Two Benghazi Parents Sue Hillary Clinton for Wrongful Death, Defamation

[jpak]

Source: NBC news

The parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court Monday against Hillary Clinton.

In the suit, Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, the parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, claim that Clinton's use of a private e-mail server contributed to the attacks. They also accuse her of defaming them in public statements.

Smith was an information management officer and Woods was a security officer, both stationed in Benghazi.

"The Benghazi attack was directly and proximately caused, at a minimum by defendant Clinton's 'extreme carelessness' in handling confidential and classified information," such as the location of State Department employees in Libya, the lawsuit said.

<more>

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861

---

I bet Trump is paying for this..

yup

[liberalmuse]

1. I'll bet you are right.

I guess he has to distract from his upcoming court date and all the other pending lawsuits against him.

[dflprincess]

46. Trump or someone who supports the RNC

anything to try and get people to "Look over there!"

[Shrike47]

2. Yep, just a nuisance suit. Good luck proving causation, if it ever got that far.

[trueblue2007]

33. Waste of their time, it won't go anyplace. Feel sorry for them but they are stupid

[othermeans]

75. Waste of time.

Here is a quote from Nathaniel Friedman aka Bethlehem Shoals a writer for GQ magazine, when Pat Smith was speaking onstage at the Republication National Convention. He tweeted: “no matter how many children she’s lost, I’d like to beat her to death.”

[Ford_Prefect]

3. I thought it was Putin that paid for it all...Or maybe Sheldon Adelson?

[BlueInPhilly]

4. Impossible to prove causation

How could they prove that the killers got HRC's emails and acted on it? This will be dismissed as a nuisance suit.

[Monk06]

62. Causation requires that two events must be spacio temporally contiguous No cause at a distance

unless your talking quantum effects

They admit they have no case the second they wrote the word proximal into the brief

While Hillary was near the center of events there is no evidence she had jurisdiction over the CIA annex or the power to order and effect a rescue over and above the independent authority of the CIA to handle it's own assets

Having said that I think ambassador Stevens was heavily involved with the CIA Benghazi station but he would not be in charge of it for purposes of deniablility

Add to that and the plaintiffs are not even relatives of Stevens but rather they are relatives of security contractors. In other words CIA employees in all but name

So no case when you volunteer for dangerous employment

Also, is it defamation to deny the charges of someone libeling you? That is a novel understanding of defamation.

[PersonNumber503602]

65. I agree with everything you're saying, except I don't think Sean Smith was CIA

I wonder how these guys would feel about their families and politicians politicizing their deaths. I was thinking the other day that if I was ever killed in a similar situation, I bet my hard core conservative parents would be just bad despite them knowing where I stand politically. The thought of that really disturbs me. But it makes me wonder if those who died would have wanted this.

[Monk06]

66. He wasn't CIA but he was low level so what would he know? Stevens is another matter

Being the ambassador during and after Gadhaffi's overthrow would mean he was joined at the hip with the CIA station chief or whoever was running ops at the politely named 'annex'

State works closely with the CIA in these places while it pretends to by somewhat out of the loop

I implied this by my comment on deniablility regarding Stevens.

As for Sean Smith I doubt he had a clue what a shit storm was coming his way

[George II]

5. It'll be thrown out in a New York minute. Surprised that the lawyers would be so naive....

...as to not have read the agreements those two people probably signed before shipping off to Benghazi.

Not only that, but in her official capacity as Secretary of State, she's immune to such lawsuits.

[ToxMarz]

14. This

"in her official capacity as Secretary of State, she's immune to such lawsuits." But if Trump is behind this, it will be another example of a "rigged system" when it is dismissed.

[blueseas]

32. HMMMM - follow the money

Costs money to sue.

[riversedge]

28. The intent is to keep Benghazi in the news cycle. This lawyer is critic of the Clintons and I do

not think he cares if he has a case or not.


.............The parents were represented by Washington, D.C., lawyer Larry Klayman, a frequent critic of the Clintons.

In response to the suit, Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said "While no one can imagine the pain of the families of the brave Americans we lost at Benghazi, there have been nine different investigations into this attack and none found any evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton."

And one campaign official noted that Klayman is the founder or "Freedom Watch," a conservative group that "has been unsuccessfully attacking the Clintons for decades."

[DURHAM D]

36. It was filed by Larry Klayman/ Judicial Watch

He will probably sue me for posting this and you for reading it.


ETA: Woods was under contract to the CIA which makes this even more stupid. Weren't their official secret government emails actually hacked?

[forest444]

42. Gennifer Flower's (GOP-financed) lawyer. I should have guessed!

Frankly, the Clintons should have sued him.

[scscholar]

55. Gennifer Flowers is a name I've not heard in a long, long time.

To channel Obi Wan. But, seriously for those too young to remember:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennifer_Flowers

[Akicita]

60. I danced with her a couple times at a wedding a few years ago. Sweet lady from what I could tell.

[7962]

41. There's always a lawyer to take ANY case nt

[Gothmog]

59. Some lawyers will be facing some sanctions

[Nancyswidower]

77. You think the Daily News is a Murdoch

paper...why should you be believed?

[csziggy]

69. It's not being done as litigation - the motivation is political

They are hoping that this will keep the Benghazi meme going longer even though nothing came of the several "investigations" or of the email stuff.

The lawyers should be charged with misusing the courts.

[Blue Idaho]

6. This lawsuit is going nowhere...

I hope Trump wastes a bundle on this stunt.

[riversedge]

7. The parents were represented by Washington, D.C., lawyer Larry Klayman, a frequent critic of the Cli

Oh crap. Just plain crap.


.........The parents were represented by Washington, D.C., lawyer Larry Klayman, a frequent critic of the Clintons.

[still_one]

17. Klayman really should be disbarred.

[cstanleytech]

21. Unfortunately they probably wont be. nt

[politicaljunkie41910]

26. At what point does some Court declare Larry Klayman and his Judicial Watch a public nuisance

and start fining him for his nuisance lawsuits.

I recall reading about a week or so ago on DU that the State Dept had hired 44 people to respond to all the FOIA requests submitted to the State Department from when Hillary worked there and from what I gather, the request continue to pour it. I read this within the past couple of weeks, and the article was about a Judge not willing to give the State Dept any additional time to respond to FOIA requests. The article said that the people hired to fill these requests were former government workers who were hired as retired annuitants to deal with the volume of requests and the law limits the amount of hours they can work in any given year, so they had to give them some time off from the job they were working. The article also stated that the State Dept said that the people were exhausted from all the work and they needed the time off. With the Judge denying their request for an extension, I guess they need to hire more employees. Anyone who pays taxes should be pissed at this abuse of the law.

The Dems never pull this type of shit when they are in power. Too busy trying to get the public's work done I guess. But when Repugs start bitchin about the cost of government, they have no one but themselves and their bullshit agendas to blame.

Does anyone recall the post I'm referring to.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. Who was defended here by certain folks that thankfully shuffled off

[madokie]

8. If I was a betting man

I'd bet good money on that.

republiCONs and tRump in particular are as close to being honest as the sun is to being cold as ice.

[Ilsa]

9. How on earth could she defame them?

There is no evidence that her server was attacked, so how could that contribute to their deaths?

And can they sue? Those two were not State Dept employees, were they? I thought they were soldiers or private contractors.

This smells like Trump.

[cstanleytech]

22. Oh it smells but I doubt Trumps behind it though they could very well be

Trump supporters.

[niyad]

40. you do remember that patricia spoke at th rnc? no question about her being a drumpf supporter

[cstanleytech]

44. Sorry I missed watching that...........on purpose as there are only so many times

you watch a bunch of clowns pile on into a small cramped area before it become boring.

[niyad]

45. I refused to watch the debacle, but it was widely covered here.

[Jim Lane]

56. The defamation claim is based on Clinton's post-attack public statements.

Per the linked article, I think the chronology alleged by the plaintiffs goes like this: Clinton met with these family members after the attack. The family members then reported that Clinton had told them that the attacks were prompted by the YouTube video. Clinton then said publicly that she had not told them any such thing. This last statement by Clinton amounted to saying that the family members were not telling the truth about the meeting, and on that theory Clinton's statement was defamatory of them (either they're stupid or they're deliberately lying, I guess).

I don't know the details of official immunity, but I think it very likely that Clinton has immunity for decisions she made in the course of her official duties, such as whether to have a private email server, unless a plaintiff could show that she deprived that plaintiff of civil rights while acting under color of law (a section 1983 action). On that ground, the claims that arise from the deaths of the victims are probably subject to dismissal. Any public statements that Clinton made about her meeting with the family members, however, might well be on different footing. Being Secretary of State doesn't give her a blanket license to defame private citizens.

What's more likely to derail the defamation branch of the suit is the argument that each of these plaintiffs is a limited purpose public figure and therefore must prove that Clinton knew her statement was false. As one lawyer has explained the concept:

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

My guess is that neither side is deliberately lying about what was said at the post-Benghazi meeting. A number of topics were discussed and participants came away with different recollections. Even if there's a full tape recording available, it's probably at least somewhat ambiguous, and of course there may be no recording. If that's so, and if these plaintiffs are held to be limited purpose public figures (as they should be), then they'll lose.

The complication for Clinton is that they might be able to defeat her motion for summary judgment until they had had a chance to depose her (i.e., take her pretrial testimony under oath) about what happened at the meeting and what she said thereafter. Even if she ultimately won, there would be a political cost if Klayman were able to get a court to order such a deposition. Given the normal stately pace of litigation, however, it's very unlikely that that could happen before the election.

[Akicita]

61. Nice summation. Thanks.

[bluestateguy]

10. Are they even angry at all at the terrorists who actually did the attack?

I just wonder.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

64. Obama already got them

A few of the leaders left themselves in places where they could be arrested by surprise, and so they were.

A few of the leaders stayed only in places that made arrest absolutely impossible (and further, were threatening even more attacks). They were killed.

This was done under Obama.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[sinkingfeeling]

11. When do the loved ones of those killed on 9/11 and in Iraq get

to sue G.W. Bush/Cheney?

P.S. Who would ever look for US employees in a consultant?

[Gothmog]

12. This suit will be dismissed shortly

[Ilsa]

23. That's what I figure. It doesn't make sense

that she could be held accountable for the illegal acts of others.

[Nancyswidower]

79. You know that How...shall we do NYC paper ownership?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. That probably won't go very far, and I can't imagine any competent lawyer taking the case.

To sue a top government official, a plaintiff has to show the acts in question are tied directly to a violation of constitutional rights, and that the official clearly understood they were violations. I don't think this can survive a motion to dismiss. I hope the lawyer defending Clinton (actually defending the federal government, since she was acting in her official capacity) makes a Rule 11 motion, too - which would make the plaintiffs and/or their lawyer liable for fees and court costs for commencing bad faith litigation.

... Oh, I just saw they are being represented by Larry Klayman. That explains everything. Like I said, no competent lawyer would take this case.

[geek tragedy]

15. Frivolous lawsuit nt

[63splitwindow]

16. " "Clinton nemesis" for his dozens of lawsuits against the Bill Clinton administration "

" Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is a politically conservative American public interest lawyer[4] and former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor who has been called a "Clinton nemesis"[5][6] for his dozens of lawsuits against the Bill Clinton administration in the 90s.[7][8][9] The founder of Judicial Watch[10][11] and the government watchdog group Freedom Watch,[12] he has brought legal action against former Vice President Dick Cheney,[13][14] President Barack Obama,[15][16] OPEC, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,[17] Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan,[18] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg,[19][20] and the National Security Agency (NSA). In the last case, a federal judge ruled in December 2013 that the NSA's bulk collection of telephony metadata violated the Fourth Amendment.[21][22]
...
..."

read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman

[Ford_Prefect]

24. Klayman: well paid by Scaife and one or more other conservative oligarchs to harass activists,

repeatedly challenge Federal authority, individual judges and officials, and anyone else that he can get paid to abuse with lawsuits. It is amazing that he still has his license to practice. He seems to be well connected and protected by certain conservative insiders.

[SansACause]

18. Is this a joke?

There isn't a shred of evidence of any kind that Hillary had anything to do with the attack on the consulate. You can't just randomly sue people for wrongful death.

[Historic NY]

19. I don't know how the server contributed....

but I do know the immediate family received considerable benefits & compensation, which they accepted.

[Roland99]

20. Good luck with that

[ileus]

25. She'll get the last laugh when they find out they're suing in her courts.

By the time these suits make it through the system, she'll be firmly in power and their suits will be laughed out of court.

[edbermac]

27. Filed by Larry Klaman, a guy who would sue his own mother...and did!

From wiki

In 1998, Klayman sued his mother for $50,000, seeking reimbursement for medical care provided to his maternal grandmother. After Klayman's brother told Newsweek magazine of the lawsuit, Klayman alleged that the Clinton White House was responsible for the magazine acquiring the information.[32] In 2013, Klayman defended his actions in an interview with ABC News, and said it was "essentially a case against my stepfather" and that he named his mother "because legally she was next of kin."[90]

[Archae]

29. Klayman is a dork.

Klayman: Take Hillary Clinton And Critics Of Trump To The 'Legal Guillotines'

Submitted by Brian Tashman on Monday, 8/8/2016 5:00 pm

Larry Klayman is very upset about “The Assassination of Donald J. Trump.”

And by “assassination” he means criticism of the presidential candidate, which apparently hasn’t happened in a presidential race until now.

As the conservative activist put it in his column yesterday, Trump “has effectively been ‘assassinated’ not just by vile, leftist Democrats” but “also by establishment Republicans.” He was particularly enraged that the GOP presidential nominee has faced widespread disapproval for his attacks on the Khan family.

“Following the Democratic National Convention and the backstabbing by establishment Republicans, Trump is now down almost 15 points to Hillary Clinton in the polls,” he said. “The die may have thus been cast. Nothing, save for — and God forbid — some massive Islamic terrorist attack just before the election this November, can likely turn the electorate.”

Klayman argued that “no politician, short of the Muslim King Barack Hussein Obama, is more evil than Hillary Clinton” and that she and others who try “to assassinate the Republican candidate chosen by the people” should “be taken to the ‘legal guillotines,’ as they are not just despicable political hacks, but also traitors!”

After parroting the false claims that Khizr Khan is an advocate of Sharia law and has close links to the Clinton Foundation, Klayman said that Khan “dishonored” his late son’s memory when he spoke at the Democratic convention: “Honoring his son, which would have been legitimate and admirable, should not entail personal attacks and raising issues of alleged racism because The Donald rightly wants to limit Muslim immigration during this time of war with Islam — and that is what it is plain and simple. Mr. Khan son’s was an American citizen and hero, and he deserved all the rights accorded to him by the Constitution. Trump has never advocated taking away these rights nor disparaged the valiant service of the Khan’s son. In fact, the Khans dishonored their son by using his sacrifice and heroism for their own cheap political and Islamic purposes.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-take-hillary-clinton-and-critics-trump-legal-guillotines

[Greg K]

37. Talk about someone who should be sued for defamation. nt

[benld74]

30. Onion right??

[MichiganVote]

31. Trump written all over it. Won't work. Again.

[olddad56]

34. then how many people can sue GWB and Shooter Cheney?

[Mike Nelson]

35. I feel sorry...

...for the parents under the influence of this frivolous lawyer. Their lives are filled with anger and hatred - it will eat away at them.

[Trust Buster]

38. I remember many supporters of a particular primary candidate defending one Larry Klayman

hoping that the FBI investigation would disqualify Hillary. How do you feel now ?

[Skittles]

39. probably delighted

Hillary Hatred Hysteria is still alive and well

[geek tragedy]

47. we're all supporters of the Democratic nominee here.

the rats who peddle Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman, Breitbart and Donald Trump's nonsense have scurried back to the sewers where they belong

[Chicago1980]

43. "claim that Clinton's use of a private e-mail server contributed to the attacks"

How is that even possible?

What the hell does a server have to do with what happened in Benghazi?

This suit has no merit.

[LenaBaby61]

48. Two Benghazi Parents Sue Hillary Clinton for Wrongful Death, Defamation.

[miyazaki]

49. My God. And how many ongoing lawsuits are there against Trump? n/t

[PdxSean]

50. This isn't about Bengahzi.

The right couldn't give a gnats ass about Bengahzi or any American soldier. This is about suing Clinton so they can question her under oath and dig around like hogs seeking a truffle.

If she answers the complaint, Clinton can use it as an opportunity to show how the same republicans who cut funding for security at the embassy are the same people who led the Bengahzi committee. Those same people will be standing beside the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit.

Remember when Paula Jones got a new Mercedes shortly after filing lawsuit against Bill? Remember when the Supreme Court let the suit go forward in a classless act of pure politics. Never EVER underestimate the depths to which republicans will crawl when responding to something like this. They are some evil, evil phuqs.

[louis-t]

73. Paula Jones got a new wardrobe, jewelry

AND a Mercedes. Her attorney claimed she only had "t-shirts and jeans" and needed "decent" clothes to appear in court.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Hoping for another Monica, but there is no sex

So it won't go anywhere.

[marybourg]

52. Frivolous lawsuit!

Frivolous lawsuit! Oh right, it's only victims of medical malpractice who file frivolous lawsuits.(sarcasm)

[chillfactor]

53. that would be funny....

if it wasn't so frivolous.....how in the hell do they expect to prove causation?

[Festivito]

54. If you throw mud at someone, so of it will stick. eom

[wisteria]

58. An, this is the poor woman who needs help.

She blames Clinton for her don't death, and she is an emotional reck. He anger is misplaced, but she had no one else to attack in her grief. The Republicans exploited her, and are probably still pushing her and persuading her that she should continue to blame Clinton. It is important to note that the other families do not blame Clinton at all and have supported her.

[Akicita]

63. Yeah. She reminds me of Cindy Sheehan. What ever happened to Cindy?

[othermeans]

76. Cindy Sheehan

Sheehan hosts a weekly radio show she started in 2009. She has interviewed notable activists and world leaders, including Howard Zinn, Ray McGovern, Ann Wright, and Hugo Chávez. Sheehan maintains a website "Cindy's Soapbox"

[Akicita]

80. Thanks

[mainer]

67. Were they CIA or state dept employees?

Did they report to her or was another agency in command of their security?

[Vinca]

68. The outcome of this will only compound this woman's bad situation.

It will be tossed and, quite probably, she'll be stuck with a bill for the legal fees associated with the Clinton defense team.

[lark]

70. Totally idiotic.

I agree that Drumpf is funding this, probably just to use in his rich freinds' commercials. Bet we see this on our tv screens soon. I am disgusted by traitorous Repugs and I loathe drumpf ever more than most r's. The reason for this is he only uses the party to get those voters to vote for him. He is not a repug and doesn't follow the cant. He's worse, he's a fascist who supports Russian interests over those of US. His only std. is does this or that help me, he truly doesn't care about anyone or anything else other than himself and his kids.

R's have spent 10's of millions of dollars on failing to prove anything at all against Clinton, this is so fake. It's the repugs who cut the security budget and caused the loss of life. Of course, R's never admit to anything, ever, so they keep trying to pin this on Clinton, but fail every single time.

[Loki]

71. Larry Klayman should be disbarred.

He is a disgrace to the law. He does to law what Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist does to religion......they make a mockery of it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

72. Politically motivated and timed

Nuisance lawsuit.

[mainer]

74. Reminds me of Meredith Kercher's parents -- unable to listen to reason

For years they were so convinced that Amanda Knox killed their daughter, they devoted their lives to destroying Knox. Yet all the forensic evidence pointed to someone else. The prosecution had them brainwashed, and they refused to see reason.

[The_Casual_Observer]

78. Combine the emails with Benghazi!

This has to be the most bogus reach yet.
Those poor mislead people, this is a total disgrace in the name of those people that were murdered.