Yesterday, the New York Post ran a story exposing that Hillary Clinton's top aide for the last twenty years, Huma Abedin, was an editor of a hate-filled Islamic "journal" that railed against women's rights and even blamed the USA for 9-11. The head of that journal was and remains Huma's mother. It was a blockbuster report even though few media outlets picked it up (it might hurt Hillary, their candidate, you see.) The Clinton campaign, however, was forced to respond to the report and did so with an obvious lie that was surprising because of just how stupid a lie it is.
According to the Clinton campaign spokesman, Huma was not actually an editor of the journal, she was just listed as an editor on the masthead of the magazine for more than a decade. The campaign spokesman was then asked if Huma was paid in her position as an editor. The spokesman refused to answer that question. He even refused to say if Hillary knew about Huma's position as editor of the hate rag or if Hillary knew about the contents of that magazine.
Think about that. The campaign expects us to believe that for over a decade, Huma Abedin was falsely listed as an editor of this hate-filled magazine. We are supposed to believe that Huma let her name continue on the masthead while she was an aide to Hillary Clinton even after the magazine ran articles blaming the USA for 9-11. Since the refusal by the campaign spokesman to answer the question of salary obviously means that Huma was paid by the journal, we are being told also that Huma took cash for a phony job. I know that Huma works for Hillary, but taking cash under false pretenses from those who push hateful positions about the USA always seemed to be limited in the past to just the Clintons. Hillary has, at times, called Huma her "second daughter". It seems that Hillary taught her well that when someone gives you cash, you never consider who that person is.
We are now left with a choice. (1) Did Huma edit a hate filled magazine that denounced calls for women's rights and blamed the USA for 9-11 among other things, or (2) was the listing of her as an editor of this journal just a fraud so that she could siphon funds out of the magazine in exchange for doing no work? It's not a very pretty choice.
Hillary really needs to fire Huma.
According to the Clinton campaign spokesman, Huma was not actually an editor of the journal, she was just listed as an editor on the masthead of the magazine for more than a decade. The campaign spokesman was then asked if Huma was paid in her position as an editor. The spokesman refused to answer that question. He even refused to say if Hillary knew about Huma's position as editor of the hate rag or if Hillary knew about the contents of that magazine.
Think about that. The campaign expects us to believe that for over a decade, Huma Abedin was falsely listed as an editor of this hate-filled magazine. We are supposed to believe that Huma let her name continue on the masthead while she was an aide to Hillary Clinton even after the magazine ran articles blaming the USA for 9-11. Since the refusal by the campaign spokesman to answer the question of salary obviously means that Huma was paid by the journal, we are being told also that Huma took cash for a phony job. I know that Huma works for Hillary, but taking cash under false pretenses from those who push hateful positions about the USA always seemed to be limited in the past to just the Clintons. Hillary has, at times, called Huma her "second daughter". It seems that Hillary taught her well that when someone gives you cash, you never consider who that person is.
We are now left with a choice. (1) Did Huma edit a hate filled magazine that denounced calls for women's rights and blamed the USA for 9-11 among other things, or (2) was the listing of her as an editor of this journal just a fraud so that she could siphon funds out of the magazine in exchange for doing no work? It's not a very pretty choice.
Hillary really needs to fire Huma.
No comments:
Post a Comment