Lawyers for twice-failed Oval Office aspirant Hillary Clinton have asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to dismiss a lawsuit over her statements as secretary of state about the Benghazi terror attack that left four Americans dead.
The plaintiffs are arguing the case should to go trial because she doesn’t deserve special treatment as a member of the “political elite.”
Clinton narrowly averted a default judgment in the case earlier when a judge adopted claims that she wasn’t properly served.
Then she argued in court filings that the case should be dismissed, claiming the plaintiffs, Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, haven’t properly claimed they were injured.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by lawyer Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA after the FBI determined Clinton’s handling of classified information through the use of a nonsecure, private email server was “extremely careless.”
They allege that she told them one story about the attack, then told the media another story, and ended up calling the family members liars.
But the claims are plain, according to a new filing in the case, which contends that the plaintiffs have properly presented false light claims, correctly provided claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and “properly alleged” other damages.
“Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court rule on defendant Clinton’s motion in a politically neutral fashion, as defendant Clinton, like everyone else before the court, is not above the law,” the filing states.
“To treat her differently than others would be treated would create and perpetuate a terrible precedent, as the American people have come to believe that, in effect, there are two systems of justice; one for the political elite establishment, and one for the rest of the citizens of our nation.”
The case is based on claims by family members that when Clinton met with them at Joint Base Andrews, she told them the Benghazi attack was “a result of an Internet video criticizing the prophet Mohammad.”
She said this even though she knew the statement to be false, the claim asserts.
But she later changed her story, and “negligently, recklessly, and/or maliciously defamed plaintiffs by either directly calling them liars, or by strongly implying that they are liars, in order to protect and enhance her public image and intimidate and emotionally harm and silence them to not speak up about the Benghazi attack.”
For example, the memo documents that in a 2015 interview with ABC News, she “flat out falsely denied telling the families of Benghazi victims that the YouTube video caused the attack.”
She told her daughter immediately that the attacks were acts of terrorism, but later told others they were sparked by the obscure video.
“Look, I understand the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans,” Clinton said. “And I did testify, as you know, for 11 hours. And I answered all of these questions. Now, I can’t – can’t help it the people think there has to be something else there. I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um, between the time that, uh, I – you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information; we were, uh, giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it. This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war.”
The memo states: “Clinton, in her motion, operates under the false presumption that she was acting with the scope of her employment when she used a private email server to transmit and receive classified and confidential information, and thereby fatally jeopardizing the safety of plaintiffs’ sons.”
The case contends her use of an unsecure email system allowed her messages to be hacked, and thus terrorists learned details of the American operations in Benghazi.
The memo says the solution is for the plaintiffs to be allowed to conduct discovery, and the results all be presented to a jury.
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 an obscure YouTube video, internal communications show they knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack.
Earlier in the case, Klayman 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 lawsuit notes 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.'”