When Huma Abedin’s attorneys responded in writing to Senator Charles Grassley, they may have implicated their client in the commission of a crime. In their letter to Grassley, they also included a written letter they received from Abedin, which includes a particularly curious paragraph. Let’s go back to the June 13, 2013 letter Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding Clinton’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, Abedin.
Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee was seeking information about Abedin’s time as a “Special Government Employee” (SGE) – or consultant – for private clients while also for the State Department after quietly stepping down as deputy chief of staff to Clinton in June of 2012.
In the third paragraph of the June 13th letter, Grassley quotes from the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 202).
From Grassley’s letter, via POLITICO, he relays what constitutes an SGE:
…an officer or employee of the executive or legislative branch of the United States Government, of any independent agency of the United States or of the District of Columbia, who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent basis..
Now, let’s take a look at the letter sent to Grassley by State Department Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Thomas B. Gibbons, dated July 17th. In the fourth paragraph, Gibbons writes:
The effective date of Ms. Abedin’s SGE appointment was June 3, 2012 (a Sunday that marked the beginning of a pay period). She served in this position until February 1, 2013, when she ended her services with the Department.
Any guesses as to how many days there are between June 3rd and February 1st? At an average of 30 days per month over 8 months, that translates to 240 days, 110 days more than what is permitted by law.
The July 5th letter Abedin sent to Gibbons, which was included with the letter sent to Grassley is even a bit more curious. Check out what she wrote in what we’ll call ‘Paragraph X’:
The birth of my son in December 2011 led me to decide to spend the bulk of my time in New York City where my family lived. I therefore agreed to serve the Department as a consultant/SGE through the remaining six months of the Secretary’s tenure. After completing the necessary paperwork and gaining approval from the Department’s legal staff and human resources officials, I transitioned to a part-time consultant/Special Government Employee (SGE) effective June 4, 2012. I served in that capacity until February 1st, 2013, when I terminated my service with the Department.
Abedin agreed to serve as an SGE for “the remaining six months of the Secretary’s tenure”. While Clinton stepped down on February 1, 2013, Abedin began this new arrangement EIGHT months prior to the end of Clinton’s tenure. At that, six months is still 180 days, 50 days over the 130 day limit but Abedin admitted to working for 240 days as an SGE when the law only permits her to do so for 130 days.
Did Huma Abedin confess to a crime? In writing?
Moreover, did she implicate anyone else in the commission of that crime? Consider that she wrote she “agreed to serve”. This implies that she was asked to do so. By whom? She then says she completed…
“…the necesary paperwork and gain(ed) approval from the Department’s legal staff and human resources officials…”
Didn’t Abedin implicate “legal staff and human resources officials” in the commission of a crime? Did someone instruct them to break the law? Well, who would have motive to do that?
In her letter, Abedin listed three entities she performed work for during her time as an SGE. The first one on the list was:
The Secretary of State in her personal capacity to help prepare for her transition from public service;
Did Secretary of State Clinton have anything to do with Huma’s SGE arrangement? Why would legal counsel and human resources officials agree to such an arrangement otherwise?
Another curious aspect to all of this is the month in which Abedin made this move. It was June of 2012. Something else happened that month that became a source of controversy for her. A letter dated June 13, 2012, signed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and four other congressmen raised questions about Abedin’s familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. As a various assortment of liberals and Muslim Brotherhood apologists, along with a handful of RINOs jumped to Abedin’s defense over the ensuing months, they did so while operating from the premise that she was still Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.
According to Abedin’s letter to Gibbons, she was not. This means that Abedin was hiding something. We now know that more recently, she was helping her husband hide Weinergate 2.0:
Let’s return to paragraph X above. Abedin tells us that she wanted to spend more time in New York City after the birth of her son. This sounds reasonable but so does wanting to get out of D.C. when your name is at the heart of a controversy involving possible espionage.
Bachmann’s letter to the State Department’s Deputy IG was dated June 13, 2012. Huma reportedly began her position as an SGE on June 4th. Some might point to this as evidence she left before the IG’s office received the letter (Hillary was also cc’d on that letter). This very well may be the case but based on the admission on the part of both Abedin and State Department legal counsel that she may have committed a crime, Grassley should start seeing some corroborating paperwork.
If Bachmann’s letter in any way facilitated the decision to make Abedin and SGE, it theoretically could have been possible. Consider that State Department employees are paid biweekly. Take a look at a screenshot of the GSA payroll calendar for the month of June 2012. This may or may not correspond with the State Department payroll calendar but it does in two important aspects – pay periods are biweekly and dates for when they start and end also match.
Take note of the squares and the circles around the dates. Squares represent pay period end dates and circles represent pay days. According to what we’re being told, Abedin started her work as an SGE on June 4th with a pay period beginning on Sunday, June 3rd.
Again, continuing with the GSA template, Abedin would have been paid on June 13th for work performed from May 21st – June 2nd. Since she just returned to work on June 4th, she would not have received a paycheck until June 27th, for work performed from June 4th – June 16th. So, if Bachmann’s letter was sent on June 13th, it would have in the middle of Abedin’s first pay period back from maternity leave. Could it not have at least been possible for Abedin’s status to be changed, not upon her return but before receiving her first paycheck, which was after Bachmann’s letter?
We are not alleging that Abedin’s new role as an SGE was the result of Bachmann’s letter but we are saying that the time frame was such that it could have been possible.
After all, if Abedin and her legal counsel are willing to claim that she was an SGE for an illegal length of time, shouldn’t such things be on the table?