Matthew Boyle reports at Breitbart that Khizr Khan, the controversial immigration lawyer who assailed Republican Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention last week, has taken down his professional website.
That Mr. Khan took down his law firm’s website doesn’t prove anything by itself but it is odd behavior. It suggests Khan has something to hide.
To make sure this part of the public record is preserved, we at Capital Research Center took it upon ourselves to copy the pages of the website from an archival service.
Click here for a PDF of the archived website.
Perhaps Khan is trying to cover up the fact that he worked almost 10 years for the law firm Hogan & Hartson —now Hogan Lovells LLP— “which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves,” Boyle writes.
Hogan, by the way, was the law firm of disgraced former National Security Adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, the Clinton hack who stole sensitive government documents from the National Archive and destroyed them. He took a plea bargain in 2005 and pled guilty to misdemeanor removing classified material without authorization. As his Washington Post obituary states:
He was fined $50,000, barred from access to classified material for three years, and sentenced by a federal judge to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Mr. Berger voluntarily relinquished his law license in 2007. He continued to advise political leaders, including Hillary Clinton and Obama, although in a muted fashion.
Saudi Arabia, which has given between $10 million and $25 million to the anticipatory bribe collection agency known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has used the services of the Hogan law firm. And Hillary herself has used the firm to handle her taxes and to “acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called ‘extremely careless’ in handling classified information.”
This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.
A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”
The EB5 program that “helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption,” Boyle writes.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) spoke about the flawed program in February.
“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of Congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities.”
“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said.
“The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”
So there’s that.
UPDATED: George Washington University Law School Professor John Banzhaf told SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon that Khan, who suggested Trump’s proposed immigration ban on Muslims was unconstitutional, is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. Banzhaf made it clear that the view of “virtually all constitutional professors who have written on the topic” that Khan was wrong.
“A lot of people haven’t read the Constitution,” Banzhaf said, but they “kinda think anything which they don’t like, any proposal which they don’t like, is both unconstitutional and un-American.”