Beware of people who try to lie to you about basic facts.
It’s one thing to differ in interpretations of events.
It’s entirely another to actually deny the truth of something that’s an easily confirmed fact.
And it’s a third, much worse thing to intentionally try to confuse other people about basic facts.
When it comes to the Huma Abedin story, The Atlantic and writer Serena Dai have the third — deliberately trying to trick their readers into thinking the ‘alleged’ connection between Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood is not clear and direct. They did this in an article entitled The Convoluted Connections That Link Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood.
They even made a chart that attempts to paint a convoluted picture. It’s interactive on the site but you get the idea.
Wow! Boy o boy and gee wilickers!!! That sure is complicated! Look at them lines going every which way!
Except, it’s not really that complicated. The chart doesn’t show you that Huma Abedin was the assistant editor of the Journal of the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, which was created with the sponsorship of Abdullah Omar Nasif who was on the editorial board at the same time Huma worked there. On the Atlantic chart, they are sooooo far away – but look at the long arrow. That’s intentional. It’s lying with an arrow. Click the links and see for yourself; Huma and Naseef are both listed on the masthead.
Here’s a chart I made and I didn’t have to use wacky curly arrow lines going every which way because the connection between Huma Abedin and al-Quaeda funder Omar Nasif is veyy straightforward.
But frankly, even THAT is misleading because it indicates a greater separation between Ms. Abedin and Mr. Nasif than is accurate.
So if it’s that simple, why is The Atlantic trying to make it more complicated than it really is?
It’s called a cover-up and The Atlantic is part of it.