Even though Trump has said he won’t pursue a criminal investigation of Hillary’s email situation, her past demons just won’t seem to fade quietly into the night. One federal case that is still open was filed by the mothers of the Benghazi soldiers who claim Hillary intentionally lied to them to progress a convenient political narrative and subsequently attacked their character when that narrative was revealed to be completely fabricated. While Hillary has requested that the lawsuit be dropped, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers have blasted the request saying that it would be just another “special favor” to the “political elite.” Per WND:
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.”
“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 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.” The lawsuit alleges that Hillary told the Plaintiffs one story about the attack, then told the media another story, and ended up calling the family members liars.
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.”
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.”
Oh well, “what difference at this point does it make?”
* * *