Political Roundtable Part X

[keynote]

Looks like Trump now has a "get out of jail free" card.

Wow - 9 lives!

Yup. Khan's law firm has deep ties to the Clinton Foundation, Saudi Arabia, and even Clinton's home brew email server.

Sigh. Hogan Lovell is a multinational firm with 2,500 lawyers. Prior to the merger, Hogan & Hartson had 1,100 lawyers. In both instances, I'd wager that ~40% of those lawyers are partners with equity stakes in the firm (maybe more, maybe less; the rest would be associates or of counsel). Law firms are decentralized confederations of partners, each with their own clients. Law firms don't have "deep ties"; partners have clients. So, the fact that one or more Hogan partners may have represented Clinton, the CF, or Saudi interests doesn't necessarily have any impact on Khan's practice (other than the fact that he'd be conflicted from representing parties adverse to the aforementioned). He may have represented those parties; he may not have. He might have even stayed clear of those matters entirely. The article doesn't say.

And insinuating that Khan is somehow culpable or tainted because (and stay with me) Hogan represented a client who acquired the patents in the technology Clinton used in her email server is *utterly* ridiculous. The article doesn't bother to mention or describe what technology was used, so for all we know, that patent-acquiring client could be Apple, or IBM, or Western Digital.

If biased media outlets want to spend time looking for dirt on Khan, feel free. Focus on the EB5 immigration program. And, FWIW, this is the EB5 program:

USCIS administers the EB-5 Program. Under this program, entrepreneurs (and their spouses and unmarried children under 21) are eligible to apply for a green card (permanent residence) if they:

- Make the necessary investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States; and
- Plan to create or preserve 10 permanent full-time jobs for qualified U.S. workers.

This program is known as EB-5 for the name of the employment-based fifth preference visa that participants receive.

Congress created the EB-5 Program in 1990 to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. In 1992, Congress created the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as the Regional Center Program. This sets aside EB-5 visas for participants who invest in commercial enterprises associated with regional centers approved by USCIS based on proposals for promoting economic growth.

https://www.uscis.gov/eb-5

I don't know whether *this* the EB5 program:

The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America,

The author could've provided evidence that the EB5 program disproportionately benefits wealthy Middle Eastern investors (I'd be interested in seeing that data). The author didn't bother -- or the evidence doesn't exist.

All I (or any rational reader) can actually gather from the article is the following:
- Khan's practice used to include immigration law, focusing (in part) on the EB5 program
- a US senator has criticized that program
- Khan used to be a partner at a large multinational firm (with 1000-2000 attorneys)
- another partner (or other partners) at one point or another have represented Clinton, the CF, and Saudi interests
- someone at that firm also represented a tech company that acquired a patent that relates to technology that Clinton used in her email server
- (EDIT: I forgot to add) the website for Khan's personal firm is down

That's it!? If your story is that threadbare, why bother clicking "publish"?

Oh, because the point isn't to actually build a real journalistic case against Khan, it's just to squirt a little skunk spray on him, and hope it smells. Which is *stupid*, because the only reason why this story has legs is because Trump keeps responding. If Trump picks up one of these poorly-substantiated talking points and tweets about it, he does *more* harm to himself and to his supporters.

It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative.

[tontoz]

It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative.

Are you saying that it is unsubstantiated that Khan deleted his company website after it came under scrutiny?

[keynote]

It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative.

Are you saying that it is unsubstantiated that Khan deleted his company website after it came under scrutiny?

Oops. I forgot he deleted the site. I'll edit my post. But it's not clear that he deleted it after it came under scrutiny -- were people tweeting about this aspect of his practice before or after he deleted the site?

[dckingsfan]

Either way - since this IS politics - Khangate makes Trump look prescient. I am just shocked how this boomeranged.

[tontoz]

It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative.

Are you saying that it is unsubstantiated that Khan deleted his company website after it came under scrutiny?

Oops. I forgot he deleted the site. I'll edit my post. But it's not clear that he deleted it after it came under scrutiny -- were people tweeting about this aspect of his practice before or after he deleted the site?

The article stated in it's title that he deleted his site so calling the article unsubstantiated is a stretch. I clicked on Khan's and sure enough his website is gone. That leads me to believe he has something to hide.

It is a bit difficult to do in depth research on a website that has been deleted.

[keynote]

Either way - since this IS politics - Khangate makes Trump look prescient. I am just shocked how this boomeranged.

"Khangate"? SMH. Again: where's the scandal?

Is immigration law under the EB-5 program illegal? No.

Is there any evidence that Khan engaged in wrongdoing, malpractice, or corruption as it relates to the EB-5 program? Not that I've heard.

Is there any evidence that the EB-5 program disproportionately benefits Middle Eastern investors, or has ties to ISIS, etc.? Not that I've heard.

As for his days at Hogan Lovell: according to that same website, Khan *didn't even practice law* at Hogan. He was a manager in the firm's support staff.

Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

So, all of the stuff about Hogan's client list (including the vile technology company who acquired a patent relating to technology Clinton used in her email server) is moot. A manager of support staff is unlikely to be participating in whatever smoke-filled backroom deals Breitbart insinuates is being handled by big shot Hogan partners.

All we have is a guy who practiced immigration law who deleted his website. Even if he deleted his website after the media started to investigate, there's still not much there.

"Khangate."

[keynote]

Are you saying that it is unsubstantiated that Khan deleted his company website after it came under scrutiny?

Oops. I forgot he deleted the site. I'll edit my post. But it's not clear that he deleted it after it came under scrutiny -- were people tweeting about this aspect of his practice before or after he deleted the site?

The article stated in it's title that he deleted his site so calling the article unsubstantiated is a stretch. I clicked on Khan's and sure enough his website is gone. That leads me to believe he has something to hide.

It is a bit difficult to do in depth research on a website that has been deleted.

I didn't say the article was "unsubstantiated," I said "this unsubstantiated." The article did get some things right (spellings of names, etc.). But the bulk of the article is unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. The writer takes one fact: immigration lawyer deletes website (possibly while under scrutiny), and extrapolates a bunch of nonsense.

Also: it's not *that* difficult to do research on a website that's been deleted -- which is why a cached version of the site was found a day later.

[tontoz]

I didn't say the article was "unsubstantiated," I said "this unsubstantiated." The article did get some things right (spellings of names, etc.). But the bulk of the article is unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. The writer takes one fact: immigration lawyer deletes website (possibly while under scrutiny), and extrapolates a bunch of nonsense.

Also: it's not *that* difficult to do research on a website that's been deleted -- which is why a cached version of the site was found a day later.

LOL please clarify the difference between "unsubstantiated" and "this unsubstantiated".

[keynote]

I didn't say the article was "unsubstantiated," I said "this unsubstantiated." The article did get some things right (spellings of names, etc.). But the bulk of the article is unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. The writer takes one fact: immigration lawyer deletes website (possibly while under scrutiny), and extrapolates a bunch of nonsense.

Also: it's not *that* difficult to do research on a website that's been deleted -- which is why a cached version of the site was found a day later.

LOL please clarify the difference between "unsubstantiated" and "this unsubstantiated".

The former is absolute; the latter connotes degree.

E.g., "Kelly Oubre is tall" vs. "I'm standing next to Kelly Oubre; I'm surprised he's *this* tall."

As I wrote previously: "It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative."

In other words: if someone reposted and/or quoted article only had a few unsubstantiated points, that would be one thing. But it's annoying to see people repost and quote an article *this* unsubstantiated, i.e., unsubstantiated *to such a high degree*.

[montestewart]

Either way - since this IS politics - Khangate makes Trump look prescient. I am just shocked how this boomeranged.

"Khangate"? SMH. Again: where's the scandal?

Is immigration law under the EB-5 program illegal? No.

Is there any evidence that Khan engaged in wrongdoing, malpractice, or corruption as it relates to the EB-5 program? Not that I've heard.

Is there any evidence that the EB-5 program disproportionately benefits Middle Eastern investors, or has ties to ISIS, etc.? Not that I've heard.

As for his days at Hogan Lovell: according to that same website, Khan *didn't even practice law* at Hogan. He was a manager in the firm's support staff.

Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

So, all of the stuff about Hogan's client list (including the vile technology company who acquired a patent relating to technology Clinton used in her email server) is moot. A manager of support staff is unlikely to be participating in whatever smoke-filled backroom deals Breitbart insinuates is being handled by big shot Hogan partners.

All we have is a guy who practiced immigration law who deleted his website. Even if he deleted his website after the media started to investigate, there's still not much there.

"Khangate."

I think dckingsfan was being a little tongue in cheek with "Khangate."

It remains to be seen how much this turns things around. From what I've seen, it looks like Trump's own words about Gold Star family members may have been a tipping point, coupled with his unusual definition of personal sacrifice, his comments about McCain ("I like people who weren't captured"), and perhaps the rising feeling that maybe he wouldn't have given that money to veterans' charities had the Washington Post not challenged him to account for the money raised, and maybe if he released his taxes they would show he hasn't contributed to veterans' charities, as he has claimed. A number of veterans groups seem to be responding to Trump's words and actions, quite apart from politics or the Khan's motives. Take a look at the following:

Open letter to Trump

The letter, signed by forty veterans or Gold Star family members, concludes:

As Republican, Democrat, and Independent military combat veterans along with Gold Star families, we ask that you demonstrate the character demanded of the office that you seek and apologize for what you’ve said.

There are at least six published authors among the forty, so they definitely have an audience, but note more tellingly that one of the signatories is Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer, Sarah Palin's son-in-law. Who knows where this all will go in the end, but Trump and his people seem to be testing dangerous waters by potentially pissing off veterans who might easily be part of his base.

As far as the website being taken down, I'm inclined to wait before assuming there is anything nefarious about it. Maybe he was being hacked, maybe it was inviting hate mail, maybe he didn't pay his bill. Multiple sites have posted the archived website. I read it. There's nothing there. Look for yourselves:

Apparently boring law firm website that barely conceals bottomless depths of evil

I asked before and I'll ask again, what was being "hidden"? keynote already documented the lack of actual evidence for anything that actually proves anything about Khan, other than he took his website down.

I see Trump's trying to get mileage out of Khan's alleged former practice of Sharia law in Pakistan. It would not surprise me that Khan, having formally practiced law in a country that applies Shari'a law, would himself have practiced Shari'a law. Was he a prosecutor trying to have someone stoned to death, or was he defending the accused? Not much information yet, just a lot of smoke.

[AFM]

Here's ZH's take
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-02/khan

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father of Captain Humayun Khan, set off a media firestorm at the DNC last week when he criticized Trump for his "unconstitutional" policies aimed at banning Muslim immigration to the United States. A question posed by Breitbart is whether Khizr Khan's law firm, KM Khan Law Office, actually derives profit directly from Muslim immigration to the United States making him more than just an innocent conscientiousness objector to Trump's policy?

Breitbart suggests that Khan did, in fact, stand to profit from his viewpoints shared at the DNC and point to his website bio which lists "EB-5 Investments & Related Immigration Services" as a specific area of practice. Oddly enough, since these reports have surfaced the website of Mr. Khan's law office has been taken down. Luckily, prior versions of the website are available on the wayback machine which can be seen here:

Khan Law

Why would Khan remove his website over such a discovery? Perhaps it's related to the fact that the EB-5 program has come under intense scrutiny from certain members of Congress, the SEC, Homeland Security and the NSA. Senator Chuck Grassley recently described the program as "riddled with flaws and corruption." Below are some relevant excerpts from Senator Grassley's prepared remarks at the Judiciary Committee Hearing on February 2, 2016 regarding EB-5:

It is widely acknowledged that the EB-5 program is riddled with flaws and corruption. 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. 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.

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.

An interagency working group was organized by the National Security Staff because of the serious concerns. This group’s draft memo said, “The capital raising activities inherent in the regional center model raise concerns about investor fraud and other conduct that may violate US securities laws.”
More information about the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program can be found on the Department of Homeland Security website.

While it's unclear how this saga will play out, one thing we're pretty sure of is that we'll see a couple more days of related headlines before we finally get to put this to bed.

Senator Grassley's full comments can be viewed below:

Not seeing a scandal, but his decision to delete his website makes it much more suspicious, IMO

[tontoz]

I didn't say the article was "unsubstantiated," I said "this unsubstantiated." The article did get some things right (spellings of names, etc.). But the bulk of the article is unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. The writer takes one fact: immigration lawyer deletes website (possibly while under scrutiny), and extrapolates a bunch of nonsense.

Also: it's not *that* difficult to do research on a website that's been deleted -- which is why a cached version of the site was found a day later.

LOL please clarify the difference between "unsubstantiated" and "this unsubstantiated".

The former is absolute; the latter connotes degree.

E.g., "Kelly Oubre is tall" vs. "I'm standing next to Kelly Oubre; I'm surprised he's *this* tall."

As I wrote previously: "It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative."

In other words: if someone reposted and/or quoted article only had a few unsubstantiated points, that would be one thing. But it's annoying to see people repost and quote an article *this* unsubstantiated, i.e., unsubstantiated *to such a high degree*.

The central points of the article are factually correct. Khan deleted his website which details his work in the controversial EB5 program. Neither point is unsubstantiated to any degree.

The article isn't claiming that Khan broke the law. Clearly the article was partisan but the facts are pretty damaging from a political standpoint. I doubt we hear from the Khans again.

[dckingsfan]

I thought Khangate was funny - just needed AFM to post it. Reminds me of...

A new prisoner arrives and it sitting in the mess hall having lunch. One of the inmates yells out "Number one," and everyone cracks up with laughter. Another yells out "Number five," and again everyone laughs heartily. The new prisoner asks, "Why is everyone laughing? You are just calling out numbers." To which another prisoner explains that each of the numbers is a joke. He patiently tells the new prisoner all of the jokes in order.

About a year later they are sitting in the mess hall telling jokes and the new inmate gets up the courage and yells, "31". No one laughs. He turns to his friend - "why didn't they laugh"?

His friend says, "you have to know how to tell a joke"

[dckingsfan]

And now that it has a name, "Khangate" - it must be true...

[AFM]

KHAN!!!!!!!!!!

[AFM]

That one was for the trekkies on board

[dckingsfan]

KHAN!!!!!!!!!!

Damn it, I started laughing

[keynote]

LOL please clarify the difference between "unsubstantiated" and "this unsubstantiated".

The former is absolute; the latter connotes degree.

E.g., "Kelly Oubre is tall" vs. "I'm standing next to Kelly Oubre; I'm surprised he's *this* tall."

As I wrote previously: "It's annoying to see people repost and quote an article this unsubstantiated as if it's fact, just because it fits into a desirable narrative."

In other words: if someone reposted and/or quoted article only had a few unsubstantiated points, that would be one thing. But it's annoying to see people repost and quote an article *this* unsubstantiated, i.e., unsubstantiated *to such a high degree*.

The central points of the article are factually correct. Khan deleted his website which details his work in the controversial EB5 program. Neither point is unsubstantiated to any degree.

The article isn't claiming that Khan broke the law. Clearly the article was partisan but the facts are pretty damaging from a political standpoint. I doubt we hear from the Khans again.

Again, the only actual facts are that Khan is/was an immigration lawyer and that he later deleted his website. The writer then spun a web of conjecture and innuendo to connect him to, among other things, Clinton's private email server.

The author argues that the EB5 program is "controversial" by citing one senator's complaints about corruption associated with the program. Is that enough to declare the program "controversial"? Not sure. Perhaps the senator is the only one complaining. Perhaps the senator's issues would be resolved with tighter enforcement, as opposed to scrapping the program entirely. The author doesn't know or care about that part; it's enough to just insinuate that the program is sketchy, because "sketchy program + deleted website" = "Khan's law practice was sketchy."

It's one thing for an article to be partisan (of course, partisan articles are usually called "opinion columns"). But it's disappointing that the article's intended audience is willing to forgive its numerous flaws simply because it furthers a partisan agenda. Breitbart's editors don't appear to think of much of their target audience; if they did, they'd put in the effort to publish better-researched articles and more thoughtful columns.

I do agree that we probably won't hear from the Khans again, but that's because they're not politicians. They've taken advantage of the platform afforded to them to express their views; if they do indeed recede back to private life, that shouldn't be taken as "further" evidence of culpability.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

Remember when Breitbarth took a video of a black USDA employee and deliberately and maliciously re-edited it to make it appear as if she had made racist remarks?

Yes, technically speaking Shirley Sherrod said all the things she said in the video. However, the appearance of racism manufactured from selective editing of her video is not only unsubstantiated but a flat out lie. I think something similar is going on in this article about Khan deleting his website. Yes, he deleted his website because he was getting flack about immigration services and such. Does this make him someone with "deep ties" to whatever bs the article is making up? Absolutely not.

The point is, how gullible can you be? So an article full of lies has ONE TRUE FACT in it and you guys take the thing whole hog as the gospel truth? What is the matter with you people? Do you have any scientific discipline at all? Why are you so easy to manipulate? Don't you care?

Being a patsy for the right wing propaganda machine brings you no shame at all?