Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
The parents of two of the victims of the Benghazi terror attack – which was carried out by Muslim terrorists but blamed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on an obscure YouTube video – have filed a brief in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals arguing that Clinton should stand trial for lying about the deaths.
WND reported that the case brought by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch on behalf of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods accused Clinton of lying about the attack and then defaming the families of the victims by suggesting they were lying.
The case charging Clinton with “defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress” was dismissed at the lower courts, which ruled Clinton was acting within the scope of her employment, secretary of state, at the time.
That, the opinion found, included her use of a private, unauthorized and unsecured email system through which information was sent that “directly led to the deaths of appellants’ sons.”
Clinton earlier narrowly escaped a default judgment that was entered in a case in the lower court over her liability for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi when an Obama-appointed judge adopted claims that she wasn’t properly served.
“Whether or not the defendant was served with process in accordance with the applicable state law, defendant is now on notice of this lawsuit, and counsel entered an appearance on her behalf of Sept. 15, 2016,” wrote Judge Amy Berman Jackson in her earlier decision.
WND reported Klayman went to court in Washington on behalf of Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods. The parents cite the FBI’s determination that Clinton’s handling of classified information through the use of a nonsecure, private email server was “extremely careless.”
The plaintiffs alleged that Clinton lied about the cause of the terror attack, including in statements to them, telling them in a private meeting that the attack was caused by a little-known video.
Smith and Woods were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, jihadist attack on the American compound in Benghazi. While Clinton and other Obama administration officials were publicly blaming the deaths on a response to the YouTube video, internal communications show they knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack.
The wrongful death claim also alleges defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Klayman’s original filing explained: “Having used a secret private email server that we now know was used to communicate with Ambassador Christopher Stevens with confidential and classified government information, and which we also now know was likely hacked by hostile adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China and North Korea aligning with terrorist groups, it is clear that Hillary Clinton allegedly negligently and recklessly gave up the classified location of the plaintiffs’ sons, resulting in a deadly terrorist attack that took their lives. It is no coincidence that covert State Department/CIA operations were being run out of Benghazi.
“To add insult to deadly injury, Hillary Clinton told the plaintiffs that their sons were killed as the result of a video mocking the Islamic prophet Mohammed when she knew that they were murdered by Muslim terrorists. When the families exposed her lies, she called them liars to protect her reputation and to further her own presidential ambitions. She thus defamed the parents of fallen heroes Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, and committed other wrongful acts, as alleged in the complaint.”
The appellate court filing protests that the lower court made assumptions in Hillary Clinton’s favor, and the real issue that needs a full court process is that “Islamic terrorists were able to locate Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods and orchestrate and execute the Benghazi attack” because of Clinton’s use of unsecured email, and that she then made false statements to try to cover up the problems that allowed an attack to occur.
“Plaintiffs-appellants respectfully request this honorable court to vacate and reverse the district court’s holding and remand the case for further proceedings,” the filing challenges.
The truthfulness of Clinton’s claim that she did not defame the victims’ families is for a jury to decide, the brief argues.
“The district court mistakenly took these viable causes of action away from a jury and the district court decision must be vacated,” Klayman explained.
“[Clinton’s] defamatory statements – that plaintiffs-appellants are not telling the truth, strongly implying that they lied in order to protect and enhance her public image and intimidate and emotionally harm and silence them not to speak up about the Benghazi attack – could only diminish plaintiffs-appellants’ reputations and esteem.
“Here, [Clinton] committed defamation by implication when, as one example, she responded ‘no’ when asked if she told the parents of the fallen heroes their death was caused by a film. … While she did not expressly use the word ‘liar,’ defendant-appellee’s statement would lead the viewer to draw one conclusions – that she was accusing plaintiffs-appellants of lying.”
The brief states, “Her statements unequivocally portray plaintiffs as liars.”
The original lawsuit noted the FBI found Clinton, “at a minimum, was ‘extremely careless’ in handling confidential and classified government information and ‘there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.’”
The case alleges that Clinton’s unsecure personal email setup allowed “foreign powers including, but not limited to Russia, Iran, China and North Korea” to obtain information about the Americans.
“Immediately after the attack, defendant Clinton, in an effort to save the re-election chances of President Barack Obama, and in turn, her own chances at the 2016 presidency, lied to plaintiffs and the public at large that the Benghazi attacks were caused by Islamic reaction over an anti-Muslim YouTube video … these lies were perpetrated despite the fact that she knew immediately that this video was actually not the cause of the attack – information that she shared with the prime minister of Egypt and her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton, but hid from plaintiffs and the public at large.
“Clinton even promised plaintiffs that the person responsible for the video would be arrested. … Woods recorded the conversation with defendant Clinton contemporaneously in his diary.”
The filing asks the court to reverse the district court’s dismissal and review the pleadings, allow for discovery and then a trial on the merits before a jury.