To be concerned about Abedinâ€™s access to sensitive information is an issue that will most likely garner unsolicited curses from â€œsensitiveâ€ Americans who are enamored with her. These same people ignore this divaâ€™s familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Lt. Col. Robert Andersonâ€™s detailed reports aimed at getting Army intelligence to investigate Ali Mohamed â€” and have him court-martialed â€” were also ignored.
Abedin is even more potentially dangerous: She can leak state secrets. She is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood family and even joined Clinton at an event with her mother, Saleha Abedin, at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. Also present was a close associate of Saleha Abedin â€” Suheir Qureshi. Qureshiâ€™s name later appeared in several prominent Arab newspapers when it was revealed that she belonged to a list of 63 members of the secret arm of the Muslim Brotherhood called The Sisterhood. The full list was later revealed â€” Huma Abedinâ€™s mother is on it. Humaâ€™s brother â€” Hassan Abedin â€” also collaborates with Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.
Yet, as detractors argue â€œguilt by association,â€ they unwittingly strengthen our case, because this is what the FBI uses when investigating federal employees: â€œCharacter. Associates. Reputation. And Loyalty to the United States. (CARL).â€ This checklist was never applied to Huma Abedin, who still associates with her family. Dismissing all this as â€œguilt by associationâ€ ignores a tough question:
Other than Huma Abedin, has there ever been a case in which a family member who either belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood or was a prominent Islamist did not denounce a Muslim female relative who married a non-Muslim male?
Married to a (former) wired-in Congressman, and close aide to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong?