By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
The recent claims attributed to the wife of ousted Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi are shocking – very shocking. If they are true, they would be extremely damaging to the Obama administration generally but perhaps even more so, to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Naglaa Mahmoud is reported to have divulged some extremely specific details. While we wait to see the story develop, we thought we’d research secondary evidence in an attempt to discredit or bolster Mahmoud’s charges.
While mostly circumstantial, these claims, when examined in the context of multiple other facts, appear to add more credibility to the claims allegedly made by Mahmoud. It is for this reason that we have introduced the report below as Addendum P of our “Ironclad” Report.
Employing the Brotherhood
The employment of a prominent Muslim Brotherhood figure in Egypt, by the Clinton Foundation may help add to the veracity of shocking claims recently attributed to Naglaa Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president, Mohammed Mursi. Among other things Mahmoud reportedly said in an interview was that the Clintons “recruited” her and her husband in the 1980’s while the Egyptian couple resided in the U.S. and that the two families became close friends.
Let’s take a look at some demonstrable facts in light of these supposed claims. First, consider the potential fruits of such a relationship between the Clintons and the Mursi family.
Gehad el-Haddad was also the Chief of Staff to Khairat al-Shater, a top Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt who was the front-running Brotherhood candidate for President until Mursi took that mantle and ultimately won the presidency in 2012. El-Haddad’s father – Essam el-Haddad – was an aide to Mursi as his top foreign policy adviser according to Politisite.
We have presented overwhelming evidence that Egypt – under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time – was involved in the attack in Benghazi on 9/11/12 that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Mahmoud’s claims may bolster the case even more.
Let’s bring forth two indisputable facts:
- Mohammed Mursi was passionate about wanting the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheikh). We presented this in EXHIBITS L and M of our “Ironclad” Report.
- The Special Mission Compound (SMC) was woefully and inexplicably insecure, just begging to be attacked. Even the Accountability Review Board (ARB) commissioned by Clinton found State Department leadership failures to be “systemic” and that security was “grossly” inadequate. This SMC came under the ultimate authority and responsibility of Hillary Clinton.
These two facts taken together instantly become more relevant in light of claims attributed to Mursi’s wife. If the Clintons and the Mursis are truly close, with Abedin having served as a Brotherhood operative inside the State Department, claims made by retired four-star Admiral James Lyons, that the attack was likely about a kidnapping operation gone wrong (to exchange Stevens for the Blind Sheikh) may take on added significance as well (EXHIBITS O and AD).
Another claim attributed to Mahmoud is that Hillary “seeks the assistance – both official and unofficial – of several members of the Muslim Sisterhood” to “help with problems in the Middle East” and that Mahmoud has “many wives of Brotherhood leaders” at her disposal to do just that. If Mursi wanted the Blind Sheikh released, it can be concluded that Mahmoud does as well; ditto Saleha Abedin and her daughter. The same can most assuredly be said for the el-Haddads and Mahmoud’s co-Sisterhood leaders.
The “grossly” inadequate security at the SMC would be like low-hanging fruit for Muslim Brotherhood terrorists to capture Stevens and demand the Blind Sheikh’s release in exchange for Stevens’ release.
When asked in a Congressional hearing about the possibility of the attack being about a kidnapping operation gone wrong, the reason given by ARB Chairman Thomas Pickering for why he dismissed the idea, didn’t comport with the facts. Pickering said he didn’t believe the attackers knew where Stevens was inside the SMC but multiple sources confirm that Stevens was specifically targeted by the attackers (see EXHIBIT AE).
Of course, when talking about the Benghazi attack, the attempt made by both Hillary and Mursi to point to the video as the cause, takes on added significance in light of Mahmoud’s purported claims. Hillary blamed the video as early as the night of the attacks (EXHIBIT F). Later, on 9/25/12, while speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Mursi blamed the video for the attacks as well (EXHIBIT H).
This would mean that Hillary and Mursi were on the exact same page when it came to their expressed views for the attack on the SMC in Benghazi. Additional irony is provided by where Mursi was when he did so – CGI.
Again, the claims attributed to Mahmoud are bolstered by these facts.
Relationship with Clintons
How about the claim by Mahmoud that the Clintons ‘recruited’ her and her husband in the 1980’s? Here’s what is known. Mursi was in the U.S. from 1978 – 1985. He attended USC from ’78 – ’82 and then taught for three years at Cal State-Northridge in Los Angeles before returning to Egypt. The degree he earned from USC was in Materials Science, which appears to be a discipline of interest to Bill Clinton. In a 2008 interview Clinton gave to the AP, he said the following:
I also think colleges need to have more funding in basic funding and research and less politics, from stem cell research and human genome research to global warming research and research in materials science.
None other than Bill Clinton’s Foundation announced in November of 2007 that it would be partnering with Universities to deal with global warming from the perspective of Mursi’s area of expertise. Cal State-Northridge picked up the story at the time as well.
Via Elia Powers at Inside Higher Ed:
Its list of signatories continues to grow, and the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment received a major boost Wednesday with the announcement of a partnership with the William J. Clinton Foundation to address global warming through building retrofits…
…To decrease energy consumption and work toward carbon neutrality, the commitment asks colleges to take several steps, which can include adopting green building standards and embracing energy-efficient appliances. That’s where the Clinton partnership comes in. The foundation is connecting colleges with companies that are offering to help them fund and complete building retrofits intended to decrease energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
If Mahmoud’s claims of a relationship with the Clintons is correct, would it not have made sense for Bill to reach out to and consult with Mursi about this particular “Green Initiative”? To be sure, materials science would not be the sole aspect with regard to building retrofits but it would certainly be an aspect.
The Ph.D. Mursi earned from USC was in precisely this or a related discipline, according to the Daily Trojan. At Times Higher Education, just prior to Mursi taking office last year, David Matthews wrote:
When he submitted his PhD thesis on the “high-temperature electrical conductivity and defect structure of donor-doped [alpha]-Al2O3″ at the University of Southern California in 1982, it is doubtful that Mohamed Morsi thought he would one day become president of Egypt.
Aside from any expertise Mursi may have been able to provide to the Clinton Foundation with regard to his expertise in materials science, did a longtime relationship with the Clintons benefit Mursi’s campaign in any way? If the families were indeed close, there likely could have been some interest in seeing him win.
Consider this excerpt from an NBC News report shortly after he was elected:
Morsi has been described as the accidental candidate; in April, he replaced Khairat El-Shater, the Muslim Brotherhood’s more charismatic and effusive choice who was deemed ineligible to run.
Khairat Al-Shater was disqualified because he had been in prison too recently, convicted of crimes that included money laundering. Mursi was arrested and jailed in January of 2011, during the Arab Spring but was freed during a prison break.
After Al-Shater left the race, many believed that Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh would become the frontrunner but Mursi saw opportunity, claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood would not back Fotouh, who formally left the Brotherhood (wink, wink) in order to run for President, ostensibly because the Brotherhood announced that it would not put forth a presidential candidate. As chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party – the Brotherhood’s political arm – Mursi essentially torpedoed Fotouh’s chances by announcing that the Brotherhood would not endorse anyone for president who left the organization.
Uh, but the Brotherhood pledged not to put forth a candidate. No matter, Mursi ran anyway – and won on June 24, 2012.
Activities of Huma Abedin
It is noteworthy to keep in mind that questions about what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin was doing during these months later became a source of controversy. In December of 2011, Abedin went on maternity leave. She returned in June of that year while simultaneously taking a job a Special Government Employee (SGE). In addition to her role their being quite ambiguous, questions about the legality of the arrangement caught the eye of Senator Charles Grassley, who sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter demanding answers.
The letter sent in response by State Department legal counsel also included correspondence from Abedin herself. These letters raised more questions than they answered. Another interesting timeline aspect involved a letter sent by Rep. Michele Bachmann to the Inspector General at the State Department in June of 2012. In it, Bachmann expressed concerns over Abedin’s familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was during this same month that Abedin took her job as an SGE.
Let’s go back to transcript of the news report about Naglaa Mahmoud that appeared on Mehwar TV. While Mursi’s wife allegedly spilled a lot of beans, she went out of her way to say she would “not speak about Huma Abedin”. Remember, Mahmoud and Abedin’s mother – whom Abedin remains close to – have been very close colleagues as leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood.
In summation, the evidence already in existence, whether primary, secondary, or circumstantial only raises more questions when viewed in the context of the claims attributed to Naglaa Mahmoud.