protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 59,757
- 20,294
- 2,250
Nothing has been in the news more lately than Hillary Clinton as the Democrat front runner for the 2016 presidential election. And there has been unyielding criticism thrown at her concerning her deleted emails, alleged unsigned Sect. of State separation document OF-109, violation of concealment law, disregard for the public's right to know, subpeonas for her computer server, and general arrogance.
And in all this, they rarely even mention Hillary's right-hand, Muslim Brotherhood girl, Huma Abedin. With a seditionist deputy Chief of Staff of the State Dept by her side during much of her tenure as Sect of State, one would think this would have at least raised eyebrows long ago, and especially with all that going on now.
On the TV news, in 5 photos of Hillary Clinton that I just saw shown, Huma Abedin was right there with Hillary in 3 of them. When are the Republicans going to grill Hillary about the emails that Huma was involved with, to whom they were sent or received from, and just the whole idea of having someone so closely and long-time connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, as dubious Huma.
Also, not so long ago, the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department. Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so.
It is not clear what role Mrs. Clinton played in approving the arrangement. Some good-government groups have been critical of such situations, saying public employees’ loyalty should be solely to the public and their government work, rather than private firms and figures.
Officials in the State Department and Clinton circles seem especially sensitive about the arrangement, and no one would speak about it on the record. Earlier this month, Anthony Weiner, Huma's husband, released a copy of the couple’s 2012 tax return showing that they had income of more than $490,000.
But when pressed on the matter, Mr. Weiner declined to discuss what, if any, income Huma derived from work done outside the State Department.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/ny...aide.html?_r=0
And in all this, they rarely even mention Hillary's right-hand, Muslim Brotherhood girl, Huma Abedin. With a seditionist deputy Chief of Staff of the State Dept by her side during much of her tenure as Sect of State, one would think this would have at least raised eyebrows long ago, and especially with all that going on now.
On the TV news, in 5 photos of Hillary Clinton that I just saw shown, Huma Abedin was right there with Hillary in 3 of them. When are the Republicans going to grill Hillary about the emails that Huma was involved with, to whom they were sent or received from, and just the whole idea of having someone so closely and long-time connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, as dubious Huma.


Also, not so long ago, the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department. Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so.
It is not clear what role Mrs. Clinton played in approving the arrangement. Some good-government groups have been critical of such situations, saying public employees’ loyalty should be solely to the public and their government work, rather than private firms and figures.
Officials in the State Department and Clinton circles seem especially sensitive about the arrangement, and no one would speak about it on the record. Earlier this month, Anthony Weiner, Huma's husband, released a copy of the couple’s 2012 tax return showing that they had income of more than $490,000.
But when pressed on the matter, Mr. Weiner declined to discuss what, if any, income Huma derived from work done outside the State Department.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/ny...aide.html?_r=0
Last edited: