Interesting, if – IF – true

Remember the speech at the Democratic National Convention by Mr. Khizr Khan?  Well, courtesy of Cold Fury, who got it from the Woodpile Report, we note these allegations:

Via email from George Mellinger, a.k.a. Stogramov:

So the Dems had to pay actors to fill up seats at their convention & now we learn they paid Khan?

Khan was paid $25,000 by the Clinton campaign to speak at the DNC, the speech was not written by Mr. Khan, but by two campaign staffers, the copy of the US Constitution that Mr. Khan held up was bought only two HOURS before his speech by a female staffer, to be used solely as a prop and Khan returned the book after speaking.

5 Gold Star families turned down the opportunity to speak before Khan was contacted by the Clinton campaign. All five families were paid $5,000 and signed a non disclosure. Khan’s immigration law firm is in debt $1.7M and owes back taxes of upward $850,000 plus penalties.

CNN paid Khan over $100,000 to tell his “story” and repeated interviews across networks. Khan was given a bonus of $175k by the DNC for his effort in the media. The IRS has since put Khan’s tax file on a “hold” status.

I’ve seen one attempted rebuttal of these allegations.  In the current heated political climate, it’s hard to believe any side without evidence.  Can anyone provide any confirmation of any of those points?  If true, they would vindicate almost everything Donald Trump had to say about Mr. Khan and his wife.  If false, they would indicate a shameful attempt to blacken the name of a grieving family.  I’d like to have greater certainty.



  1. Going to turn 65 in a couple of weeks, also something of a student of history by inclination.
    So based on my observations when I hear something from the Republicans I apply a copious amount of salt until I get independent verification. Trust but verify is my policy.
    When the Democrats tell me something I naturally assume the facts have at a minimum been massaged and twisted to fit their current narrative. At worst everything from their lips is a total fabrication. More of a mistrust and always verify to separate whatever truth might still exist buried in a pack of self serving lies.

  2. I believe that it was during the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings that a Democrat stated, "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters."

  3. Believable if only because it fits so well with Clinton standard procedure. Yes let us see some documentation'

  4. I'm rather unsympathetic to the Khans. I can't imagine speaking on behalf of any politician who voted for the asinine stupidity of the Iraq war. Then we find out later that he has some cozy connections as well with Saudis and other undesirables.

    Khan was rather hasty taking down his site after it advertised in different columns.

  5. “The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.” Tom Foley, Democrat, Former Speaker of the House.

    I believe it was first said in the context of Bush the First flying to France on a SR-71 Blackbird spy plane to negotiate the release of Iran hostages.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *