Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NO it is not it ONLY happens if they are sued and it gives ZERO dollars to the person for personal wealth or material gain.paying legal fees is not compensation dumb ass it ony pays if sued and then only pays lawyer and court costs. No money is given to the accuser for personal use like paying the mortgage or 750k to do as you wish with.....
Would they have made the claim without the promise of compensation? Doubtful. Your atr trying to grab the nonexistent higher ground in the scum.It amounts to the same thing in the end. You are paying someone to make a claim. Would they have made the claim if they had not been paid? This splitting of hairs is nothing more than partisan hypocrisy.
Again difference between paying someone to make a claim and offering to pay legal fees after they've made one.
Paying a person's legal fees is NOT compensation?
SO you think it OK to pay someone to lie for your cause and destroy another persons life... Fucking pathetic.....legal fee's? you mean like buying off one woman's house or offering cash payments of 750,000.00 just to publicly claim something? BIG DIFFERENCE! So now bribing people is 'pay legal fee's"? is that what your insinuating?Your not very well versed on Fruit of the poisons tree (or vine). IF any branch or root is infected the tree as whole will be thrown out.Kills any court case for any of them that excepted the greenbacks.....
I don't think so.
A court case isn't dependent on that but on evidence.
Bribes in an attempt to gain people to "make statements" true or not, will poison the whole thing.. Nothing they say after that point we be deamed credible. There will always be questions on the motive and truthfulness..
So paying for the Clinton accusers legal fees means nothing they say is credible?
On the other hand - that is only one of the accusers.
When you are paying someone to make a legal case - what you actually pay for is apples and oranges - it's all the same. Unless you're a hypocritical partisan.
We Have A WINNER!!!Actually, if the intent was to obtain testimony in a court proceeding, that's called suborning perjury. Otherwise, it's just a bribe.
Unethical conduct by an OFFICER OF THE COURT...
I see disbarment and criminal charges in her future...
SO you think it OK to pay someone to lie for your cause and destroy another persons life... Fucking pathetic.....legal fee's? you mean like buying off one woman's house or offering cash payments of 750,000.00 just to publicly claim something? BIG DIFFERENCE! So now bribing people is 'pay legal fee's"? is that what your insinuating?Your not very well versed on Fruit of the poisons tree (or vine). IF any branch or root is infected the tree as whole will be thrown out.I don't think so.
A court case isn't dependent on that but on evidence.
Bribes in an attempt to gain people to "make statements" true or not, will poison the whole thing.. Nothing they say after that point we be deamed credible. There will always be questions on the motive and truthfulness..
So paying for the Clinton accusers legal fees means nothing they say is credible?
On the other hand - that is only one of the accusers.
When you are paying someone to make a legal case - what you actually pay for is apples and oranges - it's all the same. Unless you're a hypocritical partisan.
Now i know why the USA is in the state it is in.... NO ETHICS... NO MORAL CENTER...
She was getting the money to pay off the women from democratic donationsI am soooo shocked! Who would have ever imagine Democrats would pay women to accuse Trump? Their ethics are beyond reproach!
MORON.......how the fuck does Lisa Bloom "represent" democrats and NOT JUST HERSELF out for the money???
You orange clown is EXACTLY the same caliber of ethics as Bloom .....LOL
You elected the treasonous Obama and tried to elect that crime boss Clinton again..Now i know why the USA is in the state it is in.... NO ETHICS... NO MORAL CENTER...
Totally.
You fought for Moore.
You elected Trump.
the dense one is you retard paying court costs gives not one dime to the person and only happens if they get sued. Paying the mortgage or 750 k dollars is a direct remittance to the person solely for the purpose of their testimony and is illegal.wrong you fucking loon, paying court costs gives ZERO dollars to the person and only happens if they are sued. Paying the mortgage or paying 750k dollars to that person is a direct remittance as in a BRIBE that DIRECTLY pays the person with no requirement to be sued and every dollar goes to their personal wealth enhancement.wrong paying legal expenses ONLY applies if they get sued and have to go to court,paying their mortgage or offering them 750000 dollars is a direct bribe to make an accusation.It amounts to the same thing in the end. You are paying someone to make a claim. Would they have made the claim if they had not been paid? This splitting of hairs is nothing more than partisan hypocrisy.You understand there is a difference between paying for someone's legal costs and paying them to make a claim, right?
And what legal costs have they had exactly?
It is all a "bribe". You're just trying to give a free pass to your side.
It pays THEIR costs. You are still paying someone. Just like paying a mortgage. Don't be so dense.
Bloom stated she was looking for accusations against Trump and was using democrat donors to make payments to them.... If that doesn't scream lying democrat partisan hack bitch, nothing does...She was getting the money to pay off the women from democratic donationsI am soooo shocked! Who would have ever imagine Democrats would pay women to accuse Trump? Their ethics are beyond reproach!
MORON.......how the fuck does Lisa Bloom "represent" democrats and NOT JUST HERSELF out for the money???
You orange clown is EXACTLY the same caliber of ethics as Bloom .....LOL
Being reported by many, if this is true, what does this mean for Americas future? Is this in fact the angle the left are looking to exploit and abuse? I am betting yes. Right out of the Communist handbook.
Prominent lawyer Lisa Bloom sought donor cash for two Trump accusers
A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trumpduring the final months of the 2016 election, according to documents and interviews.
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.
The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.
Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.
They also claim that money paid to foreign agents to smear the opposition candidate are "legal fees."legal fee's? You mean like buying off one woman's house or offering cash payments of $750,000.00, 250,000.00, 100,000.00, 50,000.00 or 10,000.00 just to publicly claim something? BIG DIFFERENCE! So now bribing people is "paying legal fee's"? Is that what your insinuating?Your not very well versed on Fruit of the poisons tree (or vine). IF any branch or root is infected the tree as whole will be thrown out.Kills any court case for any of them that excepted the greenbacks.....It is all a "bribe". You're just trying to give a free pass to your side.
I don't think so.
A court case isn't dependent on that but on evidence.
Bribes in an attempt to gain people to "make statements" true or not, will poison the whole thing.. Nothing they say after that point we be deamed credible. There will always be questions on the motive and truthfulness..
So paying for the Clinton accusers legal fees means nothing they say is credible?
On the other hand - that is only one of the accusers.
In other words, they accused Trump only because they were bribed.NO it is not it ONLY happens if they are sued and it gives ZERO dollars to the person for personal wealth or material gain.paying legal fees is not compensation dumb ass it ony pays if sued and then only pays lawyer and court costs. No money is given to the accuser for personal use like paying the mortgage or 750k to do as you wish with.....
Would they have made the claim without the promise of compensation? Doubtful. Your atr trying to grab the nonexistent higher ground in the scum.Again difference between paying someone to make a claim and offering to pay legal fees after they've made one.
Paying a person's legal fees is NOT compensation?
Personal gain...like as in getting a settlement? That kind of personal gain that wouldn't have been realized otherwise because if their legal fees hadn't been covered they likely would never have gone to court in the first place? Think about it.
Being reported by many, if this is true, what does this mean for Americas future? Is this in fact the angle the left are looking to exploit and abuse? I am betting yes. Right out of the Communist handbook.
Prominent lawyer Lisa Bloom sought donor cash for two Trump accusers
A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trumpduring the final months of the 2016 election, according to documents and interviews.
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.
The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.
Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.
Anyone that builds a website where they have to had the word "true" in it, is a little suspect don't you think?
Why don't the Cons do to Trump what they did to B. Clinton?
What evidence do you have they were lying?So let me make sure I understand the benchmarks being laid down here.
1) No one should raise money for the victim of a crime.
2) No one should sell the rights to a story about the victim of a crime.
Do I have that right?
No. No one should fund OBVIOUS FALSE ACCUSERS.
This is fraud, these people belong in prison.
The timing of the events. And as far as I understand the accusations were withdrawn (I suppose they ran out of money to pay the false accusers), after Trump won the election. What a total coincidence, how did that happen? They just forgot about it after the election was over huh...
What evidence do you have they were lying?So let me make sure I understand the benchmarks being laid down here.
1) No one should raise money for the victim of a crime.
2) No one should sell the rights to a story about the victim of a crime.
Do I have that right?
No. No one should fund OBVIOUS FALSE ACCUSERS.
This is fraud, these people belong in prison.
The timing of the events. And as far as I understand the accusations were withdrawn (I suppose they ran out of money to pay the false accusers), after Trump won the election. What a total coincidence, how did that happen? They just forgot about it after the election was over huh...
At least 15 women have accused him. Only three have resulted in widely known litigation so far.
His ex-wife withdrew her rape claim after a massive divorce settlement.
Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 for breech of contract, and for non-violent sexual harassment. She dropped her sexual harassment claim as a stipulation for a very large settlement payment by Trump for her breech of contract claim.
Summer Zervos is currently seeking a deposition from Trump, and has no intention of withdrawing any claims.
The other 12 are currently trying to get him into court.
Your belief that claims against him have all been withdrawn is drastically wrong.
What evidence do you have they were lying?So let me make sure I understand the benchmarks being laid down here.
1) No one should raise money for the victim of a crime.
2) No one should sell the rights to a story about the victim of a crime.
Do I have that right?
No. No one should fund OBVIOUS FALSE ACCUSERS.
This is fraud, these people belong in prison.
The timing of the events. And as far as I understand the accusations were withdrawn (I suppose they ran out of money to pay the false accusers), after Trump won the election. What a total coincidence, how did that happen? They just forgot about it after the election was over huh...
At least 15 women have accused him. Only three have resulted in widely known litigation so far.
His ex-wife withdrew her rape claim after a massive divorce settlement.
Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 for breech of contract, and for non-violent sexual harassment. She dropped her sexual harassment claim as a stipulation for a very large settlement payment by Trump for her breech of contract claim.
Summer Zervos is currently seeking a deposition from Trump, and has no intention of withdrawing any claims.
The other 12 are currently trying to get him into court.
Your belief that claims against him have all been withdrawn is drastically wrong.
Yeah, and his ex wife admitted that she lied in order to get a better deal at the court. If you are so knowledgeable, how did you conveniently just forget to state that the claim was completely debunked (as in all likelihood were the rest)?
Because you are full of shit, and a liar.
