Overwhelming Evidence Suggests There’s More to Huma Abedin’s Relationship With Hillary Clinton

ELDER PATRIOT – History is replete with stories of seductresses who used their beauty and feminine wiles to extract information from their high-ranking paramours with the intention of passing that information on to foreign governments.

These nefarious women include Violette Szabo, Krystyna Skarbek, Mata Hari, Christine Keeler, and Anna Chapman.  Their exploits are chronicled in the following video:

Christine Margaret Keeler is of special interest because she had conducted an affair with Britain’s Secretary of State, John Profumo.

This brings us to Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin.  Abedin was a nineteen-year-old intern when she first caught Mrs. Clinton’s eye back in 1996.  Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton had Huma Abedin.

The difference, as far as we know, was that Monica had no ties to enemies of the United States.  Huma Abedin did and does.

Abedin recounted the first time she met Hillary Clinton during an April interview with People Magazine shortly after she was assigned to the First Lady’s office: “You know these things that happen in your life that just stick? She walked by and she shook my hand and our eyes connected and I just remember having this moment where I thought, ‘Wow, this is amazing.’ “

“And it just inspired me. You know, I still remember the look on her face. And it’s funny, and she would probably be so annoyed that I say this, but I remember thinking; ‘Oh my God, she’s so beautiful!'”

That meeting kicked off their twenty-year affair that continues to this day.  For those of you who are in denial, Hillary is a lesbian, or more precisely bi-sexual.  The mainstream media has avoided this subject like the plague, even alibiing for Mrs. Clinton but the alternative media is rife with first hand accounts like this one from longtime Bill Clinton mistress Gennifer Flowers.

Since that first meeting they have remained so close that Politico once described her as Clinton’s “shadow.”  Vanity Fair explains how beneficial this relationship has been to Ms. Abedin: 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. But whatever the title, the job she performs for Hillary has always been essentially the same: confessor, confidante, and constant companion. It’s safe to say that over the years Abedin and Hillary have spent more time together than either has with her husband.”

This has given Abedin access to everything Hillary sees and knows, at times the ability to filter the information that Clinton sees, and to also wield significant influence over her views on the Muslim world and Middle Eastern affairs.

So Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin started their affair five years before 9/11, so what?  So Breitbart News’ Lee Stranahan has uncovered irrefutable evidence that: On September 11, 2001 Huma Abedin — Hillary Clinton’s aide for twenty years and co-chair of her current Presidential run — was working for an organization located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League,” that’s what.  Stranahan’s article is an important investigative finding that is worth reading.

Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League is a Wahhabist group that was going to be designated as major funders of terror until they weren’t under pressure from the Saudi government that just happens to be major funders of Hillary Clinton whose campaign is co-chaired by…Huma Abedin.

Vanity Fair writer William D. Cohan referred to The Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs and the Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs as “the Abedin family business.”  Stranahan discovered that both entities share common office space and mailing addresses with the Saudi Muslim World League. 

As the Obama-Clinton administration contends to be fighting the rise of terrorism everywhere in the world, why would they decide to de-list the Muslim World League from their list of funders?

Add to that the increasingly cozy relationship that Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s had with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who was the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist during Abedin’s tenure at State.

The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy highlighted Sheikh Qaradawi’s resume:

“Sheikh Qaradawi is a promoter of jihadist terror. His fatwas endorse terrorist attacks against American personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombing — by both men and women — against Israel. He is a leading supporter of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. He also runs an umbrella organization called the Union for Good (sometimes referred to as the “Union of Good”), which is formally designated a terrorist organization under American law. The Union for Good was behind the “Peace Flotilla” that attempted to break our ally Israel’s blockade of the terrorist organization Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch) in 2010.”

McCarthy’s investigative journalism is well-researched and a must read for those who believe the State Department should put U.S. interests at the head of the line.

The Muslim Brotherhood is another wing of the Abedin family business.  Huma’s mother Saleha is a major figure in two components of the Brotherhood’s female division.

Remember, it was Hillary’s State Department that laid the foundation for the Arab Spring that resulted in the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak who had maintained order in Egypt for 29 years following the assassination of President Anwar Sadat.  That included honoring the historic peace agreement with Israel that Sadat had agreed to.

The deposing of Mubarak allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to gain control Egypt under Mohamed Morsi.

Only a fool would dismiss all of this without further investigation.  Yet, that is exactly what the mainstream media has done having collectively decided to completely ignore Abedin’s lifetime of commitment to Wahhabism and her close ties to Mrs. Clinton.

By 9/11, Clinton and Abedin were well into the fifth year of their relationship.  That raises the question what did Mrs. Clinton know about events leading up to and following the terrorist attacks on that day.  Highly placed Muslims living in the U.S. knew what was coming.  I personally know multiple people who were told to avoid the World Trade Center on that fateful day.


Just as importantly, what information did she purposefully or inadvertently pass on to Huma Abedin that could’ve abetted Islamic terrorists leading up to 9/11 or in the years since?

From her positions on the Senate’s Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Subcommittee on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to her disservice as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was a virtual treasure trove of the most highly classified information of value to terrorists and their supporters.  Her cavalier handling of state secrets through the use of an insecure private email server is likely to be nothing compared to the pillow talk she shared with Huma.

This is not the first suggestion that Mrs. Clinton is at least sympathetic to terrorists and their cause.  Bill Clinton under advice from Hillary met with Yasser
Arafat 24 times while he was president.  Prior to being elevated to a position of importance by Team Clinton, Arafat was nothing more than a filthy street terrorist having earned his stripes by throwing wheelchair-ridden Leon Klinghoffer overboard from the Achille Lauro solely because he was Jewish.


As the New York Post saw fit to lead with on page one, Hillary and Suha Arafat became close and fast friends even as Yasser Arafat continued killing people solely because of their religious beliefs.

Consider how the media would report the slightest hint if Melania Trump had even had a chance encounter with say, David Duke.  Or, if a picture were to be uncovered of Donald Trump shaking hands with someone deserving similar scorn even it was at the end of receiving line and he had no knowledge of who that person was?

This only serves to prove how deeply committed the mainstream media have become to protecting the scandal-marred Mrs. Clinton from any further ignominy.

Hillary Clinton’s ties to terrorists and terrorism must be investigated fully before she can be entrusted to become the next Commander-in-Chief and entrusted with fighting the war on terror. 

It’s significant to note that since the Clinton’s came to power terrorists have flourished having made significant political gains and, because of that success, their operations have expanded greatly to not only include disruptive violence but to have become financially viable on their own with control of oil fields, large swaths of land, and the like.

Hillary Clinton has aided and abetted the terrorist movement in a number of ways over the years including the transfer of military grade weapons to al-Qaeda mercenaries in Syria and Libya.  One of those clandestine exchanges went bad and resulted in the attack on our compounds in Benghazi.  That was the real reason she chose to ignore the Benghazi attack.  Rather than risk exposing the illegal arms transfer she chose to let the Americans stationed there die.

Hillary Clinton’s personal relationship with Huma Abedin has at the least clouded her judgement.  The worst scenario is the she is so desperate to remain in favor with the much younger Abedin that she has altered U.S. foreign policy to please her lover.

The allegations in Clinton Cash may only be part of the reason Hillary Clinton has put the interests of everyday Americans behind those of Saudi Arabia and their terrorist minions.  And, Huma Abedin has been by her side every step along the way.

HERE Is WHAT WILL HAPPEN If The DEEP STATE TAKES DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP & It’s NOT PRETTY … FOR THEM “The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson ELDER PATRIOT – Corrupt politicians ignore Jefferson’s directive to their own detriment. It’s no longer political, it’s personal. Americans have had their eyes opened by the ascension of Donald Trump and no amount of leftwing money can put the Freedom Movement genie back in the bottle. Conservative Senator Ted Cruz made that observation after reviewing the results of the 2016 elections and the expectations of the voters. Cruz, who had the most high profile personality clash with Donald Trump during the Republican primary process nevertheless embraced Trump’s America First agenda and said, “If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets. And I think quite rightly.” Candidate Trump promised many things – border control, lower taxes, fairer trade relations, a balanced budget, healthcare that puts the people first not the government, safer communities, and – to the extent possible – an end to foreign wars. What, among those promises, should any Republican, nay any American, have a problem with? After four months without a single legislative achievement, Congressional and Senatorial Republicans – notably John McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham – have joined the Democrats in investigating President Trump absent a single shred of evidence that an underlying crime has been committed. So, what gives? Well, there was one additional promise that Trump made on his way to the White House that has some Republicans joining with Democrats and quaking in their boots, Trump’s promise to “Drain the Swamp.” As we reported yesterday, “An F.B.I. agent with ‘intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case’ told us that they uncovered evidence of such massive corruption that the agents involved realized that damned near the entire government could be brought down.” The criminal co-conspirators in both parties realized almost immediately that the new sheriff wasn’t interested in joining them in the swamp so they launched, what can only be characterized as, a coup attempt. Democrats are well schooled in such things probably because of their close alliance with Marxist regimes that can only gain power by seizing it through bloody civil wars. It should be noted that the Democratic Party has already done this once before. One Hundred and Fifty-Seven years ago the Democrats waged a war against the First Republican President Abraham Lincoln for giving Blacks their freedom. That war came at a high price, as many as 700,000 Americans died fighting for what they believe in. To put that in perspective, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. Today, Americans are still prepared to fight and die to protect their children’s God-given freedoms. Despite what you are reading and hearing in the mainstream media, they aren’t the leftwing-funded rioters, the pussy hat-wearing feminists, or the cuck bois that cant handle a micro aggression. No, the Americans that back Donald Trump are well armed. Donald Trump’s presidency will move forward politically lest the sixty million patriots who voted for him, that are comprised of the large majority of military voters, police, and NRA members, move it forward by force. These patriots are armed, trained, prepared, and have proven their discipline. They have grown disgusted by the corruption in Washington and will do whatever is necessary to make sure Trump’s Freedom Agenda moves forward and under the direction of Donald Trump himself. No amount of fake news based on unsubstantiated charges by unnamed sources is going to change that. The battle lines have been drawn and no amount of finger pointing is going to convince these patriots to let anyone overturn the election results. So why are establishment politicians courting a bloodbath on the streets of America that will also threaten them personally when they could be part of Making America Great Again? It’s because they have been caught red-handed and up to their eyeballs in a worldwide criminal conspiracy that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with defrauding the American taxpayers. And, now that they’ve been caught robbing the world’s largest bank – the U.S. treasury – they have chosen to go out in a blaze of glory rather than try to defend the indefensible at trial. Washington’s criminal elites have chosen to go to war to unseat our duly elected president. It’s time to make our voices heard before this turns very ugly. Buckle your chin strap, America is counting on you. EDITORS NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ARMS BUT RATHER AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DEEP STATES OVERTURNS A DUELY ELECTED PRESIDENT. HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’