Hillary Gets Brutally Called Out In Public And Denies Everything

In a video published by Project Veritas, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeatedly denies knowing about the story of a woman who has recently been ordered to pay Project Veritas’ legal costs due to a defamation suit stemming from an investigation carried out by Democracy Partners on her behalf in 2016.

Join Our Telegram Chanel Here: Donald Trump News

The question of whether or not Clinton would pay Teter’s legal costs repeatedly caused Clinton to claim she had no knowledge of Teter, Democracy Partners, or their former President Bob Creamer, saying, “I don’t understand that. I don’t know Bob Creamer.”

Democracy Partners was exposed by Project Veritas as being responsible for fomenting violence at Trump rallies, and Creamer resigned for this reason: “I am unwilling to become a distraction to the important task of electing Hilary Clinton.” Creamer is cited in the report as saying the Clinton campaign is aware of the group’s actions “through chain of command.”

In response to a subsequent question from a Project Veritas reporter, Clinton declined to say if she would pay for Teter’s legal bills. This occurred after she spoke at the National Action Network luncheon.

In 2019, Teter sued Project Veritas for defamation but lost the case. As a result, she was ordered to pay their legal fees.

Apparently, she claimed they defamed her by saying she was a plant at a Trump rally prior to the 2016 election.

Terry denied being a plant and filed a lawsuit.

Although she had six attorneys at her disposal, she lost the case.

The judge has since ordered her to pay Project Veritas’ legal fees.

The organization Democracy Partners is purported to have managed the operatives at Trump rallies on account of the Clinton campaign.

U.S. District Court Judge Martin Reidinger overruled a ruling by a clerk that denied Project Veritas’ request for Teter to pay legal costs on the basis of her claim that she was “indigent” and as such could not afford them.

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Patriots news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Additionally, the Judge was astonished as to why a baseless lawsuit was brought by several “pro bono” attorneys across the country, one of whom responded that “we’re not paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign or by the Democratic party or anything like that.”

“Mr. Sasser only raised more questions by his unsolicited statement specifically disclaiming that the lawsuit was being funded by the Clinton campaign or the Democratic Party,” explained Judge Reidinger.


In other Hillary-legal news, Special Counsel John Durham is revealing new smoking-gun evidence, a text message that shows a Clinton campaign lawyer lied to the FBI while putting the courts on notice he is prepared to show the effort to smear Donald Trump with now-disproven Russia collusion allegations was a “conspiracy.”

According to Durham, documents show Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI general counsel, telling the bureau that he was not working for any client when he was really working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Last September, Sussmann was indicted for allegedly concealing from FBI general counsel James Baker his clients – Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” known as former Neustar exec Rodney Joffe – when he promoted debunked reports of an Alfa Bank backchannel that linked the Trump Organization to Russia.

Sussmann was charged with lying in the September 2021 indictment when he claimed to provide the allegations to the FBI on behalf of no client when in fact he was doing so on behalf of Joffe and the Clinton campaign. According to Sussmann’s lawyers, there is no evidence that Sussmann lied to Baker last year.

But Durham revealed on Monday evening that Sussmann had told Baker this lie in a text the night before their meeting at the bureau on Sept. 18, 2016.

“Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss,” Sussmann texted to Baker. “Do you have availibilty [sic] for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting,” Sussmann’s attorneys said last year.

In October, Durham announced that Baker, the bureau’s former general counsel from 2014 to 2018, will testify in the upcoming trial.

Join Our Telegram Chanel Here: Donald Trump News

As part of his defense, Sussmann cited a legal analysis by former FBI agent Peter Strzok for his request to dismiss the case against him.

Sussmann’s attorneys asked a federal court in March to dismiss the false statements charge against their client, arguing he had not lied to the FBI about Trump-Russia collusion allegations and, even if he had, it was not material.

Durham rejected the idea.

“The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,” Durham pointed out last month. “The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways.”