Fox News Reports Benghazi Suit Likely To Be Dismissed 

Is Fox Finally Turning From The Benghazi Hoax?

From the August 9 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

Video file

JENNA LEE (CO-HOST): Is there really a case here, Greg?

GREGG JARRETT: No, let's take wrongful death for example. It really is unprovable. First of all the plaintiffs would have to prove that Hillary Clinton wrote an email giving the time, date, place, location, whereabouts of Ambassador Stevens and others. Well, to our knowledge, that doesn't even exist. Second of all, they'd have to prove that her email server was hacked by somebody and that the email was given to terrorists. How in the world do you prove that? There's no evidence of that. And finally you'd have to prove that that email that was hacked, if it does exist, was the motivation, the cause of their attack. You have to prove causation and that is utterly unprovable because we don't even know essentially who most of the terrorists are. 

LEE: Interesting. So you need some real specifics for that part of the case. What about the defamation part of the lawsuit? 

JARRETT: You know that's equally difficult. Defamation is a false statement that damages somebody's good name and reputation. While Hillary Clinton says, “I never lied to them about it and other parents who were there and heard the conversations backed me up” and truth is a defense to defamation. Second of all, whatever explanation she gave for the cause of the Benghazi attack was likely her opinion. Opinion is protected free speech in a defamation case. And finally the plaintiff's claim, “Well, she she implied that they were lying.” Implying that somebody is lying, that doesn't cut it in a court of law.

LEE: They are suing her as a presidential candidate that she is now but of course she was in office at the time. How does that figure into case where someone that is being sued was a government official at the time that they have an issue with her? 

JARETT: That's a great point. For example, the wrongful death, all of those alleged actions took place while she was secretary of state so she has what's called qualified immunity. That essentially shields her from any civil liability in a wrongful death case, for example, unless she impinged on the constitutional, federal constitutional, rights of an individual. Here, there really is no argument so she -- I mean the plaintiffs would have to jump this huge hurdle to getover qualified immunity. I suspect they cannot.

LEE: The way you're explaining it to us in just the last two minutes it seems that it's a steep hill to climb, so what do you make of those that are bringing the lawsuit, not necessarily the parents who have lost their sons, but the lawyer who chose to push this case through?

JARRETT: Yeah, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, who has brought a lot of lawsuits against government officials and the Clintons in the past. He has described oftentimes as a conservative. That's not essentially going to help the plaintiffs very much. And they have -- I mean here's what's going to happen. At some point in time the defense will make a motion to dismiss and unless you can get over all these hurdles I've identified for defamation in wrongful death, you know that case is likely going to get dismissed by a federal judge. 


Even Fox News Admits The New Benghazi Lawsuit Against Clinton Is Intended “To Inflict As Much Political Damage” As Possible

A Clinton-Obsessed Conspiracy Theorist Is Behind Benghazi Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

Trump’s Benghazi Lies Came From Fox News