This guy is sure sounding confident that the inevitable coronation is on schedule, don't cha think? This isn't surprising to any of us who are aware that he's been paying people to 'correct' negative social media and blog posts about Clinton:

From Buzzfeed

Clinton Ally Offers To Pay Legal Fees For “Apprentice” Leakers

The head of a pro-Clinton SuperPAC suggested Sunday he’s willing to pay a “leak fee” for damaging footage of Trump.

The head of a pro-Clinton SuperPAC suggested Sunday that he would cover the legal expenses of staffers on the show The Apprentice who leak damaging footage of Donald Trump.
“If a $5 million ‘leak fee’ is what stands between truth and total Trump implosion, sign me up,” said David Brock, the founder of American Bridge and a leading Clinton ally, in an email to BuzzFeed News.
Brock was referring to a tweet from producer Chris Nee, who said she’d been told Apprentice staffers were intimidated by a $5 million “leak fee.”

David Brock: I will pay for 'Apprentice' tapes https://t.co/zCWCx6sYJx @chrisdocnee #appretice #trumptapes #inners

— Carolyn Gonzalez (@carogonza) October 9, 2016

From POLITICO

David Brock: I will pay for 'Apprentice' tapes

David Brock is volunteering to pay for the legal fees of any "Apprentice" producer or staff member who may have their hands on potentially damaging tapes of Donald Trump.

Mark Burnett, the television producer behind the reality series who is considered to be a friend of Trump, has warned staff he would not hesitate to sue them if they leaked footage from The Apprentice, according to BuzzFeed News.
Brock, the Hillary Clinton ally who runs a network of Democratic groups to help her campaign including Media Matters, responded simply "yes" via email when asked if he'd be willing to back someone financially or legally should they chose to release the tapes.
According to Chris Nee, an award-winning screenwriter and producer, a separate non-Apprentice related contract with Burnett said she would have to pay $5 million if she released footage.

#TrumpTapes: Award-winning TV producer @ChrisDocNee alleges @realDonaldTrump said N-word on @ApprenticeNBC. https://t.co/DFmYENb2gn

— Okayplayer (@okayplayer) October 9, 2016

From ZeroHedge

Apprentice Producer Warns There Are "Far Worse" Trump Tapes To Come

There has been much speculation about how much "dirt" the Clinton campaign has on Trump: we all know the Clintons are the best in the business at "doing their homework." Perhaps the best indication that they're sitting on a treasure trove of Trump dirt, is the fact that the Washington Post timed the release of Trump's hot mic mishap with the latest WikiLeaks dump of the Podesta emails. The coordination of the release supposedly implies the Hillary campaign is sitting on even dirt just waiting for the best opportunity to maximize the leverage of new releases to squash their own scandals.

Which is why it's not terribly surprising that Bill Pruitt, producer of "The Apprentice", recently took to twitter to warn that "when it comes to the #trumptapes there are far worse."

As a producer on seasons 1 & 2 of #theapprentice I assure you: when it comes to the #trumptapes there are far worse. #justthebegininng

— Bill Pruitt (@billpruitt) October 8, 2016

Clinton Camp responds to Trump panel

Clinton campaign: Trump panel an 'act of desperation'

Hillary Clinton’s campaign quickly hit back at Donald Trump for hosting a surprise panel with women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct ahead of their second debate on Sunday, labeling the move a “stunt” and “act of desperation.”
“We’re not surprised to see Donald Trump continue his destructive race to the bottom,” Jennifer Palmieri, the campaign’s communications director, said in a statement. “As always, she’s prepared to handle whatever Donald Trump throws her way.”

Palmieri also said: “Hillary Clinton understands the opportunity in this town hall is to talk to voters on stage and in the audience about the issues that matter to them, and this stunt doesn’t change that. If Donald Trump doesn’t see that, that’s his loss.”

Here are some of the legal issues about releasing what The Apprentice has got:
From Law Newz

Is Access Hollywood’s ‘Trump Tape’ Proof NBC Committed a Crime Against Trump?

Did Trump know he was being recorded? If not, a hot mic can be a criminal act in California, and NBC potentially liable. California Penal Code 632 criminalizes any person who “without the consent of all parties” records their conversations. California Penal Code 637.2 specifically authorizes the right of the person whose privacy was invaded to bring a civil suit, with an incredible treble damages provision for RICO-style punishment. That converts, say a $1 Billion claim into $3 Billion of damages. A hot mic can still be an illegal recording if the parties to the conversation thought the mic was not active and not recording.

This corresponds to the “reasonable expectation that the conversation was not being recorded” element of the civil claim. If Trump can prove that aspect — and the very nature of the conversation clearly implies it, from a jury perspective — then NBC would have to prove they did not intentionally record the conversation, subjecting NBC to inquisitive discovery — like does NBC have a habit of “hot mic” recordings? If NBC didn’t record it purposefully, why didn’t they destroy it when they found they had “accidentally” recorded it? Maybe this is why NBC let it leak rather than publish it themselves — to try to distance themselves from their own possibly lawless acts? Worse yet, what might this claim do for other people? How many illegal recordings does NBC have in its vault? Why didn’t they have a custom and practice of deleting anything “accidentally” recorded if it was, in fact, accidental? What other celebrities and citizens might have a claim? Remember the recording itself is illegal and damages are “not a necessary” prerequisite to a claim, with $5,000 damages per incident. That might be some class action.

Does the First Amendment help NBC? The First Amendment protects publishing, not illegal recording. NBC would not even have a sure-fire First Amendment defense for publishing. The First Amendment is not owned by big media; the media cannot easily use it to violate another’s First Amendment rights to unrecorded private speech. As the critical concurrence by Justice Breyer (joined by Justice O’Connor, and essential to any majority outcome in the case), in their decision made clear in Bartnicki (a “narrow holding limited to the special circumstances present,”) that the publisher’s defense depended upon the fact the publisher “neither encouraged nor participated directly or indirectly in the interception” of the conversation. That’s how tough the law treats these kind of these illegal recordings. And there is precedence for such criminal prosecutions as well, even in high profile cases involving sex allegations and the Presidency: ask Linda Tripp, of Lewinsky fame, who was indicted by a Maryland prosecutor for illegally recording Lewinsky’s conversations.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet this sort of behavior this close to the election will merely lower voter turnout.
We'll know soon enough.

Mark Burnett: We can't release 'Apprentice' tapes

Trump threatens to attack Clintons if more damaging tapes of him go public