Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Aug '16 13:48
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861

    Apparently two parents of servicemen killed in Benghazi are suing Hillary on the premise that the careless use of her e-mails and top secret information led to the deaths of those serving abroad, much like Hillary being accused of naming an official in Iran as a "friend", who was later hung.

    The trail of death and destruction continues to follow the Clintons.
  2. 09 Aug '16 14:27
    So let me get this straight. They are claiming that Libyans hacked into Clinton's private email server in order to find out where the US consulate was in Libya? Was that a state secret?
  3. 09 Aug '16 14:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So let me get this straight. They are claiming that Libyans hacked into Clinton's private email server in order to find out where the US consulate was in Libya? Was that a state secret?
    "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.

    Also

    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.
  4. 09 Aug '16 16:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    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.
    So what do you think Stevens was up to that so upset Islamic terrorists?

    Also, did Clinton have Stevens travel plans in her email?

    Seriously now, the claims are utterly ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that for once you didn't need to make them up.
  5. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    09 Aug '16 17:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So what do you think Stevens was up to that so upset Islamic terrorists?

    Also, did Clinton have Stevens travel plans in her email?

    Seriously now, the claims are utterly ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that for once you didn't need to make them up.
    What is utterly ridiculous is anyone thinking "the recollection of the parents was incorrect". Does Mrs "I don't recall" Clinton seriously believe the parents of fallen children would not remember what she told them? The same lie was told to the American public, so why would she tell those parents a different story?
  6. 09 Aug '16 18:13
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    What is utterly ridiculous is anyone thinking "the recollection of the parents was incorrect". Does Mrs "I don't recall" Clinton seriously believe the parents of fallen children would not remember what she told them? The same lie was told to the American public, so why would she tell those parents a different story?
    What does the recollection of the parents have to do with the law suit? The claim being made is that Clinton's emails were somehow leaked leading to terrorists getting their hands on top secret information which lead to them attacking the US consulate in Bengazi.
    Do you think these claims sound reasonable?
    Do these claims make sense in light of the actual events?
    Do you think whodey even knows what events took place?
    Do you think whodey thinks the claims sound reasonable, or is he just passing on nonsensical claims because he thinks it will make Clinton look bad?
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Aug '16 19:15
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    What is utterly ridiculous is anyone thinking "the recollection of the parents was incorrect". Does Mrs "I don't recall" Clinton seriously believe the parents of fallen children would not remember what she told them? The same lie was told to the American public, so why would she tell those parents a different story?
    So you figure the FBI was bought off by Hillary. That figures.
  8. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    09 Aug '16 19:43
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What does the recollection of the parents have to do with the law suit? The claim being made is that Clinton's emails were somehow leaked leading to terrorists getting their hands on top secret information which lead to them attacking the US consulate in Bengazi.
    Do you think these claims sound reasonable?
    Do these claims make sense in light of the actu ...[text shortened]... le, or is he just passing on nonsensical claims because he thinks it will make Clinton look bad?
    Did you know there is a war going on, and are you aware that terrorist attacks are not "spontaneous protests"?
  9. 09 Aug '16 20:01
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Did you know there is a war going on, and are you aware that terrorist attacks are not "spontaneous protests"?
    Do you believe those stupid questions answers any of my questions to you? Try again.
  10. Standard member KellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    09 Aug '16 20:21
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    What is utterly ridiculous is anyone thinking "the recollection of the parents was incorrect". Does Mrs "I don't recall" Clinton seriously believe the parents of fallen children would not remember what she told them? The same lie was told to the American public, so why would she tell those parents a different story?
    I do not think this law suit will go anywhere, and lying to parents next to their kids dead
    bodies isn't a crime, and I guess with some readers here, not a big deal either.
  11. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    09 Aug '16 20:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Do you believe those stupid questions answers any of my questions to you? Try again.
    I wasn't talking about the law suit. I was talking about the parents, and how Hillary Clinton lied to their faces at the burial of their children. If you want to talk about something else that's fine. But if you think I'm fooled by any of your stupid remarks and questions then think again.
  12. Standard member KellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    09 Aug '16 20:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So you figure the FBI was bought off by Hillary. That figures.
    I think both the FBI and the Justice Dept are in it for Hillary, YES. Lynch met Clinton on an
    airplane before she was to render a judgment, they were guarded by FBI agents. The FBI
    let her off the hook for what reason? She didn't lie to them *the FBI*, and when it came
    time for her to be interviewed by the FBI she was not under oath, and no one recorded the
    conversation. For all we know the FBI handed her their resume' looking for a job, we have
    no idea if they even asked her questions and what her answers were to see if she lied.

    We do know every time she talks about all, she ends up lying again, but the one time that
    it would have mattered, NO RECORDS.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Aug '16 20:32
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I think both the FBI and the Justice Dept are in it for Hillary, YES. Lynch met Clinton on an
    airplane before she was to render a judgment, they were guarded by FBI agents. The FBI
    let her off the hook for what reason? She didn't lie to them *the FBI*, and when it came
    time for her to be interviewed by the FBI she was not under oath, and no one recorded ...[text shortened]... s about all, she ends up lying again, but the one time that
    it would have mattered, NO RECORDS.
    The FBI won't answer ANY questions straight about most anything and you can be sure somewhere buried in some data base either on paper or cloud, and it looks like there was nothing to pursue, try as they might.

    BTW, did you get my emails, I sent two music files. I need to know so I know how big a file I can send. So far it looks like 5 megs is my personal limit on my end, the email seems to bugger up with files bigger than that.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Aug '16 20:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/two-benghazi-parents-sue-hillary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861

    Apparently two parents of servicemen killed in Benghazi are suing Hillary on the premise that the careless use of her e-mails and top secret information led to the deaths of those serving abroad, much like Hillary being accused of naming an official ...[text shortened]... nd", who was later hung.

    The trail of death and destruction continues to follow the Clintons.
    Larry Klayman, the attorney for the plaintiffs, is a well known right wing nut. Here's some of his recent statements: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/larry-klayman-traitor-obama-would-have-been-impeached-now-if-he-werent-black

    This lawsuit appears to be completely frivolous and should merit sanctions.

    Here's some more info:

    In the 1990s, Klayman reportedly filed at least 18 lawsuits against the Clinton administration, accusing them of various conspiracies, and has filed "hundreds of lawsuits against federal agencies, White House officials, Cabinet secretaries, judges, journalists, former colleagues, foreign governments, dictators, presidents," his own mother, and The Washington Post.

    The Week explained in 2013 that Klayman, "implied the Clintons orchestrated the murders of several of their associates in the 1990s, a prime reason he has argued Hillary is unfit to be president."

    As reported by The Washington Post, in 2014, Klayman premised a lawsuit on the concept that "The Ebola virus is secretly a biological weapon allowed into the country by the Obama administration to further terrorist interests against Americans of the 'Caucasian race and Jewish-Christian religion.'" Klayman described President Obama in a lawsuit as "not even a naturalized U.S. citizen and thus is in the United States illegally," and described Obama's birth certificate as a "fraud." In order "to maintain the confidence of the American people and for the benefit of the country's democratic system," Klayman subsequently petitioned the government to "initiate removal and deportation proceedings" against the president. Klayman has referred to President Obama as "mullah in chief" and accused "Obama and his Muslim friends" of "literally 'making love' with each other." He called Obama "our first 'Muslim' president" who "has joined with Palestinians to now knock off Israel."

    In a 2013 protest at the White House, Klayman told the audience that President Obama should "put the Quran down," "get up off his knees" and "come out with his hands up."

    A month later, Klayman held the "Second American Revolution" rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House, which sought to force the resignation of President Obama and other top Congressional leaders.

    Klayman was at one point barred from practicing law in New York City, because he suggested that an Asian-American judge was unable to rule impartially in a case due to his race.

    https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/08/clinton-obsessed-conspiracy-theorist-behind-benghazi-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton/212252
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Aug '16 20:47
    Here's what Gregg Jarett of FoxNews said about the lawsuit:

    The parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton claiming, among other things, wrongful death and defamation.

    From a purely legal standpoint, a roll of toilet paper has more value.

    No one doubts the heartache these parents have endured. And no one should question the valor of their sons who lost their lives. However, this lawsuit is so groundless and specious that it threatens to diminish our memory of them.

    The plaintiffs claim that Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of confidential and classified government information on her private email server caused the deaths of Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith. Clinton was surely careless. Indeed, her conduct was probably criminal, notwithstanding FBI Director James Comey’s tortured logic in not recommending prosecution. But the plaintiffs in this civil lawsuit cannot possibly prove that Clinton’s emails were the proximate cause of the Benghazi attack. Not a chance.

    First, the plaintiffs would have to establish that Clinton authored an email giving the specific time, date, location and other information on the whereabouts of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others on Sept. 11, 2012. So far, it doesn’t exist. There is no evidence of it.

    Second, they’d have to demonstrate that someone hacked Clinton’s server and gave the supposed email to the terrorists. Or, in the alternative, the terrorists did the hacking all by themselves. Again, there is no evidence of that. Yes, Comey said it is possible Clinton’s server was hacked successfully. But there is no proof it ever happened. How do you prove that? In all likelihood, the plaintiffs cannot.

    Third, they’d have to show the supposedly hacked email caused the terrorists to launch their deadly attack. Absent a terrorist willing to testify or some other documentary evidence substantiating the causal connection, it cannot be done. It is inherently unprovable. The U.S. doesn’t even know who most of the terrorists are. Good luck getting them to come to Washington D.C. to testify in federal court.

    Thus, the wrongful death cause of action is legally fallacious. Pure fiction.

    Defamation, by either slander or libel, is a false statement that damages someone’s good name and reputation. It is extremely difficult to prove.

    The parents claim that Clinton told them a lie – that an anti-Muslim video caused the terror attack. Then, when Clinton later denied saying it, she was implying that the parents were, themselves, lying. Hence, the defamation. As legal claims go, this one is thin. Razor thin.

    Clinton insists she never told the parents that a video was to blame for the attack. She says other parents overheard the conversation and corroborate her claim. If so, then Clinton, who has a history of telling whoppers when it comes to her email server, may actually be telling the truth. And truth is a complete defense to defamation.

    But whatever explanation Clinton offered the parents for the cause of the attack, it was likely her opinion. And opinion is protected speech in a defamation case. Game over.

    Moreover, Clinton never said the plaintiffs lied. One of the allegedly defamatory statements cited in the lawsuit is an interview in which a questioner asked, “Somebody is lying. Who is it?” Clinton responded by saying, “Not me. That’s all I can tell you.” Well, that’s not defamation. Not by a long shot. A plaintiff must do more than simply imply a falsehood.

    Finally, if the parents are considered “public figures” by virtue of their numerous television appearances, they will have a nearly insurmountable burden of proving that Clinton acted with what’s called “malice.” That is, she knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In a case like this, how can that be proved? It can’t.

    Therefore, the defamation cause of action is really quite delusional. It will never survive the most basic courtroom challenge.

    Most of the allegations of wrongdoing happened while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State. As such, she is entitled to “qualified immunity.” It is an affirmative defense which shields government officials from damages for civil liability, unless their actions are found to violate an individual’s federal constitutional rights. It appears that Clinton was acting in the course and scope of her official duties, so it will be nearly impossible for the plaintiffs to pierce the broad immunity protection.

    There are other claims for damages in the lawsuit, but they are equally implausible. For example, the parents are suing for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In law school, students are taught that, if all else fails, sue for emotional distress. The trouble is, judges went to law school, too. Most of them view it as an act of desperation in a feeble or sham lawsuit.

    In this case, it is worse than weak. All the emotional distress claims are tied directly to Clinton’s emails. And, again, the plaintiffs can’t prove that Clinton’s server was hacked and that terrorists got their hands on her emails which then prompted their attacks.

    Whatever federal judge is assigned this case will not be oblivious to who filed it. Larry Klayman is the plaintiffs’ lawyer. A political conservative and known Clinton nemesis, he filed more than a dozen cases against the administration of President Bill Clinton and is the definition of “litigious.” His Wikipedia page makes for interesting reading. Check it out. Two federal judges have banned him from their courtrooms for life. He even sued his own mother.

    The parents who agreed to be represented by Klayman have done themselves no favors. His role as their attorney will raise an immediate red flag to the judge that this case is, in all likelihood, politically motivated. Never a good thing.

    Expect the defense to file a motion to dismiss. Expect it to be granted. If the plaintiffs are lucky, they’ll simply walk away with nothing.

    If they are unlucky, they’ll get hit with sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/09/families-lawsuit-against-clinton-over-benghazi-doesnt-hold-up.html