NEW YORK CITY, NY – On April 7th, during Al Sharpton’s National Action Network event where Hillary Clinton was part of the “Women’s Empowerment & Networking Luncheon,” Clinton was put on the spot by a Project Veritas journalist regarding a Democrat operative tied to inciting violence at Trump rallies.

During the interaction, Clinton denied having any such knowledge of the individuals referenced by the Project Veritas journalist – yet these claims run counter to prior investigations conducted by Project Veritas.

Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today

The background behind all this starts with a woman by the name of Shirley Teter, who, back in September of 2016, claimed to have been assaulted by a Trump supporter during a rally in North Carolina.

Following this incident, Project Veritas began looking into a political action group by the name of Democracy Partners, eventually leading to a report that outlined then-Democracy Partners President Bob Creamer reportedly admitting to trying to stir up violence at Trump rallies.

Contained within this exposé by Project Veritas were allusions that Teter was planted by Democracy Partners in that 2016 rally to engage in “bird-dogging,” which was a tactic meant to instigate violence so as to generate bad press at Trump rallies.

Teter later filed a lawsuit in 2017 against Project Veritas, claiming “defamation, libel, slander, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.” However, Teter’s case was tossed out in 2019, as the First Amendment protected Project Veritas’ reporting.

Don’t Go to Jail over a Gun! Get This State Gun Law Guide 100% Free

Come March 31st of 2022, Teter was also ordered by a judge to cover the legal expenses of Project Veritas regarding her frivolous lawsuit. But what was contained within the judge’s order was all the more interesting.

Teter tried to claim that she was indigent and thus couldn’t cover Project Veritas’ legal costs. U.S. District Judge Martin Reidinger found said claim to be unreliable, considering that she was represented by six attorneys during the legal battle against Project Veritas.

“[Teter] was represented by six attorneys in this matter, all of whom were from outside of this district, and one of whom was from out of state. Four of these attorneys were present for the entire trial. [Teter] had the sort of representation not ordinarily available to litigants in her position. In the Court’s experience, there are only a few scenarios where multiple, out-of-town attorneys would be willing to become involved in representing a plaintiff who, by all accounts, is indigent and therefore cannot pay the costs of the litigation herself.”

Judge Reidinger noted that Teter’s case didn’t fit the bill when someone who is purportedly indigent would amass such a large legal team, writing that “the involvement of so many geographically diverse attorneys is a matter that is puzzling to the Court.”

What was even more interesting in the judge’s decision was when one of Teter’s attorneys, Jonathan Sasser, was asked by the courts on February 25th why so many attorneys from across the country jumped into a pro bono effort for Teter, Sasser curiously said they weren’t being funded by Clinton. This, despite never having been asked anything about Clinton.

Sasser stated during the February 25th hearing, “We’re here primarily pro bono. But if there was an opportunity to recover something, that would help to pay the expenses. It would pay the expenses and maybe even pay the lawyers a little bit, but obviously that didn’t happen in either case. But, no, we’re not paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign or by the Democratic party or anything like that. We, we came in here first as pro bono and then as contingency.”

Judge Reidinger wrote in his decision 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.”

This then brings us to the April 7th interaction between the Project Veritas journalist and Clinton, where the journalist asked whether Clinton would be willing to cover the legal costs Teter was ordered to pay.

Clinton denied knowing anything about Teter and also denied knowing who former Democracy Partners President Creamer even is.

Get Dr. Zev Zelenko M.D.’s NEW Z-DTOX and Z-Stack Protocol, use code RVM for discount

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Geef een antwoord

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd.

!!! Blijf op de hoogte

! Meld je aan

.Meld je aan via mail

OF op telegram

- S'morgens & S'avonds 1 nieuwsbrief met de nieuwste berichten
- Weekelijkse nieuwsbrief met alle headlines
- Soms een (verkeerd/ongewenst/test) mailtje, daar werken we aan...

...Anders hoor je het niet

%d bloggers liken dit: