.
Exactly.
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 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 Sydney Powell 1 because I've documented all of it, 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 State.
She graceful.
Listen, in that primary, the Clintons and Obamas 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 was bad blood there.
Yeah, they hated each other, but they reached this unholy alliance pursuant to which she would become Secretary of State that set her up with her international experience that she lacked.
Well, I mean, she would be the anointed one in exchange for him covering for her for the rest of her career.
All right, you're a federal appellate attorney or a former federal prosecutor.
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.
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. Strok is at the epicenter of all of these misconduct allegations 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.
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 going to wait for the IG to act.
No, they have an independent obligation to figure out what's going on.
If Andy McCabe and Lisa Page and Peter Strok, two three top FBI officials, were talking about upending a presidential election, they should be hauled out of the offices until they figure out what went on.
They shouldn't be anywhere near FBI headquarters.
We've worked with whistleblowers.
You all work with whistleblowers.
You know what happens when the government thinks that you did something wrong.
Why is it that these guys are being protected?
It's not appropriate, to put it charitably.
Let me go back to the judicial watch case.
Oh, my geez.
Because you were able to discover and uncover Clinton's calls and schedules were literally hidden from view.
That does violate the Records Act.
They were blocked from being seen by the public.
And we also, and also she was allowed to physically remove documents and files that she had.
Now, when you consider an article from the Associated Press from last August, 2016, with the headline, many donors to the Clinton Foundation met her at the State Department.
The article goes on to say at least 85 of the 154 people from private interest who met and had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department, donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to international programs.
According to a review of State Department calendars released so far to the AP combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million, and at least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million each.
So maybe is that part of the records that Uma and Hillary removed from the State Department?
You know, and the ones that were washed with bleach bit and acid from her computers.
Of course they are.
The whole purpose of the secret server was to enable the pay-to-play scheme at the State Department.
Unbelievable.
All right, 800-941-Shawn is a toll-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 a process, obviously, to undermine the president in the days, especially close to the election.
Watch the mainstream media try to ignore this story.
All right, that's going to 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.
We'll get into that.
Also, the explosive new report 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 families.
Merry Christmas.
Happy Hanukkah.
We will see you back here January 2nd unless news warrants I come back from my long vacation of the year.
I wish you and your families the best.
We can't do this without you.
You made us, 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 going to fight even harder next year.
That's my resolve.
Have a great, happy, Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, and we will see you next year, 2018.
We have a lot of work to do.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
