Another federal so-called “Judge,” an Obama appointee, has acted in a clearly partisan manner on behalf of Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama, contorting and ignoring the law as needed and applying some creative writing skills in the crafting of her ruling.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Friday, May 26th, on the eve of a holiday weekend, against Patricia Smith, the mother of State Department information officer Sean Smith and Charles Woods, the father of CIA operative Tyrone Woods. Both men were killed when Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama left them and their colleagues sitting ducks in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.
The lawsuit alleged that Clinton’s reckless and careless failure to follow protocols in protecting sensitive information contained in her emails led to the deaths of two Americans. As part of the protection of the Clinton crime boss, a charge that she had essentially slandered the parents when she called them liars was also thrown out.
In looking for any excuse to shield Clinton from accountability in the wrongful death portion, Jackson utilized technical grounds, declaring that Clinton used her email in the course of her official duties. She refused to consider that she used a compromised email account that had been left open to foreign surveillance in the conduct of her sales of secrets and reckless handling of classified information. She still treated the unsecured emails as if they were secure in her flawed and corrupted decision.
The Clinton Kangaroo Court finds She was Acting in the Scope of her Employment
She wrote, “The Court finds that Secretary Clinton was acting in [sic] the scope of her employment when she transmitted the emails that are alleged to give rise to her liability. The untimely death of plaintiffs’ sons is tragic, and the Court does not mean to minimize the unspeakable loss that plaintiffs have suffered in any way. But when one applies the appropriate legal standards, it is clear that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to rebut the presumption that Secretary Clinton was acting in her official capacity when she used her private email server.”
The plaintiffs would have demonstrated that rebuttal had the Clinton judge allowed the case to go to trial. That’s why she threw it out. Rather than acknowledging the crux of the issue, that Clinton’s exploitative negligence had created the breach that led to the deaths, Jackson simply called everything off, pretending the suit had never happened rather than allowing justice to run its course. She wrote, “Nothing about this decision should be construed as making any determination or expressing any opinion about the propriety of the use of the private email server or the content or accuracy of the statements made by the Secretary to the family members or to anyone else in the days following the Benghazi attack.” Again, all of that would have come out at trial, and that is the real reason she ruled the way she did.
In documenting her refusal to consider the compromised by corruption email as anything other than the normal, secure email, so-called Judge Jackson wrote that for the purpose of the lawsuit, “it…does not matter whether Secretary Clinton used a private email server lawfully or unlawfully. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether Secretary Clinton’s electronic communications with State Department personnel about official business during her tenure were within the scope of her employment as the head of the State Department,” the judge said. “Her actions – communicating with other State Department personnel and advisors about the official business of the department – fall squarely within the scope of her duty to run the Department and conduct the foreign affairs of the nation as Secretary of State.”
Larry Klayman vowed to Appeal Decision that is “simply dishonest and an outrage.”
Jackson also gave Clinton a pass on the defamation claims, determining Clinton’s public statements that the family members were “wrong” about what she’d said to them, the claim the video fabrication was the cause of the attacks, were not the equivalent of saying the parents lied. She concluded that Clinton was saying that the parents could be mistaken in their recollection, particularly given the impact of their children’s deaths. “Secretary Clinton did not refer to plaintiffs as liars,” Jackson said. Right, Judge, she just said they weren’t telling the truth – patronizingly, dismissively and condescendingly.
The attorney for Mrs. Smith and Mr. Woods, Freedom Watch’s Larry Klayman, vowed an appeal of a decision he decried as “simply dishonest and an outrage.”
Klayman contends his clients should have been given the opportunity to force Clinton into a deposition, to question her on the illegal server and that a jury should have been allowed to make the decision as to whether Clinton’s statements were defamatory.
He said Jackson “clearly put politics and ahead of her oath of office as a judge to administer to the law in a neutral unbiased way.” He added, “Judge Jackson, who is an Obama appointee and a Democrat, was clearly protecting Mrs. Clinton and this intellectually dishonest decision will be appealed. My clients are confident of success.”
The Clinton – Obama crime syndicate again demonstrates it is above and owns the law.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.