New FBI Enquiry Takes Us Back Into The Sketchy Past Of Clinton, Her Top Aide And The Foundation

The Clinton Foundation is being investigated regarding accusations of pay-to-play financial and political corruption, as reported in The Wall Street Journal. After the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey, claimed Friday (28 October) that he will reopen investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of private servers and private email addresses, polls have showed a quick decline in Clinton’s popularity.

The investigation is related to accusations of child pornography against Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat who is married to Clinton’s closest confidant, Huma Abedin. Weiner and Abedin had separated in early 2016.

In 2013, when Weiner was running for mayor of New York, news reports revealed that he was still sending lewd messages to women online even after the very practice caused him to lose his congressional seat.

Though Abedin is expected to remain alongside Clinton for the final showdown, some senior Democrats are now doubting Clinton’s decision (if elected) to assign Abedin a senior role in the White House. Abedin’s faithfulness to the Clintons was obvious at the State Department, which attracted intense scrutiny upon her.

Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from the state of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked about Abedin’s arrangement to earn income privately from the Clinton Foundation and Teneo (a consulting firm co-founded by former senior aide to Bill Clinton, Douglas Band) while she was employed by Clinton at the State Department. Many of Abedin’s emails on Clinton’s private server led to charges that foundation donors received special access to the State Department.

Abedin, Clinton and Women’s Rights

A perverted husband is not all that is problematic about Abedin. She was listed as an editor on a hate-filled periodical’s masthead. She was listed as ‘assistant editor’ of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) from 1996 to 2008. Her name was removed from the staff listing after she went to work for Clinton. Her siblings are still listed as staff members, with Abedin’s mother being the editor-in-chief.

Abedin has often been described as Clinton’s “second daughter”, and has remained close to her since 1996 when she was a White House intern assigned to then-first lady. She has worked for Clinton’s Senate campaigns and also at the Clinton Foundation.

Now, Clinton considers one of her biggest undertakings as registered on her campaign website, to be her support for the United Nations women’s conference in Beijing in 1995 when she famously said:

But, a year after that event, an article in the JMMA promoted as ‘Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights’, argued that single mothers, working mothers and gay couples with children should not be recognised as families.

Also argued therein, a piece written by a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, was that the modern, “revealing” clothing as worn by women “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women”. This is quite similar to the ‘wearing skirts leads to rape’ argument.

You may say, why blame Abedin for what a Saudi contributor wrote in a journal she worked with? Clearly, the journal, its staff and its contributors can hold different views. But such ‘ultra-orthodox’ views are, to a large extent, held by her mother.

In a separate article, Saleha Abedin accused Clinton and others like her of advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was wrong because it was dedicated to empowering women.

But why, again, hold the daughter responsible for her mother’s views? After all, surely Abedin is against them? That does not seem to be the case if one reads what she said in a recent interview to Vogue about her mother’s views.

Additionally, in 2010, Abedin organised for Clinton, then-Secretary of State, to speak alongside her orthodox mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton told the girl onlookers dressed as per the Islamic Dress Code that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit”. So much for standing up for women’s liberation.

Besides being a Shariah apologist, Saleha Abedin has also blamed the United States for the terror attacks in 9/11.

Clinton Foundation donors

Whenever questions are raised over sources of donation to Clinton Foundation, Clinton defenders always make the case that the foundation has done excellent charity work one way or the other. But there is a clear distinction to be made here between the foundation’s work and who its chief funders are, especially considering that Clinton was Secretary of State for several years when these donations were made, and is now running for the office of US President.

As journalist, author and lawyer Glenn Greenwald has said, tyrannical regimes like that of the Saudis and Qataris have jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to the foundation. As per Clinton Foundation records, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of their biggest donors, donating between $10 million to $25 million as late as 2014. The data also reveals that a donation of anywhere between $1 million and $5 million has been made by the State of Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the government of Brunei. As reported in the New York Times, Friends of Saudi Arabia, which is co-founded by a Saudi prince, has additionally donated at least $1 million more.

These regimes that have donated to the Clinton Foundation are some of the most repressive regimes anywhere in the world. They have made these donations either from the goodness of their hearts (which is highly unlikely) or in pursuit of favours, which in some cases have reportedly been granted too. So, then, is Clinton okay with the way these regimes, who she receives donations from, treat their people, especially women? If women’s rights are human rights, then surely Clinton must feel the need to distance herself from these regimes? However, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

This is a serious case that needs to be investigated fairly and independently. The person whose work is under scrutiny is running for President of the United States, and may well win the election too. But for now, Clinton’s past continues to seem sketchy.