Federal Judge – Hillary 'in the scope of her employment,' not responsible for Benghazi Deaths
A federal judge in Washington has dismissed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for her use of the private email server, claiming it prompted the Benghazi attack.
Parents of two Americans killed in the consulate attack in Benghazi brought on the suit against the former presidential candidate. They argue her reckless use of the private, unsecure email server exposed classified information to terrorists– enabling them to commit the attack.
“The Court finds that Secretary Clinton was acting in the scope of her employment when she transmitted the emails that are alleged to give rise to her liability,” wrote Amy Berman Jackson, the U.S. District Judge in a 29-page opinion for the case. “The untimely death of plaintiffs’ sons is tragic, and the Court does not mean to minimize the unspeakable loss that plaintiffs have suffered in any way. But when one applies the appropriate legal standards, it is clear that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to rebut the presumption that Secretary Clinton was acting in her official capacity when she used her private email server.”
“Berman ruled the parents didn’t sufficiently challenge that Clinton was not acting in her official capacity when she used the private server, and that the families didn’t put forward appropriate claims that Clinton defamed them or put them in a false light,” writes Fox News. “One of the parents, Patricia Smith, gave an emotional speech during the 2016 Republican National Convention against Clinton. Her son and Woods were killed in the September 2012 attack, along with CIA operative Glen Doherty and the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.”
Jackson granted the State Department motion to step in as the defendant in the case and then dismissed the wrongful death portion and the defamation claims of the suit.
“Secretary Clinton did not refer to plaintiffs as liars. Plaintiffs may find the candidate’s statements in her own defense to be ‘unpleasant or offensive,’ but Secretary Clinton did not portray plaintiffs as ‘odious, infamous, or ridiculous….’ To the contrary, the statements portray plaintiffs as normal parents, grieving over the tragic loss of their loved ones,” wrote Jackson about the defamation claims.
Jackson also refused to address if Clinton’s use of her private server was illegal.
The judge said “it…does not matter whether Secretary Clinton used a private email server lawfully or unlawfully. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether Secretary Clinton’s electronic communications with State Department personnel about official business during her tenure were within the scope of her employment as the head of the State Department,” and that “Her actions – communicating with other State Department personnel and advisors about the official business of the department – fall squarely within the scope of her duty to run the Department and conduct the foreign affairs of the nation as Secretary of State.”
Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, the attorney for Smith and Woods called Jackson’s decision as “simply dishonest and an outrage” and said the judge “clearly put politics and ahead of her oath of office as a judge to administer to the law in a neutral unbiased way.”
“Judge Jackson, who is an Obama appointee and a Democrat, was clearly protecting Mrs. Clinton and this intellectually dishonest decision will be appealed. My clients are confident of success,” said Klayman.
Author’s note: This just proves that the Clinton camp still has connections willing to protect her. Anyone can see how Clinton’s negligence could have had tremendous consequences, some we don’t even know of. Her email server clearly had tactical information on Benghazi and her irresponsible email activity likely got innocent people killed.
Editor’s note: Her private email server was not “in the scope of her employment.” And we know she revealed secret tactical data on the movements of personnel there, that likely led to their death. I wish I had been able to testify.