Fox News Defends Hillary Clinton Regarding Benghazi Families’ Lawsuit – Video


You know something is up when Fox News is defending Hillary Clinton.

The parents of two Americans who were killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya filed a wrongful death and defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton on Monday.

As NBC News reports, “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.”

“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. […] Such information, the lawsuit claimed, “easily found its way to foreign powers” and was then obtained by Islamic terrorists.

The two parents also claim that Clinton defamed them – essentially calling them liars – by telling them that an anti-Muslim YouTube video was to blame for the attack on the diplomatic facilities in Benghazi and later denying she made such a statement.

However, Fox News correspondent and law school graduate Gregg Jarrett defended Clinton on Tuesday writing that “the wrongful death cause of action is legally fallacious. Pure fiction.” He went on to write that the “defamation cause of action is really quite delusional,” and warned that the parents could “get hit with sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.”

Writing that “the plaintiffs in this civil lawsuit cannot possibly prove that Clinton’s emails were the proximate cause of the Benghazi attack.” Jarrett provides a three part analysis:

  • First, the plaintiffs would have to establish that Clinton authored an email giving the specific time, date, location and other information on the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others on Sept. 11, 2012. So far, it doesn’t exist. There is no evidence of it.
  • Second, they’d have to demonstrate that someone hacked Clinton’s server and gave the supposed email to the terrorists. […] Again, there is no evidence of that. […] How do you prove that? In all likelihood, the plaintiffs cannot.
  • Third, they’d have to show the supposedly hacked email caused the terrorists to launch their deadly attack. Absent a terrorist willing to testify or some other documentary evidence substantiating the causal connection, it cannot be done. It is inherently unprovable. The U.S. doesn’t even know who most of the terrorists are. Good luck getting them to come to Washington D.C. to testify in federal court.

Calling the defamation claim “thin, razor thin,” Jarret explains why this “cause of action is “delusional” and “will never survive the most basic courtroom challenge.”

As Jarrett explains:

  • Clinton “says other parents overheard the conversation and corroborate her claim” that she never told the parents the YouTube video was responsible for the attacks. “If so, then Clinton […] may actually be telling the truth. And truth is a complete defense to defamation.”
  • “[W]hatever explanation Clinton offered the parents for the cause of the attack, it was likely her opinion. And opinion is protected speech in a defamation case. Game over.
  • Clinton is not accused of having called the parents liars. The lawsuit alleges that Clinton was asked in an interview “Somebody is lying. Who is it?” and Clinton responded “Not me. That’s all I can tell you.” As Jarrett explains, “that’s not defamation. Not by a long shot. A plaintiff must do more than simply imply a falsehood.”
  • “Finally,” Jarrett writes, “if the parents are considered ‘public figures’ by virtue of their numerous television appearance” it will be practically impossible to prove “malice,” a necessary element of a defamation claim. As Jarrett concludes: “In a case like this, how can it be proved? It can’t.”

Jarret also points out issues surrounding the lawyer representing the parents:

Whatever federal judge is assigned this case will not be oblivious to who filed it. Larry Klayman is the plaintiffs’ lawyer. A political conservative and known Clinton nemesis, he filed more than a dozen cases against the administration of President Bill Clinton and is the definition of “litigious.” His Wikipedia page makes for interesting reading. Check it out. Two federal judges have banned him from their courtrooms for life. He even sued his own mother.

“Expect the defense to file a motion to dismiss. Expect it to be granted. If the plaintiffs are lucky, they’ll simply walk away with nothing,” he concludes, adding “If they are unlucky, they’ll get hit with sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.”

(Visited 97 times, 1 visits today)

Follow Me

Latest posts by Samuel Warde (see all)

You must be logged in to post a comment Login