What did Huma know and when did she know it? As the details about Weinergate 2.0 come out, perhaps it’s time to ask some tough questions about the Hillary Clinton acolyte and wife of Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin. It was learned yesterday that Weiner, who is running for mayor of New York City continued his ‘sexting’ habit until last summer. If Huma, whom the New York Times referred to as the ‘architect’ of Weiner’s political comeback, knew about these facts beforehand, isn’t she guilty of evasiveness too?
Yesterday, the New York Times Editorial Board called on Weiner to drop out of the race, in part, because he is ‘serially evasive’. The Board also referenced Weiner’s wife near the end of the piece:
It’s difficult not to feel for Ms. Abedin. The couple deserved privacy as they worked through their problems — and they had it, until they re-emerged in public life and Mr. Weiner decided he was a good fit to run New York City. Mr. Weiner and Ms. Abedin have been saying that his sexual behavior is not the public’s business. Well, it isn’t, until they make it our business by plunging into a political campaign.
Hang on a second. Just a few months ago, it was the same New York Times that implied it was Huma who wanted Weiner to run for mayor more than her husband did:
As Mr. Weiner, a Democrat, seeks an improbable return to politics, announcing this week that he is running for mayor of New York City, some have wondered how a politician who exchanged sexually explicit messages with strangers could persuade his wife to undergo another excruciating period in the spotlight.
But the reality, it turns out, is just the opposite: Those close to the couple say that Ms. Abedin, a seasoned operative well versed in the politics of redemption, has been a main architect of her husband’s rehabilitative journey, shaping his calculated comeback and drawing on her close ties with one of the country’s most powerful families to lay the groundwork for his return.
Huma speaks at Weiner’s press conference (h/t NRO):
So, if Huma is the ‘main architect’ of Weiner’s ‘rehabilitative’ mayoral campaign, does it not stand to reason that she was aware of his continuing behavior? Based on the Editorial Board’s take on Weiner’s comments yesterday, the short answer would seem to be yes. Curiously, right before telling readers to feel bad for Huma, the Board wrote:
The timing here matters, as it would for any politician who violates the public’s trust and then asks to have it back. Things are different now, he insists. “This behavior is behind me,” he said again on Tuesday. He suggested that people should have known that his sexting was an unresolved problem well into 2012.
That’s ridiculous and speaks to a familiar but repellent pattern of misleading and evasion. It’s up to Mr. Weiner if he wants to keep running, to count on voters to forgive and forget and hand him the keys to City Hall. But he has already disqualified himself.
Did you catch that? Weiner “suggested that people should have known”. Does this not mean that Huma did know? As the driving force behind Weiner’s mayoral bid, she’s not innocent here. It means that she too, has been evasive.
As we have stated previously, there is more than enough probable cause when it comes to suspecting Abedin of having loyalties to the Muslim Brotherhood. She worked with an al-Qaeda financier at the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) for crying out loud.
We should also ask why Huma wants her husband to be mayor more than he does, as reports have suggested. If Huma’s loyalties do lie with the Brotherhood, becoming the first lady of the city that was hit on 9/11 would be a symbolic victory greater than the Ground Zero mosque.
***UPDATE on July 24, 2013 at 4:52pm EST***
Weiner: Huma “knew all along”