The 2016 Presidential Election was embroiled with lies told by the Republicans about Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi deaths. US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson just proved that by completely tossing out the wrongful death suits brought against Clinton after the Benghazi attack.
By dismissing the suits, Judge Jackson also ended allegations that Clinton slandered the victims’ parents by offering contradicting accounts of the events that led to their children’s deaths. In Jackson’s opinion, she writes:
“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. 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.”
According to Politico, Judge Jackson had good reason to dismiss the slander portion of the suit:
The judge also rejected the defamation claims, concluding that Clinton’s public statements that the family members’ were “wrong” about what she’d said to them about the motivation for the attack were not the equivalent of saying they lied. In short, Jackson concluded that Clinton was saying that the parents could be mistaken in their recollection, particularly given the impact of their children’s deaths.
“Secretary Clinton did not refer to plaintiffs as liars,” Jackson noted. “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.”
The plaintiffs’s attorneys maintain the Judge Jackson’s decision was purely political. Most Republicans would probably agree with that statement, not believing that a judge could interpret the law in a way that doesn’t Hillary Clinton into a criminal.