Khizr Khan, father of a soldier killed in the Iraq war, said he has temporarily taken down his website promoting his legal practice out of concern that it could be hacked and because he has gotten some “ugly messages” in addition to “wonderfully supportive messages” since his speech last week at the Democratic convention.
Mr. Khan, in an interview Tuesday night, said he spoke to the host of the website and agreed to pull it down at lease until “this nonsense ceases.”
Mr. Khan, who was born in Pakistan and is now a U.S. citizen, works as a contractor in civil commercial litigation. Conservative websites have questioned why his website was removed. They have pointed to screenshots showing that Mr. Khan’s practice area included “immigration services.”
Immigration is a centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s candidacy. He has called for building a wall on the Southern border with Mexico.
In the interview, Mr. Khan said he didn’t perform immigration work—because he couldn’t find any clients.
“You can only practice if there’s a client that comes to you,” he said.
The WSJ has a reputation for being ideologically conservative. But they're still a reputable news outlet -- which is why they actually got a quote from Khan himself rather than just running with a thin story filled with speculative nonsense.
Now, those who are predisposed to be suspicious of Khan can still choose to disbelieve his version of events. They can choose to believe instead that the Clinton campaign didn't vet his legal practice, and that Khan has in fact gotten fat off of the largesse of sketchy, wealthy, anti-American Middle Eastern investors by using corruption and worse to sneak them into the United States. And, they can choose to believe that this brilliant-but-nefarious legal mastermind felt that deleting his website would sufficiently cover his tracks. But, given the evidence, it seems unlikely, no?
I don't know whether Khan's immigration law practice was successful or not. I don't know if his story about taking down the website to avoid harassment is true. But, it seems reasonable enough. It's not as if he edited the website to remove references to that specific area of practice, and left the rest up (as if he were specifically trying to hide the immigration law work). And lawyers who provide illegal services to clients don't usually advertise those services on their website. The alternative scenario -- namely: 1) that he represented EB5 program clients; 2) that his representation included corrupt and/or illegal activity; 3) that the Clinton campaign didn't bother vetting his practice, and unwittingly gave air time to a corrupt lawyer who once managed litigation support at a multinational law firm who dared to represent a technology company that once conspired to acquire a patent that taught a technology used in Clinton's illegal private email server; and 4) that he deleted his *entire* website (despite being a solo practitioner who might want his website running in order to pick up new clients due to his national exposure) just to cover up his illicit EB5 practice -- is a little far-fetched, no? Even if we assume 1) is true, the rest is simply skunk spray.
Don't ban me!!!!!!!
