Benghazi Parents Sue Hillary

[Guest]

Two Benghazi Parents Sue Hillary Clinton for Wrongful Death, Defamation

by Pete Williams

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.

While no such connection has ever been established, their lawsuit called it "highly probable" that Clinton sent and received information about the activities of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Such information, the lawsuit claimed, "easily found its way to foreign powers" and was then obtained by Islamic terrorists.

James Comey, in announcing the findings of the FBI's investigation of her private e-mail server last month, said it was "possible that hostile actors gained access" to it. But he said the FBI did not find direct evidence that it was successfully hacked.

The two parents also said when Secretary Clinton met with them after their children were killed, she said that a controversial YouTube video was the motivation for the attacks. But they said that in later interviews she denied making such a statement and implied that the recollection of the parents was incorrect.

In a speech to the Republican convention in Cleveland, Smith said, "I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son."

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

About Larry Klayman @ FreedomWatchUSA.org (http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/klayman)

[Guest]

About time .

[Guest]

Just a frivilous attempt to try and degrade Sec. Clinton.

How about having 4,500 parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq due to the LIES told by GW Bush about weapons of mass destruction that never existed?

Crapweasels Bush and Cheney are both war criminals and should be in prison.

[Guest]

Just a frivilous attempt to try and degrade Sec. Clinton.



Not frivolous at all read

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/160808-Final%20Complaint%20.pdf


She degraded herself.

[Guest]

Just a frivilous attempt to try and degrade Sec. Clinton.

How about having 4,500 parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq due to the LIES told by GW Bush about weapons of mass destruction that never existed?

Crapweasels Bush and Cheney are both war criminals and should be in prison.

Explain how HELLary can be "degraded" any more?

Dude, it's 2016. Snap out of it. We're talking about scumbag lady Hellary.

[Guest]

Explain how HELLary can be "degraded" any more?

Dude, it's 2016. Snap out of it. We're talking about scumbag lady Hellary.

Nazi prison guards are still being convicted of war crimes 71 years after the end of WWII. War criminals GW Bush and Cheney still can stand trial in the World Court. Hopeully, some day they will.

[Guest]

I believe that two more parents have since joined the lawsuit .

[Guest]

Just a frivilous attempt to try and degrade Sec. Clinton.

How about having 4,500 parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq due to the LIES told by GW Bush about weapons of mass destruction that never existed?

Crapweasels Bush and Cheney are both war criminals and should be in prison.

Why don`t you organize a Movement to do so if you are so convinced and energized . You are retired and have the time and you certainly have the intelligence and the funds .

[Guest]

Just a frivilous attempt to try and degrade Sec. Clinton.

How about having 4,500 parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq due to the LIES told by GW Bush about weapons of mass destruction that never existed?

Crapweasels Bush and Cheney are both war criminals and should be in prison.

Geez, blame bush, now that frivolous. Bush got his Intel form fed gov liberal heads, yes most all heads of fed. Gov. Are lead by liberal democrats. So by your thinking IMO bush was set up by liberal democrats which had access of the same Intel and was majority voted for war. Then, like all liberals find fault in others, so they can't be held responsible. I imagine you blame bush for the first ice age or the killing of the dinosaurs!

[Guest]

Two Benghazi Parents Sue Hillary Clinton for Wrongful Death, Defamation - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861)

That's going to be a hard case to win especially if she is President of the United States which looks more and more likely unless Wikileaks has something more substantial. And they probably would have tried to use it before this if it were very serious.

[Guest]

That's going to be a hard case to win especially if she is President of the United States

First did you read the Complaint, or are you familiar with Federal Law?
not a hard case at all, not easy but triable issues of fact are alleged.

The plaintiff's lawyer is no light weight.


which looks more and more likely unless Wikileaks has something more substantial. And they probably would have tried to use it before this if it were very serious.

they have them but 30,000 need to be organized, that takes time.

She got her server hacked that's been established.

[Guest]

About time .

The repub are following trumps lead and becoming sue happy. LOL

[Guest]

First did you read the Complaint, or are you familiar with Federal Law?
not a hard case at all, not easy but triable issues of fact are alleged.

The plaintiff's lawyer is no light weight.




they have them but 30,000 need to be organized, that takes time.

She got her server hacked that's been established.

Bet your house she will go to trial, when you lose I'm sure your trump cronies will take you in. But don't bet on that. LOL

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?_r=0

A good read.
"In a world awash in new information — and misinformation — context, motivation and trust are crucial when weighing the importance of leaks and their accuracy."

It will boil down to intention.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?_r=0

A good read.
"In a world awash in new information — and misinformation — context, motivation and trust are crucial when weighing the importance of leaks and their accuracy."

It will boil down to intention.

Intent is not required for some crimes, such as mishandling of classified information. And her ignorance of the law is pretty hard to convince, being she is a lawyer and being as she was instructed by the State Dept prior to her taking on the duties of SecState. And I am sure she was exposed to classified information as First lady and as senator. So, any excuse of ignorance is hard to prove. She was also told by the White House NOT to use her private server. She did so regardless and that shows the intent to violate. She also shows intent when she instructed her staff to remove classification markings and transmit them to her on the Internet, a felony. Any first year law student could convict her in court. She is protected right now. She won't see a court room until after the election.

[Guest]

Intent is not required for some crimes, such as mishandling of classified information. And her ignorance of the law is pretty hard to convince, being she is a lawyer and being as she was instructed by the State Dept prior to her taking on the duties of SecState. And I am sure she was exposed to classified information as First lady and as senator. So, any excuse of ignorance is hard to prove. She was also told by the White House NOT to use her private server. She did so regardless and that shows the intent to violate. She also shows intent when she instructed her staff to remove classification markings and transmit them to her on the Internet, a felony. Any first year law student could convict her in court. She is protected right now. She won't see a court room until after the election.Somebody that sounded like you told everyone intent won't matter with the FBI. How's that working out? niagara falls

[Guest]

:ohdear:Repubtards are scrapping the bottom of the barrel! Trump is in trouble and they are trying everything they can to make Clinton look bad! There have been (9) GOP led, onesided investigations done that proved no culpability on Clinton's part! So how much of the not responsible do these people not understand? Another Republican led witch hunt!!!:MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

There have been (9) GOP led, onesided investigations done that proved no culpability on Clinton's part!

that has nothing to do with a civil suit and what a jury decides.

[Guest]

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

[Guest]

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.Apparently they never heard about "intent", did they?

[Guest]

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

WRONG!!!

You might want to read the last paragraph (Our ruling) of the link provided.

Are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney unable to visit Europe due to threat of arrest? | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/17/facebook-posts/are-george-w-bush-dick-cheney-unable-visit-europe-/)

[Guest]

The World Court in The Hague has tried GW Bush and Dick Cheney and found them both guilty of crimes against humanity in abstentia. If either sets foot in a country under the jurisdiction of the World Court, they will be imprisoned.

Your favorite source " Snopes " says not at all true .

So what do you have to say for yourself now ?

[Guest]

Your favorite source " Snopes " says not at all true .

So what do you have to say for yourself now ?

Obviously, you are one of the "useful idiots".

[Guest]

Obviously, you are one of the "useful idiots".

You get caught in a lie, and your response is to start the 'name calling'...typical liberal.

[Guest]

Intent is not required for some crimes, such as mishandling of classified information. And her ignorance of the law is pretty hard to convince, being she is a lawyer and being as she was instructed by the State Dept prior to her taking on the duties of SecState. And I am sure she was exposed to classified information as First lady and as senator. So, any excuse of ignorance is hard to prove. She was also told by the White House NOT to use her private server. She did so regardless and that shows the intent to violate. She also shows intent when she instructed her staff to remove classification markings and transmit them to her on the Internet, a felony. Any first year law student could convict her in court. She is protected right now. She won't see a court room until after the election.

You know nothing. There are RULES, break them and you're guilty. Whomever removed the classified markings is guilty. If she told someone else to remove the classification, she is guilty. ONLY the originator of the classified can remove the classification. She IS guilty. She IS being protected. We DO live in a corrupt banana republic.

You get caught in a lie, and your response is to start the 'name calling'...typical liberal.

It's what liberals do...tell you you're wrong than can't show why. "just because" is a favorite "reason".

[Guest]

You know nothing. There are RULES, break them and you're guilty. Whomever removed the classified markings is guilty. If she told someone else to remove the classification, she is guilty. ONLY the originator of the classified can remove the classification. She IS guilty. She IS being protected. We DO live in a corrupt banana republic.



It's what liberals do...tell you you're wrong than can't show why. "just because" is a favorite "reason".

"We DO live in a corrupt banana republic."

I suggest if you think that way then leave the country, I suggest you go to Somalia.

[Guest]

After all the name calling, at least we all agree Snopes is a reliable source of information. Thank goodness

[Guest]

After all the name calling, at least we all agree Snopes is a reliable source of information. Thank goodness


No we don`t agree with you at all .

I just found it amusing that the favorite source of the Left found this particular claim to be too outrageous for even them to try to
twist into a fact .

[Guest]

No we don`t agree with you at all .

I just found it amusing that the favorite source of the Left found this particular claim to be too outrageous for even them to try to
twist into a fact .That's convenient when the site works in your favor. Some people on the left were were sucked into the rumors. They were wrong.

How about you and I work together and use Snopes to clear things up?

Do you have that confidence?

[Guest]

If you went back in back in time, theoretically, and my son was inserted into the Bengazi situation, I would want someone like Trump to be deciding whether or not help was to be sent immediately, because it would. Unfortunately we already know what Hillary would do.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Intent is not required for some crimes, such as mishandling of classified information. And her ignorance of the law is pretty hard to convince, being she is a lawyer and being as she was instructed by the State Dept prior to her taking on the duties of SecState. And I am sure she was exposed to classified information as First lady and as senator. So, any excuse of ignorance is hard to prove. She was also told by the White House NOT to use her private server. She did so regardless and that shows the intent to violate. She also shows intent when she instructed her staff to remove classification markings and transmit them to her on the Internet, a felony. Any first year law student could convict her in court. She is protected right now. She won't see a court room until after the election.

You know nothing. There are RULES, break them and you're guilty. Whomever removed the classified markings is guilty. If she told someone else to remove the classification, she is guilty. ONLY the originator of the classified can remove the classification. She IS guilty. She IS being protected. We DO live in a corrupt banana republic.


Read the post over again. You are saying I know nothing and then you agree with what I said. Are you on drugs?

[Guest]

If you went back in back in time, theoretically, and my son was inserted into the Bengazi situation, I would want someone like Trump to be deciding whether or not help was to be sent immediately, because it would. Unfortunately we already know what Hillary would do.

He would send bombers to bomb the facility your son would be in, then crow about killing the enemy.

[Guest]

He would send bombers to bomb the facility your son would be in, then crow about killing the enemy.

Do you know ANYTHING about the military's capabilities when it comes to responding to Benghazi-like situations. Google "Marine FAST Team', maybe you'll learn something.