A bombshell report released this week by The Hill casts doubts on the women who accused then presidential-candidate Trump of sexual harassment. The women, who publicly claimed mistreatment just weeks before the election were pressured to do so by attorney Lisa Bloom and were offered large amounts of money if they did so.
In one case, a woman was offered a whopping $750,000 if she would allege misconduct by the candidate to news outlets. She repeatedly declined, at one point telling Bloom she was incredibly sick in the hospital, unable to see visitors. Bloom flew out to her days before the election in an attempt to sway her. Another woman had her mortgage paid off in exchange for coming forward. In a third situation, the alleged victim was promised that her children’s college tuition would be pre-paid.
While Lisa Bloom claimed to represent these alleged victim’s pro-bono, she made sure that she received compensation. The contracts of those she represented stipulated that she would receive 33% of any proceeds as a result of coming forward. She would ensure her cut by matching up alleged victims with Democratic donors or tabloid news outlets, selling stories and photos.
The Hill uncovered one particularly bizarre situation that revolved around alleged victim Jill Harth. Harth first filed a sexual assault lawsuit against Trump in 1997 and quickly rescinded it. After the lawsuit was discovered by the media during the campaign, Bloom found Harth and agreed to represent her. Bloom’s husband set up a GoFundMe site for Harth, writing, “Jill put herself out there, facing off with Donald Trump. Let’s show her some love.”
But as it turns out, Harth had been pledging her support to candidate Trump throughout the election. She emailed then-presidential candidate Trump’s Assistant Rhonda Graff, begging to be hired as Trump’s makeup artist. She asked Trump to act as a spokesman for her men’s beauty product line. In another email, she asked for pre-event access to a Trump rally, and in yet another wrote of how Trump helped her with self-confidence.
She wasn’t the only accuser with pro-Trump sentiments. In another case, Bloom texted a woman to take down all her pro-Trump Facebook posts. After the woman expressed concern that Bloom wanted her to allege assault for Bloom’s own personal gain, she was offered a $10,000 donation to her church. Bloom texted her, instructing, “…please keep the donation offer confidential except to your pastor.” These are only a few examples of Bloom’s predatory tactics – The Hill’s reporting illustrates a pattern of badgering, through texts and personal visits.
“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. It 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.” – Bloom to a potential accuser.
These revelations not only demonstrate the opportunistic nature of Trump’s accusers, but cast aspersions on the claims of alleged victims in similar high-stakes situations. Lisa Bloom may have violated campaign finance laws by arranging payouts from political donors. The actions by these accusers and Bloom are a grave injustice to those that actually have been mistreated or assaulted.