I was on the Google News site just now and saw that the parents of two persons killed in the 2012 attack on a US facility in Benghazi were bringing a defamation and wrongful death lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. I skimmed the story at the NBC News web site, and wrote a comment on the article, saying:
This lawsuit is a publicity stunt. Any competent lawyer would advise that the plaintiffs have no chance of showing a direct causal link between Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and the deaths in Benghazi. Without that link, plaintiffs have no standing, and the case will be dismissed.
I patted myself on the back for having learned about standing as part of my avocation of debunking birthers. But then I thought for a minute, and said to myself: “this sounds like Larry Klayman.” I went back to the article and read to the end. It was indeed Larry Klayman representing the parents.
The complaint itself uses misleading language to imply that Secretary Clinton’s email was compromised by foreign governments, and that information in emails obtained by those governments made its way into the hands of terrorists and that this somehow enabled the Benghazi attacks. In fact, the references in the complaint do not show any of this, including any support for the claim that Clinton’s email server was compromised in he first place.
The second count of the complaint is defamation. Klayman says Clinton called his clients liars; however, in all of the quotations in the complaint, Clinton never calls them liars, but only provides a different account of her meeting with them. The worst Clinton says is that they were “wrong.”
It’s a wholly frivolous, and likely politically motivated lawsuit and it is: