What began with a legitimate, long-overdue outing of a deviant Hollywood producer was thought to eventually lead to a hailstorm of further allegations in circles that insiders and outsiders know is plagued by cultures reflective of, if not more depraved than, the M.O. of Harvey Weinstein. There were a few follow-up stories and culprits fingered, but countless big fish remain in the waters – high paid executives, politicians, and business titans to name just a few of their realms.
What many thought was an opening of floodgates has thus far proven to be a mere drizzle, partial disclosures that overshadows far more rampant issues. Instead of a massive outing of the worldwide network of those in power who routinely sexually harass, rape, and even worse, the #MeToo movement was hijacked in typical ditzy fashion. It’s a hashtag movement, what more did we justifiably expect?
In retrospect, it’s not crazy to think that the timing of the Weinstein, Spacey, and especially the Al Franken controversy may have had a common end goal, at least by the Democrats who feigned outrage despite knowing of these men’s deviant behavior for, in many cases, decades without a peep of condemnation uttered. The short game: include Roy Moore into the epicenter of the #MeToo frenzy and turn the tide against him to get that Alabama Senate seat, even if that meant ‘partially’ forging his signature. (By the way, why not just admit she forged it completely? The side-by-side comparisons are laughably inaccurate, and what, did Roy Moore just decide to sign half way? She forged it, period.)
Moore still alleges voter fraud accounted for his loss. He maintains he had consent from the parents of those he dated, however creepy you may find him. Alabamans, by most accounts, didn’t believe the accusations from the outset. Nevertheless, Doug Jones has been crowned as the winner of the Alabama Senate seat election. #MeToo mission accomplished. But #MeToo is selective in its wrath.
When Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct, his accusers were far more forgiving. Gloria Allred was not standing by their side, calling for his resignation. Even when he did finally follow up on his word to resign, Democrats continued to pine for Franken to stay. After all, he was just the ace in the back pocket should Moore have won. They could say ‘Franken did the honorable thing, so Moore should resign, too.’ But Moore never won, so now they show their true colors in pleading for Franken – the accused sexual harasser – to remain. How is such hypocrisy even possible in even a semi-functional human mind?
What could be predicted for certain amidst this flurry of daily, ceaseless accusations of assaults, gropings, harassment, and flirtatious gazing at unwanting parties, was that Donald Trump would eventually be brought into the fray. That, to the linearly thinking individual, was an inevitability. And, those who understand that too much time has passed, too many smear campaigns have already been levied for such accusations to be credible, it would take some prodding – and most definitely some money – to find the right person, or people, for this sexual assault smear job.
According to numerous stories released in the past week or so, the gig of being a false accuser of Donald Trump paid handsomely, even if they failed to produce the desired results or never materialized beyond the offer stage. Sexual harassment has become the new racism, a charge that allows for no fair trial in the court of public opinion. It really has become this simple to the majority of Americans: accused? Guilty.
‘Star’ lawyer Gloria Allred has been aware of this for seemingly her entire career, and as a shill of the Democratic party she has long done best to round up accusers willing to exchange a hefty payday for whatever integrity they may have had. Apparently, her daughter Lisa Bloom got into the family business, and was put in charge of targeting Donald Trump before the 2016 election. There’s no word on whether Bloom tried former Clinton operative James Carville’s strategy to find her willing parties – "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." – but try she did.
‘California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s 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 Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.’
One text exchange connected Clinton political action committees to the efforts to finance these manufactured allegations, though the Hill article didn’t confirm whether the ’16 allegations were ever tied directly to Clinton. Eventually, they were tied to a close associate. But let’s be real here. You know who’s behind this.
Here’s a kicker that shows just how much Bloom values her integrity as a ‘women’s rights attorney’. She was the one who took on the task of defending Harvey Weinstein when the tidal wave of allegations broke against him this year. What a gal, doing wonders for the face of feminism, eh Lisa?
One of the accusers, Jill Harth, originally brought allegations against Trump in 1997, only to withdraw them. She again had a change of heart in 2016, retaining Bloom and deciding once again that she was sexually violated in some way by the presidential candidate. Naturally, there was a cash exchange involved.
‘Bloom arranged a small payment from the licensing of some photos to the news media, and then set up a GoFundMe.com account to raise money for Harth in October 2016. The effort raised a little over $2,300.’ (The Hill)
Bloom maintains that this is all for the ‘protection’ and ‘security’ of her clients. Sure, Lisa. Sure it is. That wasn’t the end of the payments to Harth. I guess Bloom meant ‘financial security’ when she mentioned words like protection.
‘Bloom then arranged for a donor to make a larger contribution to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City. The amount was under $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016.’
Damn, it pays good to be an accuse-a.
But Bloom wasn’t done. More accusations had to be made, and by a certain date. They had to bury this Trump guy before the election, no later. One woman ultimately chose not to go public with allegations that had been prompted by goading from Harth, which were then relayed to Bloom. Their text exchanges tell the true story of who Lisa Bloom is. Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer is no women’s rights activist. She’s a professional hit-jobber.
‘Documents also show Bloom’s efforts to get alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment to come out against Trump intensified as Election Day 2016 approached.
And when a potential client abruptly backed out of a pre-election news conference in which she was supposed to allege she was sexually assaulted at age 13, Bloom turned her attention to another woman.’
On to the next one, huh Lisa?
‘“Give us a clear sense of what you need and we will see if it we can get it,” Bloom texted the woman a week before Election Day.
“I’m scared Lisa. I can’t relocate. I don’t like taking other people’s money,” the woman wrote to Bloom.
“Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded. “We are just about out of time anyway.”’
If this isn’t bribery – done in true legally protected fashion – then bribery doesn’t exist. But the accuser had a valid question. Why would Bloom be so flippant, so willing, to call off the allegations just because the timing may not be right, or the woman hadn’t yet been convinced? What ‘women’s rights activist’ would stop caring about a potential case of sexual misconduct due to some arbitrary deadline?
‘The woman then texted back demanding to know why there was a deadline. “What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump??? You want my story to bury trump for what? Personal gain? See that's why I have trust issues!!”’
Well, lady, you also have naiveté issues. The outrage at Bloom’s obvious, transparent motives makes it appear that she may have had some credible grievances against Trump. But, there was a timeline, and Bloom had to adhere to it. She’s not about justice. Don’t be silly. There was an election coming up, and allegations had to be levied, stat.
But in reality, it was Bloom who had approached this waffling potential client, cash in hand. The woman wasn’t eager to accuse Trump of anything, only considering doing so to ‘support’ Harth, her friend. The woman was, in reality, a Trump voter. He had made unwanted advances toward her in the late 90s, but when she made it clear she was not interested, he had stopped. But all Bloom needed to hear was ‘unwanted advances’ to start drooling and doling out the ‘donations’.
‘The woman said Bloom initially offered a $10,000 donation to the woman’s favorite church, an account backed up by text messages the two exchanged.’
Not enough to sway her, Bloom upped the ante.
‘By early November, the woman said, Bloom’s offers of money from donors had grown to $50,000 to be paid personally to her, and then even higher.
The woman responded that she wasn’t impressed with the new offer of $100,000 given that she had a young daughter. “Hey after thinking about all this, I need more than $100,000.00. College money would be nice” for her daughter. “Plus relocation fees, as we discussed.”
The figured jumped to $200,000 in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman. The support was promised to be tax-free and also included changing her identity and relocating, according to documents and interviews.’
When are any of these high-profile Trump or other GOP accusers going to come out merely to protect other women? That’s when we’ll begin to believe. Bloom has even admitted that she offered 6-figure ‘donations’ to the woman, but maintains her line about ‘security’ and ‘protection’. He’s not Hillary, Lisa. He doesn’t dole out retribution in any way that would require security, especially when you reportedly would have needed a $2 million check in order to compel this particular accuser to come forward, which she never did. People don’t see that as a credible accuser, believe it or not.
Ironically, it appears that Bloom was the one being played the entire time, by a beauty contestant no less. And they say that those beautiful ladies who model bikinis for trophies and sashes aren’t the brightest bulbs…
‘The woman said that when she initially talked to Bloom she simply wanted to support Harth and had no interest in being portrayed as an accuser or receiving money. But when Bloom’s mention of potential compensation became more frequent, the woman said she tried to draw out the lawyer to see how high the offer might reach and who might be behind the money.’
When the woman ended up in the hospital days before the election, a friend describes how Bloom harassed her, texting a friend frantically, insisting that she talk to the would-be accuser despite being repeatedly rebuffed, even using the woman’s daughter as enticement. She finally refused, apparently for good.
But that would not be the last meeting between Bloom and the client. You see, Lisa Allred Bloom is relentless.
‘After the woman was released from the hospital, she agreed to meet Bloom at a hotel on Nov. 6, just two days before Trump unexpectedly defeated Clinton.
The woman told The Hill in an interview that at the hotel encounter, Bloom increased the offer of donations to $750,000 but still she declined to take the money.’
But who was behind all this money? The second would-be accuser, who ultimately changed her mind, said she thought a Clinton Super PAC could be behind it, and text messages confirmed that Bloom asked that they “make a call” to see if they could get financial assistance from the Clintons to goad accusers into the spotlight. Do you really think they said ‘thanks, but no thanks’?
Now, we know for a fact that they didn’t say no thanks.
A New York Times report has tied two close Clinton associates to the funding of money toward Lisa Bloom’s proposed ‘donations’. Man, the word ‘donation’ sure has changed its meaning over the years, huh? Whatever happened to the Salvation Army?
David Brock is described as a DNC Operative, but he is also the founder of Media Matters, a website granted not-for-profit status and is primarily dedicated to painting Fox News in the worst light possible, while also pushing stories that reflect the endless slew of excuses Hillary Clinton has given for her election face plant.
But Brock’s ties to the failed pre-election accusations are just the tip of the iceberg. He, along with Allred, continue to round up money and willing parties who would accept cash to accuse Trump of doing something, anything, sexually inappropriate to them.
‘Gloria Allred, a high-profile women’s rights lawyer and Democratic donor, is raising money to fund a lawsuit against Mr. Trump by a woman who says he sexually assaulted her. The woman, Summer Zervos, has filed a defamation suit against the president that could force Mr. Trump to respond to sexual misconduct accusations made in the closing weeks of the campaign by a raft of women.
And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians.’ (NYT)
Brock’s not just gunning for the president, as he did with his $200,000 donation prior to November 2016. He’s aiming for Republican politicians in general.
Brock received assistance from one deep-pocketed fashion entrepreneur as well.
‘fashion entrepreneur Susie Tompkins Buell, a major donor to Mr. Brock’s suite of groups, gave $500,000 to Ms. Bloom’s firm for the last-ditch effort.’
And with this revelation, hit-jobbers like this have unleashed a shotgun blast on real victims of sexual assault. #MeToo will, to those who have read these stories, become #YeahRight. It’s unfortunate, but this is what hit-piece politics leads to, and it’s led by the Democrats, there’s no way around it. While real cases have been brushed under the rug in vicious manner by Hillary in the past – accusations that are very much credible – and she continued to befriend the likes of Harvey Weinstein, we now know that Democratic operatives have been making plans to accuse the innocent of sex crimes, all to get their party back in the political majority.
I have little doubt that the cesspool of Washington, D.C. sexual misconduct crosses party lines. But Allred and Brock aren’t talking about holding the guilty accountable here, they’re talking about smearing the innocent, and doing so through the means of substantial cash incentives. And it will lure many a willing accuser. But now, the court of public opinion has to do as the courts do, instead of what so many have done over the past few months since Harvey Weinstein was seemingly credibly accused of being a rapist. We have to assume smeared until proven guilty, not the other way around.