Posted on 08/08/2015 3:39:51 PM PDT by McGruff
Huma Abedin -- a close aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department and now a top campaign official -- is facing more questions about her activities at the agency, causing potential problems for Clinton’s presidential bid.
A federal judge ordered the State Department to have Clinton, Abedin and Cheryl Mills, another Clinton aide when she was secretary of state, confirm they have turned over all government records and describe how they used Clinton’s private server to conduct official business.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Keep NOPE alive!
Turn over or what?
And flying cars will be available worldwide by the year 2000
Huma's going to prison or worse... it's always that way with people close to the Clintons. She had better hope it doesn't end with the usual Arkansas Dirt Bath.
When the Clinton's are under pressure, people die or go to prison.
That's the way it's always been.
The Saudis probably know everything they need to know about CLINTON through Abedin.
The Saudis probably know everything they need to know about CLINTON through Abedin.
Nothing will happen.
Why even talk about it?
================================================
Let's ask the NY TIMES about criminal implications of Hillary's emails.
Did the NYT report to its readers that a high government official (particularly the Secy of State) to utilize day to day a non-government computer for communications in the performance of their job is in violation of security laws in dozens of ways?
Did the NYT factor in that emails emanating from Hillary's private server contained classified ntl security data?
Did the NYT bother to determine that the US govt tech system is really fussy----particularly about emails from the US State Dept?
Did the NYT determine that a govt official (particularly the Secy of State) cannot simply buy a brand new computer with licenses and programs and expect to have it certified?
Did the NYT report that US govt officials are required to have a government-purchased computer, set up by the govt, utilizing a CACC card cleared technician?
Did the NYT advise readers that even the calendar of the Secy of State is considered classified information?
Last but not least---would the NYT have been this accommodating if the subject of a story was a Republican?
=============================================
Contact The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 556-7777
Fax: (212) 556-7088 or (212) 556-5830
EMAIL FORM PAGE
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/membercenter/help.html
===============================================
NY TIMES PUBLISHED CLARIFICATION (REPRINT): The Times reported online Thursday night (and in some print editions Friday) that the State Department IG ---and US intelligence agencies had sent a referral to the Justice Department requesting a “criminal investigation” into whether Mrs. Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information” on the email account. That article was based on multiple high-level government sources.
Shortly after the article was published online, however, aides to Mrs. Clinton contacted one reporter to dispute the account. After consultation between editors and reporters, the first paragraph was edited to say the investigation was requested “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled,” rather than into whether Mrs. Clinton herself mishandled information. That type of substantive change should have been noted immediately for readers; instead, a correction was not appended to the article until hours later.
On Friday, another question arose — whether the investigation being sought was a “criminal” inquiry. As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a “criminal” investigation had been requested. Officials also gave that description again to Times reporters who were rechecking their initial story. But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.
HUMA ABEDIN UPDATE: currently vice-chair
of Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign committee.
Sen. Charles E.Grassley’s (R-Iowa) inquiry WRT possible “criminal” conduct by Hilary aide, Huma Abedin, got a response from State Dept investigators who concluded Abedin was overpaid by nearly $33,000 because she claimed leave time pay even though she was actually on leave.....a violation of US govt rules governing vacation and sick leave.
Sen Grassley needs to determine whether:
<><> (1) Abedin is still on the State Dept payroll collecting govt checks (an old bureaucratic trick), and,
<><> (2) whether Abedin violated 18 U.S.C.§1027; Abedin might have made false statements and colluded to conceal activities in relation to documents required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
It is also possible that Abedin’s collusion w/ Hillary, and other hidden offenses could include civil and/or criminal RICO violations. Hillary allowing Abedin’s several employments could also involve BUT not be limited to:
<><> Title 18 U.S.C. §1341, Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C.§1001, Presenting a False Document to an Agent of the US Government (involves several felonies and could include forgery);
Possibly infractions centering on RICO conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. §1962(c); investigations could be warranted because (1) the persons (2) were employed by or associated with an enterprise (3) that engaged in or affected interstate and international commerce and that (4) the persons operated or managed the enterprise (5) through a “pattern” (6) of racketeering activity, and (7) the taxpayers were injured by reason of the “pattern” of racketeering activity.
Alleged Offenses could include Violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §241 – Conspiracy Against Constitutional Rights – which prohibits in relevant part, “two or more persons (from conspiring) to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same . . .” See, 18 U.S.C. §241.
10 second quiz.
How do you recognize a Clinton hanger-on?
Easy-—every Clinton hanger-on has:
<><> one hand receiving US govt checks;
<><> one hand in the Clinton campaign machines;
<><> One foot in the public sector;
<><> The other foot in The Clinton Foundation.
Andrew McCarthy on the Muslim Brotherhood and huma Abadin and hillary
1:30 minutes
http://youtu.be/AjY9xKd0EGU
Andrew McCarthy on the Muslim Brotherhood and huma Abadin and hillary
1:30 minutes
http://youtu.be/AjY9xKd0EGU
Clinton’s Teflon pantsuit is plenty big for both Hill and Huma.
Huma and her MB ties? Right? And a server goes missing, and she’s been paid a bit extra. Nothing to see here.
We need a tick-tock study of HRC’s and Huma’s travel history, whereabouts, and flights from 12/1/2012 - 1/7/2013. This may tie together a lot of loose ends with Iranian negotiations, head injury, and the flu canard.
We need a tick-tock study of HRC’s and Huma’s travel history, whereabouts, and flights from 12/1/2012 - 1/7/2013. This may tie together a lot of loose ends with Iranian negotiations, head injury, and the flu canard.
One of her aids that was involved in Benghazi just died of cancer. Hmmm...
#CheckFemalePrivilege
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.