Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood — on The Glazov Gang

hj-1

By Jamie Glazov, November 4, 2016:

This new special edition of the Glazov Gang was joined by Trevor Loudon, the writer and director of the new documentary, The Enemies Withinan expose on the growing communist and Muslim Brotherhood influence on our government.

[Check out the trailer for The Enemies Within here, and order your copy of the DVD here.]

Mr. Loudon came on the show to discuss Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood, unveiling the frightening ties that bind.

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-anthony-weiner-sexting-1-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 4, 2016:

Blackwater founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his “well-placed sources” in the New York Police Department, “the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making” in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received “huge pushback” from the Justice Department.

Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I mean, it’s not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they’ve hacked and stolen your data,” Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

“There’s five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860,” Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

“NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop,” Prince elaborated. “Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton’s own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found.”

“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t,” Prince contended.

“There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs,” he stated.

“So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that’s the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue,” Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, “but they can’t convene a grand jury.They can’t file charges.”

“The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that,” he explained. “Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he’s a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing.”

Marlow agreed that Bharara’s “sterling reputation” as a determined prosecutor was “bad news for the Clintons.”

Prince agreed, but said, “If people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

“The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well,” Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has “exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department” against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to “keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed.”

“The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done,” he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that “de Blasio wants to stay away from this.”

“The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling,” he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case “have not been named yet,” and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

“I wish they’d do it today,” he said. “These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today, and shine the light of truth on this great evil.”

“From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down,” he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

“Sure, that’s it. That’s the argument for it,” Prince agreed. “But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they’d be talking about it. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops.”

“This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don’t have to make any judgments. Just release the emails,” he urged. “Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that “forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate.”

“This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser for the last 20 years,” he said of the new bombshells. “This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation.”

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

“There’s a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information,” he said. “Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That’s the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world.”

“That’s not who you want in the White House,” Prince declared.

Also see:

Frank Gaffney: FBI Will Probably Find Huma Abedin ‘Playing Fast and Loose’ with Facts

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 3, 2016:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said he “takes no satisfaction” from the renewed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, even though the latest developments have thrown a spotlight on top Clinton aide Huma Abedin – someone Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have long warned was a more important, and troubling, figure than the mainstream media admit.

“I’d rather be wrong,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “I really mean that. For the country’s sake, to be honest with you. But in this case, four years ago, we produced a course that’s still available online called MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com. And Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, featured prominently in it as an example – just one example, but as an example of Islamist influence operations inside the United States government.”

“I made that contention on the grounds that Huma Abedin, at that time, was known to have essentially her entire family involved in what was a Muslim Brotherhood front group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs,” he explained. “And the question occurred to me – and, in due course, to several members of Congress, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann – that hey, wait, maybe if you have somebody that’s got that kind of personal investment in Islamic supremacism, it might have something to do with the fact that the State Department (and the Obama administration, more generally, but specifically the department in whom Huma Abedin then worked as a deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton) was aligning its policies so dramatically with the dictates of the Brotherhood, on a whole host of issues.”

Gaffney provided some examples of those issues: “You know, letting in Tariq Ramadan, something Hillary Clinton personally did. One of the, you know, sort of capo de capos of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of its founder. Engaging the Brotherhood and suppressing freedom of speech. Helping overthrow friends of ours, such as they were, in the Middle East in favor of Muslim Brotherhood regimes or jihadist groups of other stripes. And on and on. Now we’ve learned, of course, of mishandling of classified information and the like.”

“But Alex, here’s the point: This was an inquiry, the concerns of Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen, that led to an official request of the State Department’s inspector general to look into this possible, very troubling correlation. And you know who stepped up to shut that down? None other than Republican Senator John McCain. And we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks explorations of John Podesta’s emails, that John Podesta and the Clinton team took credit for setting John McCain up to that,” Gaffney revealed.

“And the real message here – and why I feel regretful about this vindication, such as it is – is poor Michele Bachmann, who simply was doing her job in Congress, suffered the consequences of it. Her career was essentially destroyed when John McCain denounced her on the Floor of the United States Senate. And what’s really bad is that every other member of Congress basically, until very recently, had taken the message: You don’t want to touch this question of Islamist influence operations,” he warned.

“Thanks to Breitbart, you guys have done your heroic work in exploring this. Few others have, but not nearly enough. Had we done more – had that inquiry gone forward, Alex – perhaps some of the damage I believe Huma Abedin is now being examined for having done might have been prevented. At least we would have known about it four years ago,” Gaffney said.

Marlow asked Gaffney if he thinks FBI Director James Comey has “got the goods” on Hillary Clinton and her aides or if the renewed investigation is just a “political thing.”

“We don’t know, but my guess is, in 650,000 emails which we’re told are on Anthony Weiner’s computer, that were from Huma Abedin’s account, I’m reasonably sure you’re gonna find lots of classified information that shouldn’t have been there,” Gaffney replied.

He also anticipated the FBI would discover more evidence that “Huma Abedin was playing fast and loose – in the service of Hillary Clinton, to be sure – with all of the procedures for handling such classified information.”

“And that has resulted, according to Congressman Chris Stewart, who I talked with yesterday, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the compromise not just of that information, but of sources and methods by which it’s obtained, which is a hugely serious problem,” Gaffney said.

“I think you’re also going to see that Hillary’s right-hand gal perjured herself repeatedly in the course of the investigations conducted to date, and that in so doing has helped to cover up Hillary’s own malfeasance in many of these areas,” he added. “It’s the tip of the iceberg, what we know so far. I think if the FBI does do its job, and that’s a big ‘if,’ we’re going to find out a lot more about what was really a criminal conspiracy.”

Gaffney recommended a video called “Who is Huma Abedin?” which he said exposes “not simply that her father and her mother and her sister and her brother are all in a family business that was established by a guy by the name of Abdullah Omar Nasif – one of the top Saudi financiers of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – but that Huma herself was involved in this family business, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, through its Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs.”

“And here’s the other thing about this, Alex: the Journal, and the Institute of which it was the sort of mainstay, had as its express purpose, in a radical Islamist sense, promoting Muslim minority rights by encouraging Muslims not to assimilate in countries in which they were minorities – to become, in other words, part of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure that was ultimately designed to take down those non-Muslim majority countries,” he said.

“This is the thing that’s so troubling,” Gaffney argued. “You had a woman with this in her DNA, if you will, at the right hand of the Secretary of State, and before that, the Senator from New York, and before that the First Lady of the United States. There’s no question, the more we look into this, Alex, with these emails hopefully shedding further light on it, we’re gonna find more and more evidence, I think, not only of Huma Abedin’s direct involvement in the compromise of classified information and various other misconduct with respect to treating classified communications and conversations and devices in inappropriate ways, but also advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He said the “most worrying” example was “promoting this idea that our freedom of speech must be restricted so as not to give offense to Muslims.”

“This is being used against Breitbart. It’s being used against me and my Center for Security Policy. We’re attending a meeting up in Stoughton, Massachusetts, tonight, which will be picketed by – get this – not only the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Hamas front group, but also rabbis and interfaith dialoguers of various stripes, and who knows who all else – all designed to suppress me and other patriots who are warning about this Islamist supremacist agenda that Huma Abedin has advanced,” Gaffney said. “The object is to silence us because the President has said, at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’ Think about it.”

“This is the story of our time,” he concluded. “It could be the time bomb that actually takes down Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. At the very least, the American people need to know, as they vote, whether we’re going to get more of the same – more of this embrace of the Islamists and enabling of their agenda – or whether we’re gonna get a course correction. I pray it will be the latter.”

LISTEN:

EXCLUSIVE: Huma’s ‘Fundamentalist’ Father: Muslims Have Right To ‘Take Up Arms’ For Allah

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-8-48-55-pm

Once told Saudi interviewer, ‘Every self-respecting Muslim is at heart an Islamic fundamentalist’

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, November 1, 2016:

The father of embattled Hillary Clinton campaign honcho Huma Abedin once told a Saudi Arabian newspaper that Muslims have the right to “take up arms” in jihad and that “every self-respecting Muslim is an Islamic fundamentalist.”

Syed Zain Abedin, a Saudi-sponsored Islamist scholar, revealed in a lengthy interview with a Saudi correspondent that he agreed with jihadists that “Islam permits the use of forceful means,” and that carrying out martyrdom operations may be necessary in the cause of Allah.

“There are occasions when Islam calls for the ultimate sacrifice,” he said, as long as it is done in “the cause” of Allah and not for selfish reasons such as individual suicide.

Abedin also said Muslims have a “relentless obligation” to convert non-Muslims in the West to Islam, though he counseled Muslims living in non-Muslim majority countries to be patient in going about Islamizing their hosts. As the minority, they do not have the numbers for “conquest” and have to be aware of “certain strategic necessities, certain political imperatives.”

He pointed out that even after Western political systems are “subdued,” it may take hundreds of years before citizens formerly living under those secular systems fully accept Islam.

“The immediate goals and targets for Muslims to pursue when they are the majority in any society are distinct from the goals and targets they should pursue when they are living as a minority in any society,” Abedin explained in the 1991 interview with the Saudi Gazette, a leading daily newspaper published in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

He advised winning over the “kuffar, the deniers,” with “little acts of kindness.” Whatever the tactics, he added, “There can be no let-up” in converting them to the “Islamic way.”

“Muslims have to continue to formulate their attitudes and behavior on the assumption that kufr is not a fixed, but a volatile and transcient category. Today’s nay-sayers may well be tomorrow’s yes-sayers,” Abedin said. “This happened daily in Makkah (Mecca), the historical Makkah. Why would it be different in today’s Makkah, in today’s situation where Muslims are a persecuted and despised minority?”

He asserted that the “due” for deniers of the Quran is “rejection by God” and eternal Hellfire. But he said that Islamic states should take care to not mistreat “non-Muslim minorities living in our midst, as citizens of our state, as beneficiaries of our trust, whom we call dhimmah.”

Abedin described himself as a proud Islamic fundamentalist and said “the need and source” of any social movement must be “traced back to Islam” for legitimacy.

“I consider myself a fundamentalist,” he said. “And I am proud of it.”

In fact, he added, “Every self-respecting Muslim, wherever he resides and whatever his politics, is at heart an Islamic fundamentalist.”

Islamic fundamentalism includes belief in violent jihad, he said, which may be necessary under certain circumstances for Muslim minorities to carry it out against non-Muslim majorities.

“This is a rather complex subject,” Abedin cautioned.

“There are occasions when Islam permits the use of forceful means to remove the impediments faced by a Muslim community in its efforts to lead an Islamic life,” he explained. “You can take up arms if you are being denied the freedom and practice of belief.”

But he said there are rules, such as proportionality, and procedures that must be followed in jihad: “It’s not that once you decide that such a people are in the way of your allegiance and worship to God, you manufacture a bomb and wipe them off the surface of the earth.”

The point of the interview, which was conducted by Saudi Gazette chief correspondent Mir Ayub Ali Khan, was examining the “resurgence of fundamentalism” across the Muslim world. The interview was published in August 1991 under the headline, “Islamic Fundamentalism, Islamic Ummah and the World Conference on Muslim Minorities.”

At the time, Abedin was director of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Jeddah, which was founded under the auspices of the Saudi Ministry of Education to propagate austere Saudi religious beliefs in America and other Western societies. His daughter, Huma, helped edit the institute’s propaganda organ for 13 years with her mother and two siblings.

Syed Abedin noted that “Saudi Arabia has been quietly sending to even distant Muslim communities Islamic literature, qualified teachers, help in building mosques (and) imams for these mosques.”

Indeed, hundreds of mosques have been funded by the Saudi kingdom inside America alone, including some of the most radical, such as Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center near Washington and the King Fahad Mosque in Los Angeles that aided the 9/11 hijackers and several other terrorists.

“We all are these days into building mosques, anywhere we can,” he added. “This is well and good.”

The elder Abedin said that when he lived in America in the 1970s, people often asked him why he was so “hung up on religion.” He complained that Americans suggested that “Muslims live like people of other faiths live: normal human beings facing the challenge of day-to-day living in the secular, pluralistic twentieth century.”

But he explained that Muslims aren’t like people of other faiths and can never fully assimilate: “I held firmly then and I hold even more firmly now that such a description of normal life does not apply to Muslims.”

Recently describing herself as a “practicing Muslim,” Huma Abedin was by all accounts very close to her father before he died in 1993 after a long illness. Huma named her 4-year-old son, Jordan Zain Weiner, after her late father. She also recently started a business in his honor — Zain Endeavors LLC, a private New York consulting firm.

At the time her father made his controversial remarks, Huma Abedin was attending a girls’ school in Saudi Arabia. Born in Michigan, she returned to the US for college and has worked virtually every year since for Hillary Clinton.

Last weekend, the FBI seized a laptop Huma Abedin shared with her husband, which reportedly contains thousands of State Department emails relevant to an espionage investigation involving former secretary of state Clinton. The discovery has put Huma Abedin front and center as a potential target of the bureau’s renewed national security probe into classified material allegedly mishandled by Clinton and her aides.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill did not respond to requests for comment on Abedin and her fundamentalist father. Abedin serves as campaign vice chair.

Also see:

Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Explained

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Patrick Howley, October 31, 2016:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Hillary Clinton is in the spotlight over the worst scandal for a presidential candidate since Watergate.

The FBI has a search warrant for Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s laptop, obtained Sunday night after new emails surfaced in the law enforcement investigation of Abedin’s husband Anthony Weiner for allegedly sexting with a minor.

The Hillary Clinton email scandal can seem complicated. But it’s easy to understand. Here is the full story:

Hillary Clinton set up a private email server, and a private email network for herself and her family and Abedin. Doing so could prevent her emails from being “accessible” to the federal government, not to mention Congress.

The private network allowed Clinton, Abedin, and aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan to swap emails with the Clinton Foundation, various world leaders, and Doug Band’s global consulting firm Teneo Holdings, where Abedin also worked during her time at the State Department. This would have been problematic, considering Clinton’s 2009 ethics agreement, leaked on Cryptome, in which she vowed not to coordinate with the Clinton Foundation.

The FBI investigation began with one simple premise: that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1913 by allowing national defense information to be “lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed” through “gross negligence.” Clinton team emails have now ended up in the hands of Julian Assange — a man who lives sequestered in an Ecuadorian embassy — and in the hands of detectives in the Anthony Weiner sexting case.

Both Clinton and Abedin face the possibility of additional charges, including perjury and obstruction of justice, for contradicting sworn statements and telling falsehoods to the FBI, not to mention Congress. The photograph of Abedin crying on the Clinton campaign plane after the FBI announced that it was re-opening the case — with Clinton standing by — will linger in the American political consciousness:

Huma Abedin has reason to be nervous. In fact, she was the one who came up with the idea for Clinton to use a private email server, according to former Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper’s testimony in the case. Cooper was Clinton-World’s go-to computer guy, and he set up Abedin’s own personal account on clintonemail.com.

Hillary’s 2008 campaign IT specialist Bryan Pagliano labored for months in a room on K Street in Washington, D.C., building the server for Clinton to use.

Hillary Clinton kicked off her State Department career in Foggy Bottom in January 2009 with a private Apple server, then switched to Pagliano’s handcrafted server in March 2009.

Huma Abedin later told the FBI that she didn’t even know about Clinton’s private server when she was at the State Department, and Bryan Pagliano pleaded the Fifth.

Hillary Clinton claimed that her server was kept in the basement of her Chappaqua, New York home. But really, the server was stored at a Clinton-owned office in Midtown Manhattan, where it shared physical space with the Clinton Foundation’s server. Hillary’s homebrew server was operating on the same email network as the Foundation’s server and the server for Chelsea Clinton’s office.

Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to hide the fact that she was using a private email server. She emailed with President Obama while Obama was using a pseudonym. She kept her own State Department IT Help Desk in the dark about her secret email activities, because her private email account got flagged when she tried to send emails to her own staff. “It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU,” Abedin told her. Clinton even paid a firm in Jacksonville called “Perfect Privacy LLC” to plug in phony owner names for her email network on Internet databases.

The server had an open webmail portal, making it easily vulnerable to run-of-the-mills hackers. James Comey noted evidence showing hacks by “hostile actors.” Capitol Hill sources speak in hushed tones about the “Russian Files,” which are said to include information about a Russian hack. Clinton was warned of a security “vulnerability” on her BlackBerry on her first official trip to China, and the State Department told her to stop using it. But Clinton decided to keep using it. She told a private audience in a paid speech that her BlackBerry was under attack constantly by the Chinese and Russians.

Hillary Clinton had a lot of classified information on that server.

“There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received,” Hillary Clinton told the House Benghazi Committee in sworn testimony in 2015.

“That’s not true,” FBI director James Comey told Congress, referring to Clinton’s sworn statement. Comey’s first investigation found 113 emails that had classified information in them, including emails that were clearly marked classified when they were sent. Clinton, for her part, claimed that she didn’t know that a “C” marking on an email meant that it was classified or confidential.

Hillary’s statement to the Benghazi Committee is one of multiple statements that could open Clinton up to charges of perjury or obstruction of justice. And it is one of many areas in which Breitbart News led the media in exposing a Clinton falsehood. But Hillary Clinton did not simply expose national secrets. She put people’s lives in jeopardy.

Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources on her private email server, including a defense attache and other covert U.S. agents working on matters including Iran and the Taliban and Pakistan.

Clinton’s server contained at least five different emails revealing the exact location or travel plans of U.S. Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens, who was murdered in the 2012 Benghazi attack. Stevens’ killers, of course, knew exactly where he was going to be when they got him.

When all was said and done, Clinton deleted thousands of emails with a software program called “BleachBit.” Bill Clinton’s former aide Justin Cooper came back into the picture to deal with at least two of Clinton’s 13 mobile devices. Cooper smashed them with a hammer or broke them in half, according to the FBI. The server itself was shipped off to an obscure company in Denver called Platte River Networks.

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin used their private server while running the State Department. Now, with eight days until the election, those doings could finally see the light of day.

***

***

***

Recommended reading:

If Elected, Will Hillary Place More Muslim Spies in Key Positions?

14910503_1308797512473019_4714908418545617323_nConstitution, by Dave Jolly, November 1, 2016:

For centuries, Arab Muslims and Jews have been fighting. Arab tradition holds that they should be the true heirs of God’s blessing since they are offspring of Abraham’s first-born son Ismael. However, Ismael was born by Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar and not Abraham’s wife Sarah who later bore Abraham a son named Isaac. God then bestowed His blessings and the lands to Abraham, Isaac and all their many descendants. Ever since the alleged prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran between 609 AD and 632 AD, Muslims have hated and fought with Jews. That warring continues today as many Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas, Taliban, Al Qaeda and others seek to wipe Israel off the map and take the land for themselves.

One of the worst things a Muslim woman could do is to not only associate with a Jewish man but to marry him. Anthony Weiner was a promising Democratic congressman from New York’s 9th District which is located entirely within Brooklyn. First elected in 1999, Weiner easily won re-elections with no less than 59% of the vote. In 2005, he ran for Mayor of New York City and lost, but remained a very popular congressman.

In 2009, Weiner, a Jew, got engaged to Huma Abedin, a Muslim and aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They married in 2010 and now have a son named Jordan Zain Weiner.

In 2012, Weiner was caught sexting messages and nude images of himself, forcing him to resign from Congress in shame, but Abedin stood by him. Weiner is now running for Mayor of New York City again and he has been caught with even more sexting with over half a dozen different women. Weiner refuses to withdraw from the race and his popularity in New York does not seem to be diminished by the scandal. Once again, Abedin stands by her husband.

Huma Abedin is a devout Muslim from a powerful Muslim family. Her mother is Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor and dean at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia.  She is also a prominent official in the Muslim Sisterhood, the female counterpart to the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Huma married a Jew, a mortal enemy of all Muslims, she is still accepted by her Muslim family and friends. Normally her marriage would have constituted her being disowned by the family and subjected to an honor killing.

So, one must beg the question why she had been allowed to marry a Jew and not face disgrace from her family and fellow Muslims?

I believe the answer can be found in a Muslim word ‘Muruna’. There are times when Muslim leadership believe it is more important to plant a spy to gain valuable information than it is for that spy to follow all Muslim law. It is not uncommon for Muslim leadership to push a woman into a relationship with a non-Muslim in order to gain the confidence and trust of an infidel. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process, learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

I believe Huma Abedin is a Muruna and that her marriage to the former Rep. Anthony Weiner was planned and sanctioned by the Muslim Brotherhood. At the time, Weiner had high expectations of furthering his political career, possibly a run for senate seat once held by Hillary Clinton or even higher.  Having a husband in the US Congress would be a great asset to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then Weiner was disgraced and ended up resigning from Congress. If that was the end of his political career, it would seem that a divorce would have been proper, but for some reason, it wasn’t to be. This makes me wonder if Weiner’s run for mayor could have been prompted by the strong encouragement of his wife, Abedin. The Muslim Brotherhood has invested too much into Abedin’s marriage with Weiner to throw it down the tubes so soon, so he is being advised or pressured to run for office again.

Weiner then ran for Mayor of New York City, again, but failed again, yet Abedin remained married to him. Abedin has since been involved in the Hillary Clinton email scandal and her name has come up again when the FBI announced that they were re-opening their investigation into Clinton’s illegal email server, even though US Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered them not as she was protecting Hillary’s campaign. Ironically, the reason the FBI announced their re-opening of the investigation is due to their investigation into Weiner. Finally, there are reports that Abedin and Weiner are officially separating.

However, one still has to wonder if Abedin was an intentional Muslim plant into Hillary Clinton’s State Department. This also raises the question of who Hillary will bring into her confidence if she is elected president? Will she bring in Muslim spies into the White House and her inner circle of Cabinet and national security people?

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with any US top secret material or information because she has no discretion nor does she have any loyalty to America or our national security. Huma Abedin is proof! If elected, will Hillary Clinton place more Muslim spies like Huma Abedin in key positions that will compromise our national security?

***

In case you missed it:

Also see:

Huma Abedin’s April warning from the FBI

Photo: EPA

Photo: EPA

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 31, 2016:

FBI agents in April confronted Huma Abedin with an e-mail she received in 2010 warning her that her Yahoo e-mail account — where she’d “routinely” stored State Department messages, including ones containing classified information — may have been compromised. The revelation is contained in a summary of the FBI’s interview with Abedin, conducted on April 5.

Abedin told agents “she was not sure that her e-mail account had ever been compromised,” according to notes of the interview, conducted as part of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecured and unauthorized home e-mail server. Abedin served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and is currently vice chair of her presidential campaign.

The answer wasn’t comforting to agents who feared classified government material had been hacked. Yahoo is notoriously vulnerable to hacking. In 2014, for example, a half-billion Yahoo accounts had been hacked in the biggest data breach in history.

Worries mounted this month when investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop Abedin shared with her former congressman husband Anthony Weiner, a suspect in an interstate child-pornography case. Reportedly, many of the messages were from Abedin’s humamabedin@yahoo.com and other accounts.

Investigators believe thousands of those messages were sent to or from the private server that Clinton used for State business, and are reviewing them to see if they contain classified information.

As The Post first reported last week, Abedin told investigators in her April 5 interview that she “routinely forwarded e-mails from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her yahoo.com account so that she could print them.” She explained that “it was difficult” to print from the State printer, so she printed the documents at home.

Before she had divulged that information, agents had confronted Abedin with several sensitive government e-mails she forwarded to her personal accounts, including one dealing with Pakistan.

It doesn’t appear as if the FBI ever even followed up on the revelation. The bureau never seized her massive personal stockpile of State e-mails until last weekend — and only after New York agents investigating Weiner informed headquarters of their coincidental discovery.

Weiner didn’t have the security clearance to have access to such potentially classified information.

Nor did more than a dozen other people who came into contact with the Clinton e-mail archive, which contained at least 2,093 currently classified e-mails and at least 193 that were classified at the time they were sent.

Before reviewing the new stash of e-mails, the FBI in its initial investigation found that at least 32 classified e-mail chains transited both Clinton’s and Abedin’s personal accounts. One was classified Top Secret/SCI, while nine were classified as Secret when sent.

Abedin got a Top Secret clearance in 2009. It’s a felony for persons trusted with such security clearance to remove classified information from government control and send and store it on an unauthorized computer system.

It’s also a felony to provide classified material to anybody without proper clearance.

FBI Director James Comey has testified that as many as 10 individuals who maintained Clinton’s private server did not have the requisite security clearance to handle such classified information. In addition, Clinton directed at least three Williams Connolly lawyers without security clearance to sort through more than 60,000 of her e-mails.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz asked Comey in July, to which the top G-man replied, “Yes.”

Now add Abedin’s husband to the list.

With the Weiner revelation, the limits of the classified spillage are anybody’s guess. If the famously reckless Weiner had access to such information, anybody could have it. What state secrets are out there for anyone to see?

These are serious security breaches, yet neither Clinton nor Abedin has been prosecuted for her gross negligence. Maybe that will change now. Maybe if Weiner cooperates with investigators against his wife (to save his own neck), Abedin in turn might be compelled to cooperate with them against her boss.

We can only hope justice at some point in this long-running scandal will prevail.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration.”

Comey Is Not the One Whose Unorthodox Actions Are Casting a Cloud over the Election

(Reuters photo: Brian Snyder)

(Reuters photo: Brian Snyder)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 31, 2016:

How rich of Hillary Clinton to complain now that FBI director James Comey is threatening the democratic process by commenting publicly about a criminal investigation on the eve of an election.

Put aside that Comey did not say a single thing last week that implicates Clinton in a crime. The biggest coup for Clinton in the waning months of the campaign has been Comey’s decision not to prosecute her — a decision outside the responsibilities of the FBI director and publicly announced in a manner that contradicts law-enforcement protocols. There has been nothing more irregular, nothing that put law enforcement more in the service of politics, than that announcement. Yet, far from condemning it, Mrs. Clinton has worn it like a badge of honor since July. Indeed, she has contorted it into a wholesale exoneration, which it most certainly was not.

Just to remind those whose memories seem so conveniently to fail, Comey is the FBI director, not a Justice Department prosecutor, much less the attorney general. The FBI is not supposed to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The FBI is not supposed to decide whether the subject of a criminal investigation gets indicted. The FBI, moreover, is not obligated to make recommendations about prosecution at all; its recommendations, if it chooses to make them, are not binding on the Justice Department; and when it does make recommendations, it does so behind closed doors, not on the public record.

Yet, in the Clinton e-mails investigation, it was Comey who made the decision not to indict Clinton. Comey, furthermore, made the decision in the form of a public recommendation. In effect, it became The Decision because Attorney General Loretta Lynch had disgraced herself by furtively meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s husband a few days before Comey announced his recommendation. Comey, therefore, gave Mrs. Clinton a twofer: an unheard-of public proclamation that she should not be indicted by the head of the investigative agency; and a means of taking Lynch off the hook, which allowed the decision against prosecution to be portrayed as a careful weighing of evidence rather than a corrupt deal cooked up in the back of a plane parked on a remote tarmac.

Now, suddenly, Mrs. Clinton is worried about law-enforcement interference in politics. And her voice is joined by such allies as Jamie Gorelick (President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general) and Larry Thompson (Comey’s predecessor as President George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump). Like Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson were delighted by Director Comey as long as his departures from orthodoxy were helping Clinton’s candidacy. But now, as they wrote in the Washington Post on Saturday, they are perturbed by the threat Comey purportedly poses to “long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations . . . in a way that might be seen as influencing an election.”

I will repeat what I said yesterday (at PJ Media) about the Justice Department’s received wisdom that the election calendar should factor into criminal investigations:

Law-enforcement people will tell you that taking action too close to Election Day can affect the outcome of the vote; therefore, it should not be done because law enforcement is supposed to be apolitical. But of course, not taking action one would take but for the political timing is as political as it gets. To my mind, it is more political because the negatively affected candidate is denied any opportunity to rebut the law-enforcement action publicly.

The unavoidable fact of the matter is that, through no fault of law enforcement, investigations of political corruption are inherently political. Thus, I’ve always thought the best thing to do is bring the case when it’s ready, don’t bring it if it’s not ready, and don’t worry about the calendar any more than is required by the principle of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Now, as I also discussed in that same column, the problem with which we are currently grappling is caused by Comey’s initial flouting of protocol back in July — the one that thrilled the Clinton camp. There should never be any law-enforcement commentary at any time about a criminal investigation in which charges have not been filed publicly. The FBI and Justice Department should resist confirming or denying the existence of investigations; and if (as frequently happens) it becomes publicly known that an investigation is being conducted, law enforcement should still refuse to comment on the status of the investigation or any developments in it.

The public does not have a right to know that an investigation is under way. The subjects of an investigation do not have a right to know whether the investigation is continuing or has been “closed” — a status I must put in quotes because any dormant investigation can be revived at the drop of a hat if new information warrants doing so.

As Director Comey and the rest of us are being reminded, the demands of ethical law enforcement are forever in tension with the currents of partisan politics. In law enforcement, one is always required to correct the record if a representation made to a court, Congress, or some other tribunal is rendered inaccurate by new information. To put it kindly, correcting misrepresentations is not a habit of our politicians.

There is a very good argument — I would say, an irrefutable argument — that Comey should never have pronounced that the Clinton e-mails investigation was closed (in fact, it would have been appropriate if he had made no public statement about the investigation at all). But having made that pronouncement — which, again, Mrs. Clinton was thankful to have and which she has ceaselessly exploited — he was obliged by law-enforcement principles to amend it when it was no longer true. What if he hadn’t done so? Then, after the election, when it inevitably emerged that the investigation was actually open, those who had relied on his prior assertion that it was closed would rightly have felt betrayed.

For now, everyone ought to take a deep breath. All we have here is a statement that an investigation is ongoing. No charges have been filed, and none appear to be on the horizon, let alone imminent.

The Clinton camp is in no position to cry foul about anything. In announcing his recommendation against indictment, Comey not only gave Clinton the benefit of every doubt (preposterously so when one reads the FBI’s reports). He also based his decision primarily on his legal analysis of a criminal statute, which is far removed from the responsibilities of the FBI. Indeed, Comey gilded the lily by claiming that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with his analysis — which was a truly outrageous claim coming from an investigator with no prosecutorial responsibilities, even if it did not inspire a lecture from Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson on Justice Department traditions.

On the other hand, Comey hasn’t said anything more than that the investigation of the mishandling of classified information by Mrs. Clinton and her underlings remains pending. That is a true statement. Again, it does not mean charges will be filed. Indeed, I didn’t hear Director Comey say he had changed his mind about the requirements for proving guilt under the espionage act. The fact that I think he is dead wrong on that subject is beside the point, since the Justice Department has endorsed his reasoning. So it’s not like the recovery of additional classified e-mails from a Weiner/Abedin computer — if that happens, which we are not likely to know for a while — would automatically result in indictments.

It is fair enough to say that Director Comey should not have started down the wayward road of making public comments about pending investigations in which no charges have been filed. Such comments inexorably lead to the need to make more comments when new information arises. Not that the director needs advice from me, but at this point, he ought to announce that — just as in any other investigation — there will be no further public statements about the Clinton investigation unless and until charges are filed, which may never happen.

As for the election, Mrs. Clinton is under the cloud of suspicion not because of Comey but because of her own egregious misconduct. She had no right to know back in July whether the investigation was closed. She has no right to know it now. Like any other criminal suspect, she simply has to wait . . . and wonder . . . and worry.

There were other worthy Democrats, but the party chose to nominate the subject of a criminal investigation. That is the Democrats’ own recklessness; Jim Comey is not to blame. And if the American people are foolish enough to elect an arrantly corrupt and compromised subject of a criminal investigation as our president, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Also see:

Yahoo holds key to FBI probe of Hillary-Huma emails

huma_hillary_7_ap_605_605

WND, by Jerome Corsi, October 30, 2016:

NEW YORK – Yahoo.com holds the key to determining just how severely Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton may have violated national-security laws with emails that Huma forwarded to herself at humamabedin@yahoo.com, which ended up on a laptop owned by her husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

The FBI has the legal authority to force Yahoo to disclose whether IPs belonging to third parties, including foreign third parties, had access to read in real time – and in non-redacted form –  emails that Abedin forwarded to humamabedin@yahoo.com that ended up on Wiener’s laptop.

On Aug. 29, WND reported two-thirds of Abedin’s released emails were forwarded to personal addresses she controlled.

Yahoo refuses to cooperate

In August, WND realized that anyone with Abedin’s Yahoo email account username and password could have accessed humamabedin@yahoo.com to read in real time – and in a non-redacted form – all State Department emails, including those with classified information that Abedin forwarded to herself.

As WND reported Sept. 6, several of the emails Abedin forwarded to her account at humamabedin@yahoo.com were found to contain such highly sensitive material that the State Department redacted 100 percent of the content pages, marking many pages with a bold stamp reading “PAGE DENIED.”

Should President Trump try to prosecute Hillary? Sign the hottest petition in America now to show your support!

Given Yahoo’s privacy policy, security experts and attorneys for WND could find no way to force Yahoo to reveal information about humamabedin@yahoo.com unless the inquiry were undertaken by a duly constituted law-enforcement agency with the ability to obtain a court-ordered subpoena.

By taking it offline, Abedin could have given the user name and password to a third party, including a foreign third party, without State Department IT administrators, or the IT administrators of the Clinton’s private server, realizing it.

To determine if others were accessing her humamabedin@yahoo.com because Abedin had given them username and password access, or because the outside users had obtained username and password access via other means, including hacking, the fact and frequency of outside IP access to humamabedin@yahoo.com could only be determined with certainty if Yahoo could be forced to turn over that information.

The Washington Times reported in August 2015 that the State Department had admitted to a federal judge that Abedin and Mills used personal email accounts to conduct government business in addition to Clinton’s private clintonemail.com to transact State Department business.

In September and October, WND made repeated attempts, contacting attorneys and security experts, to see if there was a way to get Yahoo.com to disclose all IP addresses that may have accessed humamabedin@yahoo.com, suspecting both that Abedin may have downloaded her humamabedin@yahoo.com on a device owned by or shared with her husband, or possibly via an IP address located in a foreign country.

WND was aware that on Sept. 22, a Yahoo! Inc. press release confirmed that hackers in 2014 had swiped at least a half-billion Yahoo accounts, stealing names, email addresses, phone number, birthdays, and in some instances, even hashed passwords (the vast majority with bcrypt) and, in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security questions and answers.

While Yahoo’s investigation suggested the stolen information did not include unprotected passwords, Yahoo encouraged users to change usernames and passwords.

On Sept. 1, the Romanian hacker Miarcel Lehel Lazar, known online as “Guccifer,” had been sentenced on Sept. 1 to 52 months in prison for hacking passwords and employing social-engineering tactics including fraud, identity theft, and harassment to successfully hack into the email accounts of celebrities, business executives, and political figures such Sidney Blumenthal, an adviser with whom Secretary Hillary Clinton corresponded using her private email account at the State Department.

On July 25, 2012, WND reported that Abedin has family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, including having worked on the editorial board of a Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside Abdull Omar Naseef, a Muslim extremist with close ties to the Abedin family who has been accused of financing al-Qaida fronts.

In that article, WND further reported then–Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota sent letters to the inspectors general at the departments of Homeland Security, State, and Justice asking that they investigate Muslim Brotherhood influence on U.S. government officials, noting with particular concern that Abedin has three family members – her late father, her mother, and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.

Huma’s complex use of humamabedin@yahoo.com

Careful analysis of the Huma Abedin emails, released to Judicial Watch on August 17, made WND aware in August and September that in addition to Huma Abedin forwarding an estimated two-thirds of all State Department emails written by her and/or addressed to her to humamabedin@yahoo.com, Secretary Clinton and others in the State Department freely used humamabedin@yahoo.com in transmitting and receiving State Department emails.

The most typical example of Abedin forwarding a State Department email to herself can be seen in an email obtained by Judicial Watch dated May 19, 2009, in which Abedin, using her State Department secure email account at “Abedin, Huma, <abedinh@state.gov>” forwarded to “humamabedin[redacted] an email sent to her by Kenneth H. Merten, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the State Department:

humaabedinemailstate_govforwrdedtoyahoo_com-600_jpg

In the Huma Abedin emails released by Judicial Watch on Aug. 31, WND found two instances where humamabedin@yahoo.com were left in a non-redacted form, with all other appearances of “humamabedin” having the account address redacted, leading to the conclusion that “humamabedin” – her name including her middle initial – was the self-reference Abedin used only in conjunction with her Yahoo.com account.

A second variation involved Abedin using her email address on Secretary Clinton’s private server, “Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com],” to forward an email to Abedin via her private Yahoo account at humamabedin@Yahoo.com, as seen in another email dated June 23, 2009.

humaabedinemailclintonemail_comforwrdedtoyahoo_com-600_jpg

This second variation, sent on the same day as the first example above, leaves no doubt Clinton felt no hesitation not only to communicate State Department business with Abedin through emails Clinton sent Abedin to her insecure Yahoo.com email address totally outside the control of either Abedin’s State Department email address or Abedin’s email address on Clinton’s private server.

A third variation involved Secretary Clinton using her private email address, “HHDR22@clintonemail.com>,” to send an email directly to Abedin’s Yahoo account, here listed as “humamabedin[redacted],” with Clinton forwarding to Abedin a Council of Foreign Relations speech that Blumenthal had sent to Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s State Department chief of staff, that Blumenthal had dated July 9, 2009, and marked “CONFIDENTIAL.”

humaabedinemailhillaryusingclintonemail_comsendstohumaatyahoo_com-600_jpg

Note, that while Blumenthal had addressed the original email in this chain to Cheryl Mills, both at her State Department address, “MillsCD@state.gov>” and to her private email at “cheryl mills[redacted],” WND could find no instance in the emails Judicial Watch has made public so far in which Mills forwarded any State Department emails to herself at her private off-line email account.

Finally, on Aug. 8, 2009, Abedin using her Clinton private server email address forwarded to her Yahoo account, with the Yahoo address not redacted and reading fully “humamabedin@yahoo.com,” an email Hillary had forwarded to Abedin on Aug. 6, 2009, an email from Blumenthal in which Blumenthal was conveying sensitive information about an upcoming Moscow summit.judicialwatchhumaabedintoyahooaccountblumenthalconfidentialpart1-600

judicialwatchhumaabedintoyahooaccountblumenthalconfidentialpart2-600

On Sept. 8, in reporting on this email change, WND called it a “smoking gun” that should put both Abedin and Clinton in prison because Blumenthal had marked the material “CONFIDENTIAL,” but the State Department, in preparing to release this email to Judicial Watch, marked it as “CLASSIFIED.”

That Clinton and Abedin sent State Department emails to Abedin insecure, offline Yahoo.com email account appears to be a clear violation of national-security laws regarding the handling of classified information.

The violation is compounded if the emails were downloaded to a laptop or other electronic device owned by or shared by Weiner because access to Weiner’s email usernames and passwords, either by consent or as a result of hacking, would have allowed access to State Department emails Clinton and Abedin sent to humamabedin@yahoo.com.

If the FBI obtains information from Yahoo.com that unauthorized IP addresses, possibly some of which might be foreign IP addresses, then the national security crimes under investigation might reach to espionage and/or treason charges, depending in large part on whether or not Abedin and/or others released username and password access consensually, in order to allow unauthorized IP reader access to State Department emails in real-time and a non-redacted format.

Also see:

Clinton Right Hand Woman Huma Abedin Takes the Stage at Center of Email Scandal

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, October 28, 2016:

With the announcement Friday afternoon that the FBI was reopening their investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal, Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin may face close scrutiny for the first time by the media.

As Breitbart News reported:

The New York Times reports that the F.B.I. obtained new Hillary Clinton emails after seizing electronic devices from Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin.

The F.B.I. began investigating Weiner after he sent lewd photos to a 15-year-old girl, after the girl  shared text messages she received from Weiner with the Daily Mail.

The FBI announcement comes on the heels of a report yesterday by journalist Paul Sperry,who gave new details about Abedin’s role in the email scandal.

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

Abedin’s influence in these matters, including the revelation in Sperry’s article that “Abedin possessed much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule, and security than other former chiefs of staffs, is especially concerning given the links that Abedin has to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to the Muslim World League, a group that Hillary Clinton herself said in 2009 was funding terrorism.

Breitbart News was the only media outlet willing to report on Anthony Weiner’s original sexting scandal when it broke. Andrew Breitbart’s willingness to take on stories that the establishment media wouldn’t touch eventually made it impossible for the media to ignore.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin has also avoided any real scrutiny by the media and has been defended by both Democrats and establishment Republicans, including  Sen. John McCain and Sen. Marco Rubio.

But Breitbart News has kept on the story of Huma Abedin. Here is some of the exhaustive reporting Breitbart has done on Huma Abedin:

Media coverage of this story has been supporessed owing to pressure from the Democratic Party.

For example, Vanity Fair magazine published an article Jan. 6 of this year with the now eerily accurate title, “Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton’s Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?” The left-wing attack machine Media Matters for America wasted no time in posting an article with false information and smears in order to protect the Clinton campaign.

Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that she helped “start and support” the Media Matters group, and that organization has consistently come to her rescue with misinformation, half-truths, and smears that invariably get repeated by the established media.

The Vanity Fair article apparently sent shockwaves through the Clinton camp. Any mainstream press coverage of Huma Abedin is rare, and what coverage there is almost universally laudatory. Despite the fawning coverage she has received, there are many unanswered questions about Abedin, especially given Abedin’s complete access to Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful people in the world, a former Secretary of State and possible future president. As Vanity Fair’s William Cohan writes in his piece:

Over the years Huma has served in several positions, with increasingly important-sounding titles. She has been Hillary’s “body woman,” her traveling chief of staff, a senior adviser, and a deputy chief of staff when Hillary was secretary of state. Now, based in Brooklyn, she is the vice-chair of Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The Vanity Fair piece on the secretive Abedin confirmed a number of facts that have been reported by conservative media for a couple of years but have been twisted and convoluted by the mainstream media.

For example, the Vanity Fair article flatly lays out the information that Huma Abedin was an assistant editor at a publication called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1996 until 2008. He writes:

When (Huma) Abedin was two years old, the family moved to Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its mission as “shedding light” on minority Muslim communities around the world in the hope of “securing the legitimate rights of these communities.”…

It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and 2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an assistant editor at the Journal.

Breitbart News added information this year that shows that the “Abedin family business” is housed in the offices of the Muslim World League.

The webpage for the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs site says how to reach the Journal: “Editorial Correspondence including submission of articles and books for review should be addressed to: Editor, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 46 Goodge Street, London WIP 1FJ, U.K.”

The current official Journal website also lists the same 46 Goodge Street address, which is the same exact address listed on the Muslim World League’s London office address.

The official website for the Muslim World League’s London office lists its address as 46 Goodge Street.

The current day London Online website also lists the Muslim World League office in London and the Journal’s parent organization, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, as having the exact same 46 Goodge Street address.

A Yelp! listing for the Muslim World League shows the same 46 Goodge Address and a photo of the entrance.

Google Maps from 2008—the earliest date available—shows the Muslim Word League London office entrance, which appears to have office space above a pizza restaurant.

This direct connection to the Muslim World League and a child organization called the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY)—also housed at Goodge Street offices—is significant due to a 2009 State Department memo which reveals that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and Huma Abedin was her top aide, and the Secretary of State’s office was engaged in talks with Saudi Arabia about stopping the Muslim World League from funding terrorism at the same time the “Abedin family business” was operating out of the Muslim World League’s London office.

This revelation shows that while Huma Abedin was serving at the highest level of government as Hillary Clinton’s aide and had access to this information, Abedin had a direct connection to a group that was suspected of actively funding groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hamas, which had not only killed civilians around the world but also U.S. servicemen.

The memo, which was originally published by WikiLeaks, was sent on December 30, 2009 from the Secretary of State to the Department of Treasury and ambassadors in several Gulf region countries including Saudi Arabia. The stated goal of the memo is that “all action posts deliver the general talking points” to those countries.

The connection to terror funding is also listed in the infamous “missing 28 pages” from a report by the 9/11 commission that were kept hidden for years until their release on a Friday afternoon earlier this year. Page 24 of the 28-page report discusses Osama Bin Laden’s half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI, Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is “closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War.” In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

These connections become especially disturbing when you consider what Sperry reported yesterday:

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

Clinton’s State Department: A RICO Enterprise

Clinton is sworn in as secretary of state, February 2, 2009. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)

Clinton is sworn in as secretary of state, February 2, 2009. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 29, 2016:

Felony mishandling of classified information, including our nation’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets; the misappropriation and destruction of tens of thousands of government records — these are serious criminal offenses. To this point, the Justice Department and FBI have found creative ways not to charge Hillary Clinton for them. Whether this will remain the case has yet to be seen. As we go to press, the stunning news has broken that the FBI’s investigation is being reopened. It appears, based on early reports, that in the course of examining communications devices in a separate “sexting” investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, the bureau stumbled on relevant e-mails — no doubt connected to Huma Abedin, Mr. Weiner’s wife and, more significantly, Mrs. Clinton’s closest confidant. According to the New York Times, the FBI has seized at least one electronic device belonging to Ms. Abedin as well. New e-mails, never before reviewed by the FBI, have been recovered.

The news is still emerging, and there will be many questions — particularly if it turns out that the bureau failed to obtain Ms. Abedin’s communications devices earlier in the investigation, a seemingly obvious step. As we await answers, we can only observe that, whatever the FBI has found, it was significant enough for director James Comey to sense the need to notify Congress, despite knowing what a bombshell this would be just days before the presidential election.

One thing, however, is already clear. Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation; crimes that will, in fitting Watergate parlance, be a cancer on the presidency if she manages to win on November 8.

Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.

While the foundation did perform some charitable work, this camouflaged the fact that contributions were substantially diverted to pay lavish salaries and underwrite luxury travel for Clinton insiders. Contributions skyrocketed to $126 million in 2009, the year Mrs. Clinton arrived at Foggy Bottom. Breathtaking sums were “donated” by high-rollers and foreign governments that had crucial business before the State Department. Along with those staggering donations came a spike in speaking opportunities and fees for Bill Clinton. Of course, disproportionate payments and gifts to a spouse are common ways of bribing public officials — which is why, for example, high-ranking government officeholders must reveal their spouses’ income and other asset information on their financial-disclosure forms.

While there are other egregious transactions, the most notorious corruption episode of Secretary Clinton’s tenure involves the State Department’s approval of a deal that surrendered fully one-fifth of the United States’ uranium-mining capacity to Vladimir Putin’s anti-American thugocracy in Russia.

The story, significant background of which predates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, has been recounted in ground-breaking reporting by the Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer (in his remarkable book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich) and the New York Times. In a nutshell, in 2005, under the guise of addressing the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Kazakhstan (where the disease is nearly nonexistent), Bill Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire pal Frank Giustra to convince the ruling despot, Nursultan Nazarbayev (an infamous torturer and human-rights violator), to grant coveted uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company, Ur-Asia Energy (notwithstanding that it had no background in the highly competitive uranium business). Uranium is a key component of nuclear power, from which the United States derives 20 percent of its total electrical power.

In the months that followed, Giustra gave an astonishing $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged $100 million more. With the Kazakh rights secured, Ur-Asia was able to expand its holdings and attract new investors, like Ian Telfer, who also donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Ur-Asia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, in a $3.5 billion deal — with Telfer becoming Uranium One’s chairman. The new company proceeded to buy up major uranium assets in the United States.

Meanwhile, as tends to happen in dictatorships, Nazarbayev (the Kazakh dictator) turned on the head of his state-controlled uranium agency (Kazatomprom), who was arrested for selling valuable mining rights to foreign entities like Ur-Asia/Uranium One. This was likely done at the urging of Putin, the neighborhood bully whose state-controlled atomic-energy company (Rosatom) was hoping to grab the Kazakh mines — whether by taking them outright or by taking over Uranium One.

The arrest, which happened a few months after Obama took office, sent Uranium One stock into free fall, as investors fretted that the Kazakh mining rights would be lost. Uranium One turned to Secretary Clinton’s State Department for help. As State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks show, Uranium One officials wanted more than a U.S. statement to the media; they pressed for written confirmation that their mining licenses were valid. Secretary Clinton’s State Department leapt into action: An energy officer from the U.S. embassy immediately held meetings with the Kazakh regime. A few days later, it was announced that Russia’s Rosatom had purchased 17 percent of Uranium One. Problem solved.

Except it became a bigger problem when the Russian company sought to acquire a controlling interest in Uranium One. That would mean a takeover not only of the Kazakh mines but of the U.S. uranium assets as well. Such a foreign grab requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a powerful government tribunal that the secretary of state sits on and heavily influences. Though she had historically postured as a hawk against foreign acquisitions of American assets with critical national-security implications, Secretary Clinton approved the Russian takeover of Uranium One. During and right after the big-bucks Russian acquisition, Telfer contributed $1.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Other people with ties to Uranium One appear to have ponied up as much as $5.6 million in donations.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration had been deeply concerned about the potential for corruption were Hillary to run the State Department while Bill and their family foundation were hauling in huge payments from foreign governments, businesses, and entrepreneurs. For precisely this reason, the White House required Mrs. Clinton to agree in writing that the Clinton Foundation would annually disclose its major donors and seek pre-approval from the White House before the foundation accepted foreign contributions. This agreement was repeated flouted — for example, by concealing the contributions from Telfer. Indeed, the foundation was recently forced to refile its tax returns for the years that Secretary Clinton ran the State Department after media reports that it failed to disclose foreign donations — approximately $20 million worth.

Under RICO, an “enterprise” can be any association of people, informal or formal, illegitimate or legitimate — it could be a Mafia family, an ostensibly charitable foundation, or a department of government. It is a racketeering enterprise if its affairs are conducted through “a pattern of racketeering activity.” A “pattern” means merely two or more violations of federal or state law; these violations constitute “racketeering activity” if they are included among the extensive list of felonies laid out in the statute.

Significantly for present purposes, the listed felonies include bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice. Fraud encompasses both schemes to raise money on misleading pretexts (e.g., a charitable foundation that camouflages illegal political payoffs) and schemes to deprive Americans of their right to the honest services of a public official (e.g., quid pro quo arrangements in which official acts are performed in exchange for money). Both fraud and obstruction can be proved by false statements — whether they are public proclamations (e.g., “I turned over all work-related e-mails to the State Department”) or lies to government officials (e.g., concealing “charitable” donations from foreign sources after promising to disclose them, or claiming not to know that the “(C)” symbol in a government document means it is classified at the confidential level).

The WikiLeaks disclosures of e-mails hacked from Clinton presidential-campaign chairman John Podesta provide mounting confirmation that the Clinton Foundation was orchestrated for the purpose of enriching the Clintons personally and leveraging then-Secretary Clinton’s power to do it. Hillary and her underlings pulled this off by making access to her contingent on Clinton Foundation ties; by having top staff service Clinton Foundation donors and work on Clinton Foundation business; by systematically conducting her e-mail communications outside the government server system; by making false statements to the public, the White House, Congress, the courts, and the FBI; and by destroying thousands of e-mails — despite congressional inquiries and Freedom of Information Act demands — in order to cover up (among other things) the shocking interplay between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

Under federal law, that can amount to running an enterprise by a pattern of fraud, bribery, and obstruction. If so, it is a major crime. Like the major crimes involving the mishandling of classified information and destruction of government files, it cries out for a thorough and credible criminal investigation. More important, wholly apart from whether there is sufficient evidence for criminal convictions, there is overwhelming evidence of a major breach of trust that renders Mrs. Clinton unfit for any public office, let along the nation’s highest public office.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Weiner revelation proves Comey dropped the ball on Hillary probe

James Comey Photo: Reuters

James Comey Photo: Reuters

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, October 28, 2016:

It appears the FBI agents investigating Anthony Weiner for sexting an underaged girl have done the job that the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information didn’t or weren’t allowed to do.

Agents reportedly found thousands of State Department-related emails ostensibly containing classified information on the electronic devices belonging to Weiner and his wife and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The discovery has prompted FBI Director James Comey to, on the eve of the election, reopen the Clinton case he prematurely closed last July.

How did agents examine the devices? By seizing them. It’s a common practice in criminal investigations, but one that clearly was not applied in the case of Clinton or her top aide — even though agents assigned to that case knew Abedin hoarded classified emails on her electronic devices.

The two special agents who interviewed Abedin on April 5 noted as much in their 302 summary of their interview, which took place at the FBI’s Washington field office and notably was attended by the chief of the FBI’s counterespionage section.

On page 3 of their 11-page report, the agents detail how they showed Abedin a classified paper on Pakistan sent from a State Department source which she, in turn, inexplicably forwarded to her personal Yahoo email account — an obviously unclassified, unencrypted, unsecured and unauthorized system. The breach of security was not an isolated event but a common practice with Abedin.

“She routinely forwarded emails from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her yahoo.com account,” the agents wrote. Why? “So she could print them” at home and not at her State Department office.

Abedin contended that she “would typically print the documents without reading them” and “was unaware of the classification.” Uh-huh.

The FBI also pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Another close Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

In her April interview with the FBI, Abedin incredulously maintained that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Clinton family residence in Chappaqua.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with computer skills built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008.”

Skeptical agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

So if you believe Abedin, she didn’t know the private clintonemail.com server that hosted her huma@clintonemail.com account even existed until she heard about it in the news. Comey was a believer; he didn’t even bother to call her back for further questioning. Case closed.

But Abedin’s role in this caper begs for fresh scrutiny. Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony. So is mishandling classified information.

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account and printing them out at home, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Let’s see if Comey puts the screws to Abedin and leverages her for information on her boss. If he agrees to cut another immunity deal, we’ll know the fix is still in.

Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration.” Sperry@SperryFiles.com

***

***

***

Huma Abedin’s Father Trashed Thomas Jefferson

unnamed-2

Wrote that founding father should have appeased Barbary Muslim pirates, paid jizya tax.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Ocober 27, 2016:

The late father of Huma Abedin, the devout Muslim who’s co-chairing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, sympathized with the Barbary pirates in America’s first bout with Muslim terrorism and criticized President Thomas Jefferson for not appeasing them by paying their infidel tax.

In a 1974 dissertation for his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania, Syed Z. Abedin slammed Jefferson, one of America’s most popular founding fathers, for raising a U.S. naval force and invading Tripoli during the Barbary Wars against Islamic pirates attacking U.S. ships in the early 1800s.

Over several years, the Muslim extremists in North Africa had been firing on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean and killing crews and passengers, while taking survivors hostage. Jefferson received shocking reports from Algiers and Tripoli of mistreatment of captured American men and women who were turned into slaves of the Muslim states.

Muslim corsairs demanded the US pay tribute, or jizya, as ransom for the hostages, as well as protection for safe passage through the Mediterranean. The level of tribute amounted to millions in today’s dollars and at one point reached a whopping 10 percent of the US national budget.

Jefferson inquired why the Barbary potentates thought they had the right to prey on American shipping and enslave passengers, and he said he was told by Muslim envoys that “it was written in the Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This in mind, Jefferson refused to pay the jizya tax, arguing that paying tribute would encourage more attacks; and he started a navy and marine corps to defend US ships. The stand infuriated Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, who declared war on the US in 1801. Jefferson, in turn, deployed destroyers to the Barbary Coast and heavily bombarded their ships and ramparts. Eventually, the Muslim pirates released American hostages and ceased their aggression in the Mediterranean.

Karamanli wasn’t the only Muslim embittered by Jefferson’s resolve against Islamofascism.

In his 350-page doctoral thesis, “America’s First Foreign War: A New Look at U.S.-Barbary Relations,” Abedin argued that Jefferson should have adopted the strategy of appeasement set forth by diplomat Joel Barlow, the American consul at Algiers from 1795 to 1797, who had used State Department funds for ransoms to free 100 American merchant sailors from the Muslim pirates. Barlow helped draft the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, which includes the phrase: “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded by the Christian religion.”

Abedin praised Barlow as a “gentleman” who respected Islamic “principles.”

“He could not escape the obvious conclusion that a small naval force effectively employed could easily coerce the ancient potentates of the North African coast into submission,” he wrote. “But this observation never tempted him into calling forth for fire and brimstone for all Barbary. He responded to the people of North Africa as people, and not as pawns in some game of power.”

Added Abedin: “He did not, again like Jefferson, have one prescription for Europe and another, altogether different one, for North Africa.”

Abedin implied that Jefferson wasn’t really defending Americans but exploiting the North African Muslims, who he claimed “were not after money” and “made no captures.” He did not take kindly to Jefferson calling them “lawless pirates.”

“Through centuries of experience the North Africans had learnt to be on guard against the Western powers,” Abedin wrote, adding that “American methods and techniques gradually took on the aspect of the hated Europeans — and in no case is this more painfully evident than in that of Thomas Jefferson.”

Abedin suggested that by creating the Navy and Marine Corps, Jefferson gave license to American warmongering and imperialism.

“Once the exploits of American naval heroes were underway, Jefferson’s task at home became easier,” he wrote. “Where once the very existence of the navy was under threat, now increasing appropriations became available with every year of the conflict.”

“The Tripoli War had saved the American navy,” he lamented, and led to the spreading of “the American way.”

To Huma Abedin’s father, a noted Islamic supremacist, the Marines’ victory over the Barbary savages — memorialized in their hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli” — was an invasion of Muslim lands. And Jefferson was the original Islamophobe.

Several years after writing his dissertation, Syed Abedin helped found an Islamic institute in Saudi Arabia whose mission is to spread Sharia law in the West. He also edited and published the institute’s propaganda organ, the “Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

After he died in 1993, his wife took over the radical Muslim publication — which opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11 — and Huma Abedin helped her mother edit it for 13 years.

In a 1971 interview titled “The World of Islam,” which was broadcast on Western Michigan University television, Syed Abedin claimed governments should uphold Sharia law and that Islamic institutions are the only ones acceptable in the Muslim world.

***

BREAKING: FBI Notes Reveal Security Concerns Over Huma Abedin

huma-abedin-hillarys-other-daughter-clinton-02

Witnesses say Clinton aide “overrode security protocols,” hoarded classified information at home.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, October 27, 2016:

Protective detail assigned to guard former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her two residences complained that her closest aide Huma Abedin often overrode standard security protocols during trips to the Middle East, and personally changed procedures for handling classified information, including highly sensitive intelligence briefs the CIA prepared for the president, newly released FBI documents reveal.

The security agents, who were interviewed as witnesses in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server to send classified information, complained that Abedin had unusual sway over security policies during Clinton’s 2009-2013 tenure at Foggy Bottom.

FBI interview notes indicate that Abedin, a Pakistani-American Muslim whose family has deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the radical Muslim Brotherhood, was granted Top Secret security clearance for the first time in 2009, when Clinton named her deputy chief of staff for operations. Abedin said she “did not remember” being read into any Special Access Programs (SAPs) or compartments.

If Clinton wins the presidency next month, she is expected to tap Abedin as her chief of staff, a position that would give her the power to run White House operations — including personnel security and visitor access. The position does not require Senate confirmation.

Abedin now serves as vice chair of Clinton’s presidential campaign.In a now-disclosed September 2015 interview, a diplomatic security agent assigned to Clinton’s protective detail told FBI investigators that Abedin possessed “much more power” over Clinton’s staff, schedule and security than other former chiefs of staffs.

The witness, whose name is redacted by the FBI, said that “Abedin herself was often responsible for overriding security and diplomatic protocols on behalf of Clinton.”

While Clinton was traveling with Abedin in an armored vehicle during a trip to the West Bank, for example, the driver of the limousine was “forced” to ignore longstanding procedures to keep the windows closed for security reasons. After repeated orders to open a window so Clinton could be seen waving to the Palestinian people while in “occupied territory,” the driver relented and opened the window “despite the danger to himself and the occupants.”

Another guard assigned to Clinton’s residence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recalled in a February FBI interview that new security procedures for handling delivery of the diplomatic pouch and receiving via fax the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) had been “established by Abedin.” The witness added that Abedin controlled the operations of a secure room known as a SCIF located on the third floor of the residence.

In her own April 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin contended that she “did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago, when it became public knowledge.” The clintonemail.com server was set up in the basement of the Chappaqua residence.

However, another witness told agents that he and another Clinton aide with an IT background built the new server system “at the recommendation of Huma Abedin,” who first broached the idea of an off-the-grid email server as early as the “fall (of) 2008,” ostensibly after Barack Obama was elected president.

The FBI pointed out that “the only person at DoS (Department of State) to receive an email account on the (clintonemail.com) domain was Abedin.”

In other words, Abedin, whose email account was huma@clintonemail.com, was the only State Department aide whose emails were hosted by the private Clinton server she claimed she didn’t know existed until she heard about it in the news.

Skeptical, FBI agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.

“Multiple State employees” told the FBI that they considered emailing Abedin “the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton.” Abedin, in turn, “routinely” forwarded State government emails — including ones containing classified information — from her state.gov account to either her clintonemail.com or her Yahoo.com account “so that she could print them” at her home, the summary of her interview with the FBI reveals.

Another Clinton aide told the FBI that “Abedin may have kept emails that Clinton did not.”

By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

Even so, the FBI did not search Abedin’s laptop or Yahoo email account at any point in their year-long investigation into possible mishandling of classified information and espionage. Nor did the bureau call Abedin back for additional questioning, despite documentary evidence, as well as the statements from other witnesses, that clearly contradicted her own statements.

Big Brotherhood is Watching You

ibrahim-hooper-of-cair-getty

Why is the U.S. government only interested in partnering with the most radical Islamic groups?

Front Page Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, October 19, 2016:

According to pollster Frank Luntz’s audience meter, one of Hillary Clinton’s best moments in the first presidential debate was when she asserted that we need to cooperate with the Muslim community and not alienate them.

That makes sense, but only if you’re cooperating with the right people in the Muslim community. The trouble is, we’ve been cooperating with all the wrong people—namely, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These are not moderate Muslim groups. They are stealth jihad organizations whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were established in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in turn, has been designated as a terrorist group by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. And the UAE has also named CAIR—whose representatives are frequent visitors to the White House—as a terrorist group.

Our government has been doing community outreach to groups that ought to be highly suspect. In their bookMuslim Mafia, authors Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz contend that CAIR operates like…well, like the Mafia. Instead of urging the Muslim community to cooperate with the authorities, CAIR has been instructing them not to cooperate. According to Jihad Watch, on two occasions CAIR chapters actually printed posters urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. Like the Mafia, CAIR and similar Islamic organizations have worked to impose the omerta code on their fellow Muslims.

It sounds enlightened to say that we should be cooperating with the Muslim community, but what’s so enlightened about organizations that want to transport the Muslim community back to the Dark Ages via sharia law? There are enlightened, moderate Muslim groups in the U.S., but our government studiously ignores them. Where’s the outreach to Zudhi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Where’s the outreach to the moderate Muslim groups and individuals listed on the Clarion Project’s website?

It seems that our government is more interested in cooperating and consulting with Muslims of a more radical stripe. For example, Jeh Johnson, the director of Homeland Security, recently addressed the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America. He told them that theirs was “the quintessential American story,” and he apologized profusely for the “discrimination,” “vilification,” and “suspicion” they had been subjected to. That’s all very nice, but isn’t it the main job of Homeland Security to be suspicious—especially of groups like ISNA which are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Johnson’s boss, President Obama, has shown remarkable sympathy not only for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, but also for the Brotherhood itself. His administration did everything it could to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, and everything it could to keep them in power. By contrast, the Obama administration has been reluctant to cooperate with Egypt’s new government under President El-Sisi—a genuine moderate.

Hillary Clinton herself was involved in the machinations to keep Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi in power. And, although it wasn’t widely reported, many members of the Muslim community were not happy with her. When she visited Egypt in 2012, her motorcade was pelted with shoes and tomatoes.

Another, not-so-widely-known feature of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was her collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in their efforts to find ways to silence criticism of Islam and even to criminalize such criticism. For many years the OIC’s chief ambition has been to impose omerta on the whole non-Muslim world.

Indeed, on one occasion, Clinton was instrumental in enforcing Islam’s blasphemy penalty on an American citizen. Like others in the administration, Clinton claimed that the spark for Benghazi and the Arab Spring riots was a fifteen-minute trailer spoofing Muhammad that was made by an obscure California filmmaker. She promised that he would be punished for this outrage, and, sure enough, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in prison shortly thereafter.

Even more troubling is Secretary Clinton’s close relationship with her longtime assistant and advisor, Huma Abedin. Abedin’s late father had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother, sister, and brother still do. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood, her mother has been a strong advocate for sharia law—even to the point of opposing a proposed ban on female genital mutilation.

Huma Abedin herself was for twelve years the assistant editor of a Muslim Brotherhood publication—The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Interestingly, one of JMMA’s top priorities is to encourage Muslim minority communities not to assimilate with their host cultures. Its policy, as Andrew McCarthy observes, is “to grow an unassimilated aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Huma Abedin stopped working for the cause of Muslim separatism just before she started working at the State Department. Or did she? We may never know. In 2012, Congress blocked a request by five House members for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the government. The request specifically named Abedin.

Huma Abedin may be completely innocent of any subversive activities, but her family associations and her own background would seem to disqualify her for the sensitive positions she has held. In other, more commonsensical times, it’s unlikely that Abedin would have been hired as a receptionist at the State Department, let alone as deputy chief of staff. And, should Clinton be elected, Abedin might well serve as White House chief of staff, or—as some have suggested—as our next Secretary of State.

It’s important to understand that when Hillary Clinton talks about the need for close cooperation with the Muslim community, she doesn’t have Zuhdi Jasser in mind, or any other genuinely moderate Muslim. She’s thinking instead of groups like CAIR, the OIC, and the Muslim Brotherhood—and of individuals like Huma Abedin.

William Kilpatrick is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad (Regnery Publishing). For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com