Yes, there is a Huma Abedin angle to this story but a certain Muslim Congressman seems to be in the middle of digging himself a bit of a hole.
On July 12th, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Muslim-MN) sent a two-page letter to the five congressmen who sent five separate letters to five separate Inspectors General on June 13th. The June 13th letters raised serious concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration inside the U.S. Government. Among the concerns raised with the OIG at the State Department are the familial connections of Hillary Clinton’s closest aide – Huma Abedin – to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ellison attempted to pit Bachmann against Republicans like Herman Cain and Chris Christie by pointing out that her source in the June 13th letters seemed to be one person – Frank Gaffney. Gaffney has rightfully been very critical of said Republicans in the past for their comments and actions relative to Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
Moreover, Ellison seemed to allege in his July 12th letter that Gaffney was Bachmann’s only source.
Here is how Ellison ended that letter:
Despite Mr. Gaffney’s record of unsubstantiated allegations, you appear to have based your letters to the Inspectors General on his views.
I request that you provide my office a full accounting of the sources you used to make the serious allegations against the individuals and organizations in your letters. If there is not credible, substantial evidence for your allegations, I sincerely hope that you will publically (sic) clear their names.
Ask and ye shall receive, Congressman…
I do note that the facts we presented in the Inspector General request letters are based on information presented by U.S. Government officials in court documents, court evidence, correspondence and briefings with Congress and public statements, in addition to known media reporting. These letters were far from sole-sourced as you maintain in your letter.
While I can’t speak on behalf of the other signatories of these letters, nor am I able to get into the private discussions and documentation received by the various House committees represented by the signatories on these matters that motivated these letters to the various Inspectors General, out of respect to you I am happy to respond to some of your concerns, provide the sources you ask for, as well as clarify a few points that may have been misunderstood or misrepresented.
Furthermore, Ellison’s defense of groups that should be identified as enemies of the United States puts him in dangerous territory and Bachmann exploited it. In citing the Holy Land Foundation Trial – along with attempts by CAIR and ISNA to be removed from unindicted co-conspirator list – Bachmann quotes from the Judge’s declination of that request:
Finally, CAIR, NAIT, and ISNA ask the Court to strike their names from any public document filed or issued by the government (Mot. at 6.) While it is clear from the Briggs line of cases that the Government should have originally filed the unindicted co-conspirators’ names under seal, the Court declines to strike CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names from those documents. The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas. (Bachmann’s letter cites the Judge’s Memorandum Opinion Order)
Ellison is dangerously close to outwardly defending groups tied to Hamas – a designated terrorist organization – and he’s doing so on the Congressional record. Bachmann basically check-mates Ellison in the very next sentence:
It should be noted that Article 2 of the Hamas Covenant identifies Hamas as a Muslim Brotherhood entity while Article 7 calls for the global killing of all Jews (Bachmann cites – of all things – Yale Law School).