Sept. 10, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
10:52
3407 Benghazi Victims' Parents Sue Hillary Clinton | Larry Klayman and Stefan Molyneux
Larry Klayman is a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, the founder of Freedom Watch and is representing the parents of Benghazi victims in a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for allegedly wrongfully causing the death of their sons as well as for defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.For more information on Larry Klayman and the lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, please check out: http://www.freedomwatchusa.orgFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, it's Devan Mullen from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
We have on the line and on your screen, Larry Klayman.
He's a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, the founder of Freedom Watch, and is currently representing the parents of the Benghazi victims in a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.
Larry, thank you so much for taking the time today.
You're welcome.
So what is the reasoning behind the lawsuit that you're pursuing at present?
Case is exceedingly simple, and simple case, as they used to teach me at the Department of Justice when I was a prosecutor there, KISS, keep it simple, stupid.
It's a very powerful case, because Hillary Clinton, in using that private email server, in effect compromised the security of that consulate in Benghazi.
In other words, by intercepting those email communications, which were classified, and we know that happened from the FBI director, that it was hacked, that gave up the location of Ambassador Chris Stevens, It's a wrongful death lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.
She doesn't have immunity, as some have suggested, because that was a crime to misuse that private email server.
Even the FBI director who took a dive for political purposes admitted it was extremely careless, which is the standard at a minimum for committing a crime.
Secondly, we sued Mrs.
Clinton for defamation because she told our clients that the attack was the result of a video which criticized the Prophet Mohammed when she was telling her own daughter, Chelsea Clinton, and the Prime Minister of Egypt and others that in fact it was a terrorist attack.
When our clients repeated what Hillary Clinton had said, they were branded liars.
Again, no governmental immunity because Mrs.
Clinton has made these statements while she was not Secretary of State.
People want to see the complaint They can go to freedomwatchusa.org.
Freedomwatchusa.org.
That's our group.
And you've cited a Politico article that talks about the last batch of Clinton emails from the State Department contained five emails from Russian-linked hackers.
I wonder if you could help people understand the relevance of that.
The relevance is that that email was exposed to hacking.
It's not just Russia.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is extremely adept at cyber espionage.
In fact, years ago, I brought a lawsuit against the regime for victims of the regime.
I had 17 viruses put into my computer.
I went to the FBI with that.
This is something that's done routinely.
All nations have that capability.
They do it.
They're obviously focusing on the Secretary of State because she does international politics and diplomacy.
It would be like Saying there's not life on earth to believe that her email server was hacked.
But here's the bigger story.
The bigger story is the cover-up by the US government.
No one, whether it's Democrat or Republican, really wants to push that hard.
All these emails are in the hands of the National Security Agency.
We all know that they've grabbed every email and keep them for at least the last five years.
If they wanted the full story on Hillary Clinton, the FBI could have gotten it.
Right.
Now, forgive my ignorance of the local conditions, but would the whereabouts of the ambassador and the others be a mystery?
I mean, wasn't it fairly known where the embassy was and how to attack it?
Well, you just teed up a question for me, which answers itself.
No, that was an undercover CIA operation in Benghazi.
And it was not to be known that there was activity there.
And in fact, our client's sons were working in conjunction with the CIA. That's out there in the public domain.
So this is a, you know, it really revealed a cover off of a CIA operation.
I'm not saying our clients were under cover of CIA agents or not, but if you do that under American law, if you blow the cover of a CIA agent, it's the death penalty.
Yeah, well, that seems quite stringent.
And so this is how, sorry, go ahead.
I said I would say, and that may explain why there's a cover up here.
That doesn't mean that everybody gets thrown in the death penalty with every violation, but that's the strongest penalty.
So that's what was at stake here, and that's why even the FBI director doesn't want to pin the tail on the donkey, so to speak, with regard to Hillary Clinton.
The donkey is, by the way, the trademark for the Democrats.
Right.
Now, the question of why...
All of this occurred.
There have been some theories.
I'll bounce one off you and get your thoughts on it.
So, of course, it was an election year and if an attack upon Americans in the Middle East on the anniversary of 9-11 had occurred and the facts behind it had been revealed, there are some who say That it would have been devastating for the Democrats in that election cycle.
And that's one of the reasons why there was this misdirection, this complaint that it was about a YouTube video and so on.
What are your thoughts as to why there was this immediate diversion rather than a confession of what happened?
There is an impression in this country, which I believe is accurate, which the President of the United States favors Muslim interests over other interests.
He is half Muslim.
He attended Muslim schools in Indonesia.
He wears a ring that says, my only God is Allah.
Someone took a close picture of it.
He thinks of himself as coming from the Muslim part of the world.
And consequently, they are sensitive to the fact that he has not fought Muslim terrorism as much as perhaps someone else might have.
So to have a terrorist attack right before the election on his watch, when he said that they have won the war on terrorism, would have been a big hit politically.
And that's one of the reasons why they covered it up, in my opinion.
Thank you.
Right.
And what sort of timeframe do you expect for this kind of process?
How long do you think it might take to wind its way through the system?
We would maintain that Hillary Clinton, since we sued her in her private capacity, has only 20 days to answer the complaint.
She has been served with it.
They may take the position that she gets 60 because she's a former government Secretary of State will obviously argue that.
But once the complaint is responded to, this case can, in theory, go into discovery.
We can take depositions.
We can ask for documents.
It will move relatively quickly.
But we didn't bring the case to influence the election.
We did not.
We brought the case for justice.
And it's symptomatic here in the United States.
And frankly, you know, I love my country and I'm very proud of it.
But it's a disgrace.
That in this country, we don't hold the elite accountable.
They do a better job in Brazil or in Israel and other places where they hold chief executives accountable.
This country, you get a pass.
There are two systems here.
Justice for the elite, justice for the rest of the country.
That's what we're trying to eliminate.
It reminds me of the old saying about the law in its more corrupt state, that the law is like a spider web.
It traps the flies, but the birds and larger animals can just fly Right through it.
And that I think is one of the frustrating things about where American law is at the moment.
I remember watching Comey's statement, thinking, well, he's really building a solid case, and then it just sort of evaporated.
And I think there is that frustration and this feeling that the elites are judged by a different system.
And that I think lowers people's respect for the law as a whole, as it seems a tool of the political elite to get away with things rather than a universal standard that everyone is subject to.
You're right.
That's why we fought our revolution beginning in 1776, is because King George III took the criminal justice system back to London.
The colonies couldn't control it.
In today's world, the elite in Washington, both Democrat and Republican, control that justice system when it comes to the judges.
They're hand-picked on either side of the aisle.
Now, sometimes you get good judges.
We've had them.
It's very rare.
Most of them wear their political affiliation on their sleeve.
And most of them will do what their benefactors want them to do when it comes to a political case.
They might play it straight in a case that doesn't have a political element to it, but otherwise, 90% of them will do what whoever appointed them to office wants them to do, and that's a reality here.
I might add one other thing.
Perhaps our greatest founding father, Thomas Jefferson, said that when the people fear the government, there's tyranny.
When the government Here's the people.
There's liberty.
And Jefferson knew what was going to happen.
He said, we need a revolution every other generation to clean house.
And I don't want to see a violent revolution.
I want to see a peaceful one.
But the reality is we do need a revolution right now.
This country, the elites have broken away from the rest of the country and explains the popularity of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
They were perceived as going up against those elites.
Whether that's true or not, we'll find out.
Yeah, I mean, I think there's this perception that begins to spread among people when they see people at the top routinely seem to flout the standards that are applied harshly to their underlings.
And the relationship with the law, which, you know, ideally should be one of respect and reverence for just and universal principles, becomes kind of a game of, well, if they can get away with stuff, maybe I can see what I can get away with.
And that, I think, creates a significant decay.
The law, I don't think, can function in a society very well or becomes increasingly harsh.
If the population as a whole no longer respects the universality and moral underpinnings of the law, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole because more and more people don't seem to respect the law.
And I just don't know how a legal system can sustain itself in that environment.
It can.
And we're doing what we can in the courts in the case that we've discussed today, which you can see at freedomwatchusa.org.
We hope people will support us in that.
We're chipping away at the system.
We're chopping at the tree.
And hopefully that tree of injustice will fall.
But there will come a point in time in this country, I think relatively soon, particularly with the race war that the president and Black Lives Matter and those types have whipped up here in this country with regard to the police and others.
Hillary Clinton's pitting man against woman, woman against man.
We're going to see more and more of that.
Everybody's called a racist.
Everybody's divided.
You can't express your opinion anymore.
The United States is on the ropes right now.
And I'm doing what I can to try to preserve it, and I hope other people will do the same.
Well, I appreciate that effort as well, and we'll put the links to the website you've mentioned below.
Larry, thank you so much for your time today, and I hope you'll come back and keep us updated.
