I Was Just Joking’: Media Apoplectic as Khizr Khan
Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames
Mainstream media figures from the New York Times to the Huffington Post to CNN are apoplectic Monday as their latest attack on Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has crumbled yet again under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Specifically, the newest line of attack to fall apart is the criticism of Trump over Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week.
Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.
But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.
All of this information was publicly available, and accessible to anyone—including any of these reporters, and Breitbart News—with a basic Google search. Anyone interested in doing research about the subjects they are reporting on—otherwise known as responsible journalism—would have checked into these matters. But clearly, none in the mainstream media did—probably because, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram noted, Democrats “sense blood in the water over” the whole Khan controversy.
Earlier on Monday, as CNN host Kate Bolduan stacked a panel with three anti-Trump analysts against Scottie Nell Hughes—the only Trump supporter present—Bolduan admitted she has not done basic research about Khan.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about, what law firm he’s connected to,” Bolduan, a CNN anchor, plainly admitted on live television on Monday during a discussion with Hughes.
Hughes was pressing the very easily publicly accessible information that Khan worked at Hogan & Hartson, the firm that would eventually become Hogan Lovells LLP—a firm that as Breitbart News has demonstrated is highly connected with the Clinton apparatus and with the Saudi government. And Bolduan was proving she had no idea what she was talking, quite literally—as her direct quote admits.
A CNN spokeswoman referred Breitbart News to Bolduan’s personal spokesman when sent a list of detailed questions on the matter. That spokesman has not replied to Breitbart News’ detailed questions by press time:
1.) Kate Bolduan admitted on live television today — see approximately 3:20 in this video:
when Bolduan says of Khizr Khan: “I have no idea what you’re talking about, what law firm he’s connected to.” — that she did not do any basic journalistic research on the subjects she was hosting a panel on. Is that acceptable by CNN standards?
2.) Does CNN plan to, in the future, have a discussion about all of Khizr Khan’s various connections to the law firm that A) prepared Hillary Clinton’s taxes,
helped with various aspects of Hillary Clinton’s illicit homebrew email server, C) is paid by the government of Saudi Arabia for representation here in the United States, among other things?
3.) Does CNN plan to, in the future, focus on the fact that Khan now runs a law firm that financially benefits from opposition to Donald Trump’s policies on migration — specifically that he aims to represent aspiring EB5 visa holders, who pay large sums of money to enter the country, a program that the Senate Judiciary Committee has uncovered as having major flaws?
4.) Has anyone at CNN done any work digging into any of this? You’re aware it’s all publicly available with a simple Google search and would have taken a junior producer less than an hour to find it all out?
Meanwhile, hours after Breitbart News presented this information publicly in a coherent report on Monday, others in media engaged in willful distortion of the story’s origins
Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames
Mainstream media figures from the New York Times to the Huffington Post to CNN are apoplectic Monday as their latest attack on Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has crumbled yet again under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Specifically, the newest line of attack to fall apart is the criticism of Trump over Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week.
Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.
But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.
All of this information was publicly available, and accessible to anyone—including any of these reporters, and Breitbart News—with a basic Google search. Anyone interested in doing research about the subjects they are reporting on—otherwise known as responsible journalism—would have checked into these matters. But clearly, none in the mainstream media did—probably because, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram noted, Democrats “sense blood in the water over” the whole Khan controversy.
Earlier on Monday, as CNN host Kate Bolduan stacked a panel with three anti-Trump analysts against Scottie Nell Hughes—the only Trump supporter present—Bolduan admitted she has not done basic research about Khan.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about, what law firm he’s connected to,” Bolduan, a CNN anchor, plainly admitted on live television on Monday during a discussion with Hughes.
Hughes was pressing the very easily publicly accessible information that Khan worked at Hogan & Hartson, the firm that would eventually become Hogan Lovells LLP—a firm that as Breitbart News has demonstrated is highly connected with the Clinton apparatus and with the Saudi government. And Bolduan was proving she had no idea what she was talking, quite literally—as her direct quote admits.
A CNN spokeswoman referred Breitbart News to Bolduan’s personal spokesman when sent a list of detailed questions on the matter. That spokesman has not replied to Breitbart News’ detailed questions by press time:
1.) Kate Bolduan admitted on live television today — see approximately 3:20 in this video:
when Bolduan says of Khizr Khan: “I have no idea what you’re talking about, what law firm he’s connected to.” — that she did not do any basic journalistic research on the subjects she was hosting a panel on. Is that acceptable by CNN standards?
2.) Does CNN plan to, in the future, have a discussion about all of Khizr Khan’s various connections to the law firm that A) prepared Hillary Clinton’s taxes,
helped with various aspects of Hillary Clinton’s illicit homebrew email server, C) is paid by the government of Saudi Arabia for representation here in the United States, among other things? 3.) Does CNN plan to, in the future, focus on the fact that Khan now runs a law firm that financially benefits from opposition to Donald Trump’s policies on migration — specifically that he aims to represent aspiring EB5 visa holders, who pay large sums of money to enter the country, a program that the Senate Judiciary Committee has uncovered as having major flaws?
4.) Has anyone at CNN done any work digging into any of this? You’re aware it’s all publicly available with a simple Google search and would have taken a junior producer less than an hour to find it all out?
Meanwhile, hours after Breitbart News presented this information publicly in a coherent report on Monday, others in media engaged in willful distortion of the story’s origins
