Patricia Smith and Charles Woods lost their sons in the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, and they are seeking through civil litigation the justice they were denied by the FBI. On Monday, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton on behalf of Smith and Woods, seeking damages for wrongful death, emotional distress, defamation, and more.
The suit brings together two of the most damning scandals looming over the former secretary of state: The Benghazi attack and her private email server.
“The Benghazi attack was directly and proximately caused, at a minimum by defendant Clinton’s ‘extreme carelessness’ in handling confidential and classified information,” states the lawsuit.
According to the theory of the lawsuit, Hillary’s email server may have been hacked by any number of foreign governments – some of which have ties to terrorist organizations. Through one of these hacks, claim the families, Islamic radicals were able to “obtain the whereabouts of Ambassador Chris Stevens and thus the U.S. State Department and covert and other government operations in Benghazi, Libya and subsequently orchestrate, plan, and execute the now infamous September 11, 2012 attack.”
If a “theory” is all this amounts to, the lawsuit is unlikely to be successful – at least on those specific grounds. It may still have merit on some of the other charges, which speak to Clinton’s statements to the families and to the public regarding the truth of the Benghazi attack. But if the families want to connect Hillary’s email server with the attack, they’ll have to show proof.
Still, Klayman sounds confident that he can prove his case.
“Having used a secret private email server that we now know was used to communicate with Ambassador Christopher Stevens with confidential and classified government information, and which we also now know was likely hacked by hostile adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea aligning with terrorist groups, it is clear that Hillary Clinton allegedly negligently and recklessly gave up the classified location of the plaintiffs’ sons, resulting in a deadly terrorist attack that took their lives,” said Klayman in a statement.
If that allegation can be corroborated by hard evidence, Clinton’s days as a presidential candidate are numbered.
But even if they can’t prove the case, the mere fact that the question is out there should be enough to show voters how unacceptable Clinton’s actions were. Whether it really went down like the lawsuit alleges is almost beside the point; all that matters is that it could have happened that way – and on that point, there is no reasonable doubt. When you narrow your focus down to that one truth – that Clinton’s recklessness could have resulted in this (or a far worse) tragedy – the thought of electing her president becomes obscene.