CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank both defended Hillary Clinton’s closest advisor – Huma Abedin – while conceding that concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration are warranted.

During an interview with Newt Gingrich last week, Blitzer said the following:

“You can raise all sorts of questions about the Muslim Brotherhood … all that is legitimate……but to take a woman, who is a wonderful American patriot and to start throwing her name out there as if she’s some sort of spy… because maybe some distant relative or something…”

After last week’s press conference, that featured Andrew McCarthy laying out his concerns about Huma’s Brotherhood associations, Milbank wrote:

McCarthy is a serious man who once prosecuted Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik. He may have valid points to make about the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence. But going after Abedin with a cockamamie case discredits him.

Ok, based on what both Blitzer and Milbank agree is a legitimate debate, we call on them to report / write on the following story. The American people would like to know how the president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States – Mohamed Magid of the Islamic Society of North America – got himself a seat at the same Iftar dinner at which Barack Obama heaped praise on Huma.

Oh, while you’re at it Mr. Blitzer and Mr. Milbank, can you also look into why the White House decided to seat Magid next to Huma herself? It doesn’t help with your efforts at drawing a clear line of distinction.