Providing America proof that the 2016 presidential election was mired by a campaign of lies and viciousness by Republicans, a federal judge has fully and completely dismissed the lawsuit surrounding Hillary Clinton’s emails and Benghazi.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson completely tossed out the wrongful-death suits that had been brought against Clinton in the aftermath of two losses from Benghazi.
Jackson also ended the allegations that Clinton effectively slandered the parents of victims by offering contradicting accounts of the series of 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.”
Politico explains why Jackson dismissed the slander portion of the lawsuit:
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 attorney’s for the plaintiffs contend that the judge’s decision was purely political in nature.