Would Hills ever get rid of Huma?

[Anonymous]

Can someone please post a link to "The Muslim Sisterhood" website? We need some insight to Huma's background. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKt2zaOrxD8


just found this. Is it really true? I hope it's all fabricated.

I just watched it.

don't know what to think - But her mother's book makes me go hmmmmmm.

Can you please repost this link? Would love to see it.

18:27 posted this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKt2zaOrxD8

Thanks for reposting. somehow info against HC doesn't survive very long in this forum.

Exactly. The astonishing facts in this clip are so damning to Hillary, I can't believe DCUM admin is allowing us to see it. It's really quite shocking.

Give it time - admin will be on with some excuse exonerating Huma and Islam. Personally, I don't get it. I'm Jewish and I readily admit that the Hasidic community is an issue in this country. Granted, they are not murdering people en masse, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She and Weiner have created way too much drama.

We ain't seen nothin' yet....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKt2zaOrxD8


just found this. Is it really true? I hope it's all fabricated.

I just watched it.

don't know what to think - But her mother's book makes me go hmmmmmm.

Can you please repost this link? Would love to see it.

The link is IN THE TEXT YOU COPIED AND POSTED. Just FYI. It is the first line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post a link to "The Muslim Sisterhood" website? We need some insight to Huma's background. Thank you.

This Nat Review article is interesting - http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/huma-abedins-muslim-brotherhood-ties-andrew-c-mccarthy
Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties
2012

That’s rather interesting — at least to me, though apparently not to Speaker Boehner — because Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s female division (the “Muslim Sisterhood”), is a major figure in not one but two Union for Good components. The first is the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR). It is banned in Israel for supporting Hamas under the auspices of the Union for Good. Then there’s the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC) — an organization that Dr. Saleha Abedin has long headed. Dr. Abedin’s IICWC describes itself as part of the IICDR. And wouldn’t you know it, the IICWC charter was written by none other than . . . Sheikh Qaradawi, in conjunction with several self-proclaimed members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Clinton is very loyal to her good friend, and wouldn't turn her back on her during an extremely personally difficult time. While a decision to ask Huma to step down would be very understandable, I think Clinton also appreciates how awful it would be for Human to have her professional life fall apart as a result of the same man who's devastated her personal life.

I agree. Hillary is very loyal. And Huma has been loyal to her.

I have written this before - but Huma is not a policy wonk; she is not making any high level important decisions. She is simply a very hard working loyal executive secretary.

I feel badly for Huma. She hasn't really done anything wrong.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Clinton is very loyal to her good friend, and wouldn't turn her back on her during an extremely personally difficult time. While a decision to ask Huma to step down would be very understandable, I think Clinton also appreciates how awful it would be for Human to have her professional life fall apart as a result of the same man who's devastated her personal life.

I agree. Hillary is very loyal. And Huma has been loyal to her.

I have written this before - but Huma is not a policy wonk; she is not making any high level important decisions. She is simply a very hard working loyal executive secretary.

I feel badly for Huma. She hasn't really done anything wrong.

She hasn't done anything wrong? She declared under oath that she had turned over all the devices she used for work related materials. Obviously, this was false. And apparently false to a degree that she cannot claim (and pass the laugh test) that she forgot.

[Anonymous]

Obviously this was false???

No one has read the emails. Stop smearing her reputation with toxic BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:huma started working for her 2 years after she came back to US. wonder what kind of connections she had to land the job?

She was a student at GWU and worked as an intern.

I'm guessing she got the job because of her credentials and diversity etc.

GWU isn' a strong college, she only has a BA. How many unconnected GWU teenagers become personal confidants of the POTUS and his wife? It's pretty odd.

At least Doug Band is sharp GU BA, GU JD and has the smarts to branch off and start a consulting company. Huma is a 20 year assistant.

Maybe you went to Stanford or MIT? Because GWU is #56 among all the universities in this country. That is pretty impressive, just not elite.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/gwu-1444/overall-rankings

Go check the college board. GWU is reviled there as second tier for kids who can't go to a better school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's taking care of her child?

So much sexism in this one little sentence.

Is it sexism to point out that women are the ones who can get pregnant, give birth, and nurse their children?

You didn't ask who gave birth to her child.

Yes, asking who is watching a career woman's child is the definition of sexism unless you also posted wondering who is taking care of the children of all the men working on both campaigns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously this was false???

No one has read the emails. Stop smearing her reputation with toxic BS.

Yes. It was obviously a falsehood that she turned over all electronic devices that she had used for work related activities. If it were true, this conundrum would not have appeared. It doesn't matter what the emails said, whether there was classified material on them, if it was scheduling lunch for Her Highness in the State Department cafeteria or if she was emailing maintenance a late night reminder to change a light bulb in the office.

The fact she declared under oath that she had turned over to the FBI ALL devices that she had used for work. And this is apparently untrue. So yes, it is an obvious falsehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:huma started working for her 2 years after she came back to US. wonder what kind of connections she had to land the job?

She was a student at GWU and worked as an intern.

I'm guessing she got the job because of her credentials and diversity etc.

GWU isn' a strong college, she only has a BA. How many unconnected GWU teenagers become personal confidants of the POTUS and his wife? It's pretty odd.

At least Doug Band is sharp GU BA, GU JD and has the smarts to branch off and start a consulting company. Huma is a 20 year assistant.

Maybe you went to Stanford or MIT? Because GWU is #56 among all the universities in this country. That is pretty impressive, just not elite.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/gwu-1444/overall-rankings

Go check the college board. GWU is reviled there as second tier for kids who can't go to a better school.

Reviled? Lol. Yes, random DCUM opinions are much more important than actual rankings with research etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's taking care of her child?

So much sexism in this one little sentence.

Is it sexism to point out that women are the ones who can get pregnant, give birth, and nurse their children?

You didn't ask who gave birth to her child.

Yes, asking who is watching a career woman's child is the definition of sexism unless you also posted wondering who is taking care of the children of all the men working on both campaigns.

It is actually a legitimate question given her husband has pretty much proven he is incapable of attending to anything other than his penis.

[Anonymous]

The Trumplethinskin fans are so desperate for something, anything that they are now criticizing hiring an intern from a not-prestigious-enough university?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's taking care of her child?

So much sexism in this one little sentence.

Is it sexism to point out that women are the ones who can get pregnant, give birth, and nurse their children?

You didn't ask who gave birth to her child.

Yes, asking who is watching a career woman's child is the definition of sexism unless you also posted wondering who is taking care of the children of all the men working on both campaigns.

It is actually a legitimate question given her husband has pretty much proven he is incapable of attending to anything other than his penis.

How is her childcare your business or relevant to anything?

Trump only cares about his dick. Are you concerned about his parenting as well? Maybe he shouldn't be left alone with his daughters.