All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 2, 2018 - Sean Hannity Show
01:33:52
Best of Hannity: The Russian "Story" - 1.1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carolyn Markovich.
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 podcast.
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 Dell a 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 my pillow so different is my pillow'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?
Only people not losing confidence are the people in the mainstream media that are obsessed with regurgitating the same points they have made for a year, and that means it goes nowhere.
By the way, Democrats are livid that Rod Rosenstein allowed the release of the smoking gun FBI text messages.
Yeah, why would we let the little people here see what's actually going on?
Uh we'll have Judicial Watch uh chairman and president Tom Fitton on Judicial Watch is also filing a new FOIA request after their big find uh that we told you about yesterday that an agreement was made with the Obama administration to let Hillary and Uma Abedim 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 uh wrote this, broke this.
I've been hearing rumors about this and potential tapes, and you know, for mu honestly, a couple of months now.
Uh this doesn't involve tape recordings, but I still heard people calling me today there's tape recording of this.
You know there's there's tapes of this.
I don't know.
I haven't heard them.
I keep hearing that they're there.
Been hearing it for a long time that they're there.
So the headline in the Hill today is exclusive prominent lawyer sought donor cash for Trump accusers.
Okay, well-known woman's rights lawyers sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or Considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential campaign.
According to documents and interviews, California lawyer, you 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 seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars 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 text between one woman woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during this effort.
Now we know Lisa Bloom, uh her mom I've known for years, Gloria allred, uh, 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 get let me backtrack.
I interviewed women, and it had a pro 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 a 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 that Hillary and Bill were part of the effort to smear Jennifer Flowers.
I had interviewed Jennifer.
I found her credible.
I never got paid.
I interviewed Paula Jones, found her credible, never got paid.
You know, uh, or never paid, rather.
And the same with Kathleen Willie, and the same with 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 gonna happen.
Uh, and stories that I would like to report on, in case you're interested.
Anyway, I say this as a as a backdrop here, because you know, now we have Lisa Bloom who assisted dozens of women in these high profile, prominent harassment cases, defending Harvey Weinstein in his particular case till the pressure grew so strong that she had to bail out of representing Harvey Weinstein.
But, you know, when you look at the 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' 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.
Um, 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 uh supporting Trump accusers.
One Bloom client had received financial help from Bloom was the New York City makeup artist Jill Harth, former beauty contestant manager, filed the sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump 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 of false as false and became a vocal critic of Trump.
Anyway, Harth said she did not 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 a little game the way the media cheats when they pay people.
Just uh we need pictures for the story.
Can we license the pictures from you for 10, 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 pay uh case to help Harth pay off her mortgage.
She had a mortgage on a Queen's apartment in New York.
Uh a little under $30,000 in that case case.
Um then a GoFundMe thing was set up for her.
Now, I just want to get into one case in 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 uh individuals unless they go public on their own, like Harth, 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 Harth were friends, and in them both their cases, they said that Bloom never, you know, asked them to make statements or allegations that they didn't believe to be true.
But I don't see anything in this article that tells me there's any independent corroboration efforts on the part of anybody here.
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, but I don't see it.
Anyway, their text, their emails indicate 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 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, Harth, for example, informed Bloom that she had made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward.
Wow, Jill, that would be amazing.
Twenty-seven 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 bar back and forth for weeks that 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'm I don't like talk taking other people's money, she said.
And then Brooms, all right, let's not do this.
We're running out of time.
The woman texted back demanding, what does this have to do?
What what does time have to do with this?
Time to bury Trump?
You want my story to bury Trump for what?
Personal gain?
See, that's why I have trust issues.
Well, the woman was smart enough to figure it out.
The woman now told the 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 Harth and not because of her consternation with Donald Trump.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
Look at the timeline and as it unfolds.
The woman said Bloom initially offered her ten grand, a donation to her church.
Please keep confidential to you except to your pastor.
That was October 14th.
When Bloom found out the women 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.
Your call, but it'll make your life easier.
The woman declined, said I hate to say it, but I still rather have Trump in office than Hillary.
And then Bloom says I respect that.
Eventually the two uh decided their continued support was a benefit if if in fact she went forward.
Now when we pick it back up here on the other side of this, we're gonna take you to and start out August, October 14, 2016, just before the election.
We're gonna see how big the ten thousand dollar donation grows in the lead up in the final days of that election.
Just not in this just not feeling it yet.
It's just the way to put I'm not there yet.
Oh, is it snowing outside?
Are we getting any accumulation?
Anything about accumulation, but it'll be a sloppy mess, that's for sure.
What about how many answers are we getting?
Uh 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 uh you literally can't walk across the street because and he leaves it there instead of just bringing in.
I walked, I am not exactly I walked today from Fifth Avenue and 40 something street up to our offices here, right?
This should take me at the speed of walk, about ten minutes the way I walk, right?
Right.
I'm flying.
It took me twenty-seven minutes.
And why did it take me twenty-seven minutes?
Because there are huge police bulldozer blocks in the middle of the 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 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, this the this chorus, that's what's happening.
This is a far cry from us follow la la la yesterday.
I'll tell you that.
Fala 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 if God forbid, if somebody doesn't walk fast enough on the streets of New York, look, I'm they got an earful today.
I do the walk every every day, and it's all I'm doing is is dodging and weaving around the tourists.
It is a zigzag.
You know how many how many people uh have gotten pictures of me because they're taking all the pictures of people around where I go to work?
Still, listen, when you do it in high heels, we'll talk.
What's right, let it marinate.
Take it in.
Take it all in.
What why is this an attack on me?
Because when you're a woman in New York City, everyone's a big thing.
By the way, you do have the option of bringing sneakers or other shoes with you.
Uh uh.
No.
So you're gonna you well, I don't think it's about it's about comfort and it's about practicality.
All right, can I get back to looking good is not comfortable.
We'll get back to this after the break.
800 941 Shauna's 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.
But it is very sad when you look at those documents and how they've done that is really, really disgraceful.
And you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it.
It's a very sad thing to watch, I will tell you that.
And I'm going today on behalf of the FBI, their new building.
And you know, but when I when everybody, not me, when everybody, the level of anger at what they've been witnessing with respect to the FBI is certainly very sad.
About Michael, about Michael Flynn, would you consider a pardon to Michael Flynn?
I don't want to talk about pardons from Michael Flynn yet.
We'll see what happens.
Let's see.
I can say this.
When you look at what's 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 walked 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 got to get back to running a country.
What we have found, and what they have found, after looking at this really scam, is they found tremendous, whatever you want to call it.
You're gonna have to make up your own determination.
But they found tremendous things on the other side.
When you look at the Hillary Clinton investigation, it was you know, I've been 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 uh speaking before the FBI now.
Look, I'm we're gonna get back into that in a second.
So you've got this Hill article today.
Prominent lawyers sought donor cash for some Trump accusers, all right?
And I've just given you many of the examples, and we'll post the article up on my website, written by John Solomon of the Hill.
I just want to give you and back end you.
I think as the election got close, the offers, the intensity, it just became massive.
Um, and what you have is Lisa Bloom, the attorney, is now offering this woman, first offered her 10,000.
And anyway, Bloom initially approached her.
She told the Hill in October, through this other woman, Jill Harth, who had her mortgage paid off.
And she said she was considering coming forward with her account of an unsolicited advance by Donald Trump solely to support her friend Harth, 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, uh, 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 from fifty had grown to fifty thousand dollars to be paid personally to her and then even higher.
Another donor has reached out to me offering relocation security for any woman coming forward.
I'm trying to reach him.
Bloom texted this woman on November third.
This is 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 a hundred thousand dollars.
Starts at ten.
Now we're at a hundred.
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 a hundred thousand dollars.
College money would be nice for her daughter.
Plus relocation fees as we discussed.
Well, then the figure, getting closer to the election, jumps to two hundred thousand dollars in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman.
The support was promised to be tax-free.
Well, how do you 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 give somebody $14,000.
You can't gift them $200,000.
Anyway, we can get back to that later.
Support was promised the two hundred thousand dollars to be tax-free and also included changing her identity and relocating her according to documents and interviews.
Now Bloom told the Hill that the woman asked for money as high as two million dollars in the conversations, an amount that Bloom said was a non-starter.
But the lawyer confirmed she tried to arrange donations to the woman in the low six figures.
Quote, she has to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security, and over time increased her request for financial compensation to two million dollars, which we told 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 of the out the lawyer to see how high the offer might reach and who might be behind the money.
She wanted to know where's this money coming from?
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 B 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 a 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 pulled, 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, 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?
You know, does it make a difference if you're offering bigger and bigger?
It starts at 10, then it's fifty, then it's two hundred thousand dollars, and now maybe more, and then maybe a new house and relocation or whatever the relocation protection means.
And it goes on after the woman was released from the hospital, all right, two days out of the election, November 6th, they agreed to meet at a hotel room, uh, 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 seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but she still declined to take the money.
The woman texted Bloom that day that she didn't mean to let her lawyer down.
You didn't let me down, Bloom 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, etc.
etc.
We invited her to meet with us at a hotel room, etc.
etc.
Bloom said the donor money was never intended to entice women to come forward against their will.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Now some photos asked for photo licensing 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 uh woman who decided not to go public, said they never gave uh they were never given any names of the donors, but Bloom told the woman who declined to come forward that she had reached out to political action committee supporting Clinton.
It was my understanding that there's some Clinton super PAC money that could help out if we did move forward.
The woman wrote Bloom on October 11, 2016.
If we help the Clinton campaign, they in turn could help or compensate us.
Bloom wrote back, uh, 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 ten grand.
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 f 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 it's a political agenda, obviously, to influence an election.
By the way, it's like the fix was in with Bernie Sanders.
The fix was in as it relates to Hillary Clinton and the email server investigation.
And what we're seeing here is a level of 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.
Quick break.
John Solomon's next.
John Solomon's next.
I'm not feeling it.
That's the problem.
And you all laughing at the all right.
We have John Solomon on his exclusive report.
Uh prominent attorney 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 uh any of the networks.
We'll do it on Hannity tonight.
Then we got Jay Ste Secular stopping by today and Sidney Powell and Tom Fitton.
We'll continue the job the media will never do.
That's telling you the truth.
next.
At Hour 2, Sean Hannity Show, Glendale with us, 800-941-SHAWN.
You want to be a part of the program now.
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 again 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 um it raises a lot of questions when people are being offered money to quote tell their stories and where that money comes from and is their politics involved, and at what point do we reach an ethical tipping point that this is you know just not the right way for people to tell stories because what is it doing in the case of of raising doubts in the minds of individuals uh or maybe credible people that want to make accusations
and tell their stories, what impact does this all have?
Uh 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 they certainly were being offered money, whether the money was specifically to make the allegation uh is you know for other people to make a decision of, but there is not any doubt that uh Lisa Bloom, the daughter of Gloria Alred, uh arranged for donors to do the following things.
Uh set up a GoFundMe site for one of the accusers, Jill Hart, who came public.
Pay off the mortgage of Jill Harth.
And I know a lot of people would love to have their mortgage paid off on your show, I'm sure.
Um, and then engage in a long-running conversation with a woman who was contemplating coming forward but wasn't sure.
She was still a supporter of Trump.
Uh, and they wanted her to come forward, and they began by offering her 10,000 to her church, then 50,000 for her personal pocket, then a hundred thousand for a personal pocket, two hundred thousand for a personal pocket.
And on the final few days before the election appeared, they they upped the ante to 750,000.
This is Lisa Bloom talking to the woman trying to get her to come out.
And uh, if you look at the text messages, there's just a lot of raw, uh, very uh uh uh never intended for public uh discussion that I can sell your story for ten to fifteen thousand dollars.
Uh I have donors lined up.
I've talked to the Clinton super PACs.
There's politics, there's finances, there's money.
Uh and then there's one other interesting thing.
Lisa Bloom instructs the woman who's thinking of coming forward to uh change her Facebook page and erase her post supporting Donald Trump because she feared that the woman's support of Donald Trump would make her accusation less uh believable.
And I think people will weigh all that and say, is that what attorneys do?
And uh and then what's in it for Lisa Bloom?
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 tabloid TV program.
So that's what the text messages show, and Lisa Bloom confirms.
There's not any uh Lisa Bloom confirms that she did these things.
So let me let me go through the process here.
Is it that she hears that these women may have some information and then goes discusses and and wasn't a woman's mortgage paid off as part of the deal?
Yep.
Right, yep, that was the first one for transaction.
So uh there's a woman named uh Jill Hart.
Uh she was an unwilling accuser at the beginning.
She didn't want to come out originally, but the uh 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, uh somebody uh suggested that uh Jill Harth reach out to Lisa Bloom and get her as a lawyer.
She comes on as a lawyer.
Uh what we know in that relationship is early on they sold some photos for some money, some Donald Trump uh Jill Harth photos.
Then Jill Harth is trying to get other people to come out to support her story.
She reaches out to a woman who's very pro-Trump, very uh supports the president, doesn't think he did anything wrong to her per se, but is willing to come forward with a story to a story of uh unsolicited advance.
And uh Jill Harth introduced Lisa Bloom to her.
Lisa Bloom sends her a contract with the with the uh uh uh terms of the 33% commission.
And then this woman uh uh starts to weigh, do I come forward, do I not come forward?
And that's when the offers of money start to be uh bantied back and about and forth, and it grows from 10,000 to 50 to 100.
Then out of the blue, uh Jill Harth uh has a go fund me page set up.
Now, when Jill Harsh started, there was no talk of money.
Now Jill Far Harth has a GoFundMe page, online fundraising page set up for her by the um uh 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 uh Jill Harth's mortgage.
And and that's not in dispute.
Everybody, including Jill Harth 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 seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, that would be like a almost you're almost paying somebody at the most sensitive moment in a career in a 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, uh 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, and 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 who are not paying right now, but I can sell your story for sure.
And uh and it gives you a lot of people.
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.
Uh 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 um uh ultimately for the $750,000 offer, which by the way was never paid because the woman didn't go forward, uh, but or who paid for the um uh for the donation that paid off the mortgage.
So she's not talking about those two things.
Uh we talked to one of the super PACs, you say it wasn't us, but there are a lot of them, and of course they could have gone and just talked to individual donors.
I think the most important thing you you see in these text messages, the election is chronically cited as a uh deadline.
We've got to get this done before the election.
There's 21 days after the election, 27 days after the election, there's only a little bit more time.
And one of the women, the women, one of the women, the woman who did not ultimately decide to come forward, uh, gets mad at one point saying, Why does it have to be a deadline?
Is this just about hurting Trump for the election, or is this about me uh and my 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.
Uh one woman who um uh didn't come forward, she was gonna come forward to have a press conference and led she was sexually uh assaulted uh when she was thirteen years old.
When she doesn't do that, Lisa Bloom writes to another woman, she wasted my time.
What what does that mean?
Waste it my time if you're trying to help the woman.
Another woman uh who decided not to come forward, the text message says, uh 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 and I think a lot of people will look at this and and ask, you know, who's the client here, and and what do these text messages say about the nature of the representation?
And uh uh, you know, is it is it appropriate to have be having political money discussions?
Right.
So I read the election with accusers.
I read your piece and it's obvious, all right.
Um she's she is a pretty radical left person, hates Donald Trump.
She it's very clear in the text messages here, but th this this is very key to the entire story here.
There is a political motivation to get stories out, especially in in the critical days leading up to an election for the very purpose of derailing Donald Trump's campaign.
And then there's money associated with it all.
I think that that one particular individual that said, Why is why is this really about getting Trump or is it about me?
Yeah.
I think speaks volumes here.
Um I don't have a problem that Lisa Bloom and her mother are you know, prefer Hillary Clinton.
I don't have a problem with their politics.
Uh over the years I've had many debates with Gloria Allred.
I do have a problem with, you know, is there any evidence that they want to check the stories, check the veracity, do the research, get the background of these stories, or is it just as long as they say it, it's okay.
And what what do you need to get this done?
What do we need to get this to come out?
I mean, I d I d 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 uh 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.
Uh but that's very different than actually vetting the story for the purpose of uh the uh the Bloom uh there are text messages in email showing that Bloom was looking to get corroborating witnesses to come forward to corroborate these women's stories.
Did you tell people contemporaneously?
In fact, one of the women uh who who uh did decided not to come forward did provide some corroborating witnesses.
They were contemplating paying one of the corroborating witnesses money too.
Uh money was gonna change hand if that second corroborating witness would come forward.
So uh there was an effort of due diligence.
There was the women claim they weren't being forced to make up a story, but the there is not uh there's very little doubt from the text messages that there was this pressure.
There was a 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 uh making the donations since the discussion is about donors and and the Clinton superpacks.
And I think those are the issues that trouble people, the people I've talked to, lawyers who know about ethics and lawyers who know about election law.
Was this an election operation or was this really a sincere effort to help the women?
And I think people will look at the evidence and come up to their own conclusions.
Yeah, well, and and that's how you write pieces.
I mean, that's why you were with the AP for twenty years, and and this is the type of you know, real reporting I think that needs to be done.
I will take a quick break.
John Solomon's big blockbuster piece in the hill.
We'll get back to uh more of the details.
We'll get reaction too from DC.
Uh McAllister's gonna join us on the program.
And then in the next hour we got Jay Sekulo, Sidney Powell, and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch as we continue.
As we continue, John Solomon is brand new piece out today.
Prominent lawyers seeking cash, donor cash to make uh for women that are gonna make accusations against Donald Trump, an unbelievable story.
When you look at it on its surface, it's like, all right, let's try and take this guy down any way we can, and if you need money, that's gonna incentivize you to tell your story.
Uh here.
How much do you need?
She's even asking people, what do you need?
And then 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, four three or four days before the election.
Because everybody that follows elections knows that if somebody comes out and makes an allegation against the president or a candidate four days before the election, there's not a lot of time, if at all, to recover from that.
That's right.
That's right.
And you know, there's a there's a great anecdote in there, Sean, that shows the level of pressure.
The woman that was going back and forth ultimately did not go forward with her story, uh, ends up in the hospital three, four days before the um uh election, and Lisa Bloom is frantically trying to get her to return her call.
She's uh 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 on the East Coast to try to meet this woman as soon as she gets out of the hospital.
And um, and she's uh when the woman finally contacts her, she gets released from the hospital and she says, Listen, I've just decided I'm not gonna 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.
Now I don't know a lawyer trying to help a woman to make a very important legal decision, whether it's a waste of time just because she chose not to.
Then she then she says to the other woman, you can't keep your word even when you swear to.
And she scolds her and she and she says, Um, I'm trying to remember the exact uh very uh 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 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 you know jumped out to the people I've talked to, the lawyer.
That story was unbelievable.
I mean, you know, the woman's in the hospital, and and somebody saying, uh, 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 uh flew there and and got frustrated even more.
Yep, and there's even a moment where the friend, you know, sends a picture of the woman just with her ID 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 like she didn't believe the woman was in the hospital.
The very unusual exchange, and it shows an awful lot of pressure built around the the approaching uh election.
Uh you know, people will make up their own mind.
My job was not to make any conclusions but to put all these facts out there to verify them.
We we validated and verified every text message, and uh we went through all the acknowledged them.
I mean, so there's no issues there.
She did.
Um then she acknowledges, she said, I did try to get six figures and donations for this woman.
What did you think of the the excuse and the statement that she put out there uh about about her role in this?
I mean, because I I know for a fact numerous times I can I'll I'll find the tape and play it on TV tonight.
Didn't she say uh I'm 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 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?
Those are yeah, there could be some campaign laws.
This I mean, someone 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 and 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 Seculow, 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 uh my audience here on that 33 percent?
The uh there's a there's a great message about the 33 percent, 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 get you know getting you in front of media.
And it says uh the contract uh for uh the woman who didn't come forward but signed the contract it says uh you you're gonna pay me 33 percent and the first time she uh the woman who doesn't come forward but the first time she's engaged by Bloom Bloom says something to her defense I can get you on these tabloid TVs and I think I can get you ten to fifteen thousand dollars minus my one third commission.
She may she makes it really clear I'm getting my cut if I do this uh you'll see those in the text messages and there's not very you know there's no doubt there was a financial component to this there's no doubt that there's a political component to this that doesn't mean that the women uh uh 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 that uh new CUSA comes out it's black and white and what these tech show is that there's a very complex picture involved here.
There are people hovering around them that might have a political or financial interest.
These women have a lot of of concerns such as safety for themselves or do I want my children to know about my past and those sort of things and the the these uh sexual harassment sexual assault stories are much more complicated than the way they're often boiled down in the news media I think these text mixes really give us a very clear picture of that.
I I I absolutely read this article and I am stunned.
And I don't get stunned very often I I am shocked.
Well, I know how it looks.
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've got to wonder what it's going to do to people that are real victims of some type of harassment if they're if they're being incentivized with cash or political motivations involved in this and kind of being worked over a little bit.
by by people that have different agendas it's it's a little chilling and a little frightening to think this is going on behind the scenes that could have major impacts on how people feel about candidates.
So it's a really great question.
And I think you said something really really profound that I 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 limelight very very serious issues related to family health, uh safety, unrelated to anything involving the election or the president or anything else.
And it it's a really uh uh it raises a great question when someone tries to use money to try to overcome those concerns can I can I take enough money is there enough money I can give you that your safety or your your family concerns or your medical concerns could be erased and I think that's an interesting ethical question that people will look at these I don't think it's I don't think I'd call a pay to play I would I I how what would I call it?
I'd call it uh play to get paid.
Yeah or if you play you might get paid.
I think that's I mean I think that's the I think that that's the inference of these things.
And again pay to play has such a negative connotation because it's politics but there's definitely a 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 to 15,000 minus my one third.
That's a real text message.
And and uh if you come forward you're gonna get 7500.
The woman told me the story of the final meeting she had two days before the election Sunday before the election she shows up at the hotel Lisa Bloom and her husband are there.
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 and then they agree at least to meet one more time and because Lisa's floating all the way across the country uh to meet her.
And she goes to the hotel and she tells this anecdote this is how they structured the 750.
Because we've had a hard time getting you to say yes or no we'll give you three fifty right now and then if you record your statement you'll get the next three fifty after you record that statement.
A very business like transaction that seems to like have a carrot and stick uh intent to it which is all right you'll get half your money now sit down to your interview we put your interview exploited out there and then you'll get your other half.
And that's how she described the meeting to us and uh and she said it was kind of it's it was kind of disconcerting to me and it was it felt uncomfortable.
And I got another follow-up question to that.
I mean this is two days before presidential election.
If in fact this woman took the money the American people wouldn't know she got paid.
$3500, $7000 is a real serious number.
That is a lot of money and and it certainly opens the door for people that are unethical to make false charges just to get paid number one.
That's right.
And And similarly, I I it's just mind numbing the the the degree to which people will go to destroy a a c a candidate in the presidential race.
It takes my breath away.
You know, you add to that the salacious dossier, John.
You add to that you know uh leaking intelligence to her people or maybe the a phony dossier used for a Pfizer warrant.
You know, with this this is this isn't politics at a level that we've ever seen before.
Well there's a really you you mentioned something about disclosure and just think about this and I I've talked to Joe Hart and she's a very nice lady and she was very kind to go over the facts of the story with me and try to get the story right and I'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 you know was trying to be friendly to Trump in the early eight eight days of the cut campaign then her name gets forced out there from the old lawsuit.
But uh she's been out there for a year names 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 and if if you only watch the press uh uh TV stories is it now an obligation of the media if somebody does come out and make an allegation that one of the first questions needs to be are you being were you paid at all to tell this story?
Well I will tell you I've been in this circumstance before and and uh I wrote an entire book and and I I've been credited with helping another woman who was sexually uh uh I think strong evidence was sexually assaulted by Dominic Straskan one of the most powerful men in the world back in 2011 hotel housekeeper and when I did the interview the very first one of the very first questions I did when I sat across I have to ask you this don't take offense from it but as a uh 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 they're of the money involved.
That's always been the case.
And that's why you know good newsrooms don't have a policy they never pay for a story because it taints the story.
That's right.
We I think that's exactly right and I think that this story does raise that question have we reached the point in journalism where even in the very set 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 money Well I can tell you this when I interviewed Paula Jones and I interviewed Dolly Kyle Browning and when I interviewed Kathleen Willie and when I interviewed Juanita Broderick back in the day I and I have never paid for an interview of anybody ever.
No, you know and if and by the way if I did I think the media headline would be Hannity paid for that lie or whatever.
You know and that's the media would I they would jump down my throat so hard I don't know if I'd survive it for crying out loud.
I really don't know there's no doubt here that they can't contemplate it.
The only media payments I can find among these two women is that Jill Harth does acknowledge that a small number of photos that I think of her and Donald Trump that were sold off to some media outlets.
They made some money on that 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 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 when you see the beginning overtures to the second woman, Lisa um Bloom is very clear.
I think I can sell your story.
I mean, I think 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 to 15 K 100,000 is not enough money.
It when they looked back at it a year later there was this sense of transactional nature to it that made them you know that was they I think they one of them used the word it's very jarring to go back and look at these right now.
All right John I gotta tell you I I this story has just thrown me and I'm looking at some response we're getting for a loop.
I thank you for that we're gonna go full bore on this tonight on Hannity uh nine Eastern on the Fox News channel it uh this takes my breath away very very scary uh what we're reading here and uh I think you did a good service to expose that this has been going on and the politics behind it and the everything else.
Thank you.
I think it's now DC McAllister and she writes for the Federalist and uh DC, I know you've been listening to John, I want to hear uh your response to that.
Well this is why people don't believe these victims when they come forward at the last minute in election because they're suspects.
It's all politics.
And I mean we're not 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 and which is why they put Trump in the White House.
Well I'm just trying to understand just days before an election you're gonna offer somebody seven hundred and fifty grand 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 uh political interference and paying people off to say stories whether you know and then 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 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 any anyone else on the Republican side.
But this is the kind of thing that really does attack our 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 um in 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 politic 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.
I what what how will this change this Me Too movement now?
What what's gonna 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 you know so we're having these broad brush accusations of sexual assault against men in the office.
And I mean already men are getting angry and pushing back against us.
I've written a couple of pieces already about criticizing this kind of thing and not 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 at all.
It's a power play and people are just doing it for their own agendas.
I'm not I'm not saying that there aren't real cases out there.
But the problem is is that when you start having all these fake cases, the real cases are not going to be believed in the future.
And so women are the ones who are going to be actually really hurt in the end by all of that.
Yeah well I I mean I certainly credibility and now if there's somebody that is a an honest victim and the first question in the media's now got to be did you get paid?
Did I did you talk to anybody with political associations?
Are you doing this for political reasons?
You know that's why you know I always am suspicious about an October surprise.
I'm always suspicious.
You know I I 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 are saying well that's just in the court.
But no it's in the public that giving people the benefit of the doubt is the way we have a civil society.
And and again if we're gonna have this kind of thing happening and we think that we have to believe every woman that we know that they were being paid say these things I I mean this is really going to undermine women who aren't really the victims.
And you 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.
So we're not because we're not gonna know the truth about it.
It's all about power.
It's all about you know advancing some kind of political game and it's not about women at all.
And they're gonna become the real victims of this and our country.
I I think in many ways what I'm reading here, this is victimhood.
I mean, uh, I think there's an expectation that you you said you do this.
What do you mean?
You're wasting my time.
What is this all about?
And uh, you know, it didn't seem exactly uh compassionate many instances.
Um and then I don't I'm seeing you.
Well, yeah, I mean, that's they they they definitely there's a political agenda, and they want these women to talk because it advances that agenda.
I don't see them working so hard against the people that they disagree with politically.
You know, 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.
Uh now we're gonna get back into uh our judicial watch uh investigation.
Also, Sidney Powell is gonna join us.
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.
They're 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 in a ultimately uh conclusive way.
That was the thing that capped 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.
Um 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 an open setting is that at one point the Attorney General had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.
But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly.
Hillary's team was extremely careless.
Oh, let's get rid of the words that really matter, and that means gross negligent, the legal standard.
Uh then you have Comey, it's possible ha hostile actors uh 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 the 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 in the tarmac meeting.
All right, here to break it all down, this memo of the FBI director, literally written on May the second, and Hillary wasn't even interviewed till the fourth of July weekend.
We have the president, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Seculah, also counsel to the president.
Uh, what's going on, sir?
How are you?
Well, Sean, I'm doing okay, but I I I think the State of the Republic I'm concerned about with this um situation within the FBI.
I mean, this is very serious.
Now we've got these edits, and as we did an analysis of those edits today, I mean it's it's kind of breathtaking in scope of from what James Comey wrote to what uh Peter Strzok and uh maybe Andrew McCabe or whoever else was working on this allowed to go forward.
I mean it it it's you you can go line by line and it is uh pretty outrageous.
You mentioned the gross negligence, which is the key words, by the way, for uh 18 USC 793 F, and that is the disposition of you know basically classified information.
This would have gone to the server issue.
And there is as originally drafted, he said there is evidence to support the conclusion that Secretary Clinton and others use the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.
And the statute itself uh phrase is through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.
So he changed he writes 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 he they were specific in taking that language out.
So that's that's uh point number one here.
And and that is the starting point to show you that this declination, which was I mean, this was you know, you and I both lived in Atlanta, and I uh I'm a member of the Georgia Bar and uh went to law school in in Georgia, and of course, you know, I practice primarily in Washington DC these days, but I'm still an active member of the Georgia Bar.
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 the was the the 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.
So that's the way the goal is that is just point one.
Isn't that illegal?
Well, look, uh there's multiple parts of this that are 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 uh FBI director and attorney general, and they just let that go.
Uh 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, uh 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 the server in the Colorado Townhouse restroom.
Uh and then you had the one that was in their basement.
They completely that was in so James 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 you completely taken out.
A top Republican senator now, we now know Ron Johnson is raising a pretty profound question about the FBI's role and possible interference in the twenty sixteen 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 the 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 a big deal.
And other changes were made as as well in this particular thing.
You know, we're 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 thirty-three thousand emails that had been subpoenaed.
We do know that she used acid wash, bleach bit to remove the evidence or any chance that the FBI forensically could recover it.
We do know that devices that had the same information would smash with hammers.
Now, Jay, look, I don't you don't have to be a lawyer like yourself that has argued multiple times, 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 under the authority of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
How about the fact that this document was written May 5th, and there have 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 what should happen to James uh Comey and Peter Strzok struck, of course, the pro Hillary anti Trump guy who's involved seemingly in every every case we discuss, but he's the one that that changed the language in this, edited this, and was part of the exoneration in early May before Hillary was even interviewed in July.
Here's here's the situation.
I mean, the 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 that's number one.
Number two, Peter Strzok.
He was the I mean, think about who he is 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 and Jerry's out there saying, hey, everybody has entitled to the First Amendment free speech rights.
That is true.
What is not true is you cannot be the investigator of the case when you have express express this kind of information.
Because now you're not just a person.
I mean, it's like a lawyer.
What is your insurance?
How did you interpret my clients I don't agree with?
I mean, that's what lawyers do.
But you 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, he he his reach into all of this is unbelievable, except he's still an employee of the Department or the FBI.
And that's this question.
Andrew, they had this conversation, one of the emails talks about that between him and Lisa Page about our conversation in Andy's office.
I'm assuming, and it's assumption that this is Andrew McCabe.
This is the insurance policy.
Well, no, they they refer to it, then classify it as uh uh 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.
That 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 it's awfully coincidental that that's the beginning of the quote Russia probe.
Well, I think look, I I think all of those questions you ask are and you're right.
Here's the thing that uh and this is what Senator Johnson wants to get to.
I and I do too.
What is the time frame of all of this?
In other words, where were they in the investigation as these changes were being made?
You cross you asked yourself, why were they writing a resoneration letters three months before they interviewed any of the principles?
But that's you 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 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, I they say Jeff Sessions is looking at whether there needs to be a special counsel here.
We ha 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 uh 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 is 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.
I know we're not even talking about surveillance, unmasking, leaking intelligence.
We're not even talking about it.
Well, let's talk about unmasking.
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.
Flynn 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 be a Pfizer judge?
I have no idea.
I mean, I'm not speaking of 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 it would 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 was the reason that the Pfizer warrant was granted.
All right, quick break.
We'll come back.
Uh Jay Seculo is with us.
More of the Sean Hannity show straight ahead.
All right, as we continue, Jay Sekulo 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, uh, why we don't view the Hillary Bought and paid for phony dossier as collusion of some kind because Russian propaganda was paid for, a 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 seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars to accuse Trump.
Is any of this shocking to you?
No.
Okay, right.
So here's the thing.
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 yeah.
So, but so I want to go to something you just said about a minute and a half ago.
People need to understand.
If that dossier was the basis of a Pfizer warrant that resulted in the unmasking of Americans, and we know that that first time they went in for the Pfizer 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 uh, we have so much more to get to.
800 941 Shauna's or Topri telephone number.
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, uh, and you know, but when I when everybody, not me, when everybody, the level of anger as what they've been witnessing with respect to the FBI is certainly very sad.
About Michael, about Michael Flynn, would you consider a pardon for Michael Flynn?
I don't want to talk about pardons from Michael Flynn yet.
We'll see what happens.
Let's see.
I can say this.
When you look at what's gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry.
When you look at the Hillary Clinton investigation, it was uh, 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 the election, the whole process was rigged against Bernie Sanders.
Isn't that speaking volumes?
You know, and then we find out the fix was in and it was rigged, and she was never even going to get a full, complete, accurate real investigation into the email server scandal and all of the different incidences that we know crimes were committed.
And we know in this now this early May early May exoneration of Hillary before she's even interviewed, uh, or other 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.
They were they weren't, 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 marked classified.
Uh 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 dust uh 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 changed 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 all in an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton.
Unbelievable.
Anyway, joining us now to discuss this and much more.
We have Sidney Powell, federal uh appellate attorney, former federal prosecutor, author of the book License to Lie, uh exposing corruption in the Department of Justice, Tom Fenton is with us, and he is the president of Judicial Watch.
Uh 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 for 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, um, 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 of Tom Fitton, a judicial watch, they obtained documents that actually showed that Clinton and Uma Abedin 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 uh 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, uh, and that, you know, average American citizens, they weren't so high up on the list of visitors when it came to the Clintons.
Oh, it's even worse than that.
The found the documents show uh Abidin's emails show that she was the go-between between the for the foundation and uh who was demanding favors uh 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.
There's a federal record.
Yeah.
So what 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 to 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 classifier information that goes walking out the door.
She's allowed to take care of schedules.
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 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 they were f 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 these 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 uh any of these people.
You know, I gotta 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 UN ambassador, Samantha Power, and you know, unmasking Americans at a rate of nearly one a day.
Why would uh what uh why would a UN ambassador ever need to do that?
Or of Susan Rice's role in any of this, and and what was Ben Rhodes's uh role in any of this?
I mean, you know, if you if you look at all of this and you put it all together, you know, and everything involving Peter 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 Struck uh 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 uh, 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 uh 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 the y from 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 a tw the articles in the tweet I just tweeted at you at Sydney Powell won, because I've documented all of it, uh much of it long before any of this came up.
And I think Obama and Hillary made an unholy alliance back when she was running for president against him in the primary, and then he decided to make her Secretary of State.
She graced up the city.
Listen, in that 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 were 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 you know him covering for her for the rest of her career.
All right, you're a federal uh uh federal appellate attorney or a former federal prosecutor.
Uh let's say that you see that the FBI director is working in conjunction with some subordinates at the FBI, and that they're writing an exoneration letter for a particular subject of investigation before they do the investigation.
Uh would that be called obstruction of justice in your mind?
Uh it certainly would.
And why any of these people are still working for the government is beyond my comprehension.
I mean, Mr. Stroke 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.
So it's so true.
It's so true.
And you get the leadership of the FBI and Justice Department, Rosenstein and Ray, saying, Well, we're 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 Alicia Page and Peter Stroke, two three top FBI officials, were talking about upending a presidential election, they should be hauled out of the offices and fig until they figure out what went on.
They shouldn't be anywhere near FBI headquarters.
You know, we've worked with whistleblowers.
You all work with with the whistleblowers.
You know what happens when the government thinks that you did something wrong.
But why is it that these guys are being protected?
It's it's it's it's not appropriate to put it charitably.
Let me go back to the judicial watch case.
Because you were able to uh uh discover and uncover Clinton's calls and schedules were were literally hidden from view.
That does violate the records act.
Uh they were blocked from being seen by the public.
Uh, and we also, and also she was allowed to remove physically remove documents uh and files that she had.
Now, when you consider an article from the Associated Press from last August of 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 pledge 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 dollars, and at least 40 donated more than 100,000 each, and 20 gave more than a million dollars each.
So maybe is that part of the records that Uma and Hillary removed from the State Department, you know, and uh you know part of 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 Shauna's 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 in the days, especially close to the election.
Uh, watch the mainstream media try to ignore this story.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
Now I'm Carol Markovich.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally it's 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 iHeart Radio 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 Della, verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection