Who will die? 1MDB or the Clinton campaign?
The Third Force
Recently, it was rumoured that Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak had instructed what was described to be his trusted aide, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, to meet US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch and offer USD500 million for the Clinton presidential campaign. The ‘donation’ was further rumoured to be part of a quid pro quo arrangement for the latter to call off all investigations that pertained to 1MDB.
This article was written with intent to offer a critical yet objective assay of circumstances surrounding the US presidential election and beyond, with the sole purpose of dispelling rumours that such a conspiracy between Najib and Shafee exists.
Background of the US presidential race
It’s been 407 days since Donald Trump rode down an escalator in his Manhattan skyscraper to announce his candidacy for the post of US President. Today, not only is he the 2016 presidential nominee for the Republican Party, the odds of him winning the US election appears stacked in his favour at 15/8.
Over on the Democratic field, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the wife of former US President Bill Clinton, was just announced the party’s nominee for the white House at the weeklong convention the party is hosting in Philadelphia. But things are not looking good for her campaign. Some argue that the road to the White House will be nasty and strewn with hurdles for Hillary amid allegations that she is a natural born liar.
“She’s a liar, and everybody knows that,” says Trump, acknowledging.
Trump repeatedly pointed out how Hillary would say different things at different times to different people. And he’s right – today, she’s pandering to African-Americans, telling them she has their interests at heart. Years ago, in New Hampshire, she referred to black kids involved in gangs as ‘super predators’ with “no conscience and no empathy.” What’s more, she’s been caught several times lying about her philosophy on national television.
For instance, at the CNN Democratic primary in 2007, she told the debate that she considered herself a modern progressive. Then, in a September 2015 event, she described herself as being centre and moderate. A month later, she told CBS personality Anderson Cooper that she was a progressive “who just likes to get things done.”
Contrary to what many believe, Trump has been absolutely consistent with his views on the American and global scene since the late nineties. Trust me on that one – I’ve been following American politics closely for 10 years now, and have even written four articles in an American based blog – now defunct – under a pseudonym, criticizing Obama during his 2012 re-election campaign.
So if you’re going to tell me about the bad press Trump has been getting, forget it – there is a very good reason why Trump has been prodded with the shorter end of the media stick. The ‘Big Three television networks’ – the CBS, NBC and ABC – are all gunning for a Hillary presidency.
And so is Barack Obama.
Alleged conspiracy to frame Roger Ailes
Now here’s the deal – if Trump ever gets to be president, several members of the Obama administration may face criminal charges for having protected terrorists and possibly even funding them. They include the US Attorney-General, Loretta Lynch – yes, the same Loretta Lynch who recently issued a press statement against 1MDB officials – who has long been accused of glossing over evidence and testimony from witnesses to either conceal or play down crimes that related to terrorist activity. Trump has pledged to get to the bottom of things should he be elected president.
Perhaps that explains why Obama became visibly upset when Roger Ailes, the founder of Fox News, began to throw his weight behind the Trump campaign. As a matter of fact, The O’Reilly Factor, an American talk show featured on the Fox News Channel, has been at odds with competitors from other channels, implying that it may take an outsider like “the Donald” to defeat ISIS and the jihadists.
Say what you may, but we can’t deny that the American people are absolutely absorbed with threats of terrorism. The recent incidences of gun violence and bombings in the US and around the world haven’t helped diffuse their anxiety. Both Trump and Fox seem to be on a page against ISIS, which O’Reilly refers to as “savages.” Trump agrees that the plan would be to “kill the savages” rather than engaging in empty talk and delivering empty promises like Obama does (link provided below this article).
Anyway, I think you get the idea – Roger Ailes became a very big problem for the Obama administration. Then, as if a bolt from the blue, Gretchen Carlson, an anchor with Fox who left the network last month, filed a harassment suit against Ailes earlier this month, claiming that he had “ogled her in his office” (link provided below article).
Ailes has since resigned from Fox News. He is succeeded by Rupert Murdoch, whose family has long owned 21st Century Fox and News Corp through the Murdoch Family Trust. Both Rupert and Trump immediately entered into an agreement of sorts which is beyond the scope of this article for me to dabble into. Rest assured, Trump is still raging mad over what Ailes was made to go through, which sources believe had something to do with the Hillary campaign.
The Paris attacks and its impact on Hillary’s campaign
A week after Ailes was defamed, Trump’s and Hillary’s gapping positions on terrorism came under spotlight following the Paris attacks that killed more than 70 people and injured hundreds of others. While Trump was quick to ‘declare war’ against ISIS, Clinton gave a much subdued and ‘Obama-like’ response, arguing in favour of “greater intelligence gathering to fight terror groups.”
Suddenly, the focus was no longer on the Fox harassment scandal. Instead, Fox news was all over Hillary once again and still is, claiming that she lacked a convincing plan of action to combat terrorism. Trump wanted boots on the ground, while Hillary wanted them at the roundtable. Years ago, Hillary, too, wanted those boots on the ground. To many Americans, Hillary was the good ol’ liar Trump claimed she was.
Then, as if to add salt to the wound, Trump reverted to an issue he had been playing up since last year. And that is, he questioned why the Obama administration was shielding Hillary, who he claims is a criminal, from the brunt of the law.
For those of you who are not in the know, Trump was alluding to the fact that Hillary had used her private email server to receive and send classified government information while she ran the State Department. Following complaints of gross negligence, the FBI undertook to probe her for mismanaging delicate national defence information. Later, the bureau expanded its discovery to rule in the possibility that Hillary may have fabricated evidence that she delivered to investigative committees.
The evidence related to an attack that took place on US compounds in Benghazi. The September 2012 massacre claimed four American lives, including that of US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. For some unknown reason, Hillary suddenly deleted ‘private emails’ from the server, fuelling speculation that she either intended to protect a certain terrorist group or had been funding them.
Trump insists that Hillary needs to serve prison time for criminal negligence and for breaking federal law. According to him, Hillary would win the Democratic presidential nomination as long as she avoided antagonizing one man, and just one man, who could “guarantee she stayed out of prison” – Barack Obama.
“So she has to be very nice. She has to be extremely nice. She’s walking on eggs right now. Boom, boom, boom. She’s walking very gently,” says Trump.
And the minute Obama came out to endorse Hillary’s candidacy, her ratings plummeted through the floor.
The Lynch-Hillary controversy
Then, in a peculiar twist of irony, the US Department of Justice ‘suddenly’ closed investigations into the email cock-up without any criminal charges being brought against Hillary. US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch – and might I repeat, this is the same Loretta Lynch who recently ruffled some feathers in Malaysia – accepted ‘recommendations’ by the FBI and concluded that no charges would be brought against Hillary.
“I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, yearlong investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation,” she said.
Almost as soon as Lynch opened her mouth, Trump put his shoe in it.
In a knee jerk sort of response, Trump assured his supporters that Hillary and all those responsible for glossing over her crimes – and that includes Lynch – would be dealt the full brunt of the law should he become president. Trump’s campaign took to stage during the recently concluded Republican convention in Cleveland and stepped up demands for Hillary to be sent to jail.
Just so that you know, Lynch is no Mother Teresa herself. Even I recently got to know something Lynch had done that more or less resonates with the idea that somebody in the Obama administration is either funding or protecting terrorists, or both.
Early in February last year, the US government found itself under intense pressure over a massive data-leak that took the wraps off a conspiracy by the Swiss banking arm of HSBC, the world’s second-largest bank. The conspiracy told of secret dealings between banking officials and wealthy customers from around the world, particularly those from the Middle East, to conceal billions and billions of dollars worth in assets that belonged to these customers. The origins of these assets are yet to be accounted for.
Back when that happened, Lynch was the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. So what did she do?
According to reports, Lynch meandered through articles of law in such a way that virtually let bank officers and employees involved in the scam off the hook. HSBC was made only to pay a hefty fine, which is peanuts compared to the billions it helped launder that couldn’t even be accounted for in full. You can read the full story in an article that MalaysiaToday carried last Sunday by following the link below:
Interestingly, the HSBC conspiracy had involved the flow of dirty money linked to Mexican drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists, possibly even ISIS. Back then, there were many who accused Lynch of helping fund terrorists in the same manner and flavour they are now accusing Hillary of protecting them.
The point is, both Lynch and Hillary have a lot at stake should Trump capture the White House and train his guns at the Obama administration. To make matters worse, Lynch was accused of meeting up with Bill Clinton days before she literally let his wife ‘off the hook’ on counts of “criminal negligence” and the fabrication of evidence.
“It is an amazing thing,” said Trump. “They actually went on to the plane as I understand it. That’s terrible. And it was really a sneak. It was really something that they didn’t want publicized as I understand it. Wow, I just think it’s so terrible, I think it’s so horrible.”
So, you tell me – are Obama, Lynch, Hillary, Bill Clinton and the FBI conspiring to fund and protect certain terrorist groups, or is Trump just being the badass you people here have made him out to be?
Would Najib dream of paying USD500 million to the Clinton campaign?
Now, I’m not here to discuss the billion that Lynch claimed had been ‘stolen’ from 1MDB, or the fact that it was highly malicious, prejudicial and discriminatory for Lynch to have declared a case of defraud against the Malaysian people by 1MDB officials. I’ve addressed much of that in an article that Malaysia Today carried last Monday, which you can read all about by following the link below:
http://www.malaysia-today.net/aiyoyo-ambiga-are-you-working-for-the-us-department-of-justice/
What I am here to highlight is the fact that both Lynch and Hillary are in damage control mode and on a mission to prove that neither of them would condone acts of terrorism, let alone fund terrorists. For this reason, the duo is more than ready to pounce on anyone or anything even remotely related to money laundering activity that may involve the US financial system.
Now, can you see why it would make absolutely no sense for Hillary or Lynch to call off an FBI probe into 1MDB? If they were to do that, Hillary’s campaign would suffer a horrible death under Trump’s campaign hooves. While sources do indicate that Trump isn’t the least bit bothered about 1MDB, he would definitely strike on Lynch should the FBI back out any time before the 8th of November this year, which is the day Americans will elect their new president.
So why would team Najib offer Hillary’s campaign USD500 million? I mean, he would have to be a total nutcase to do that. However, we do know who began the rumour and the nincompoop who helped spread it. Now these are the two people you should be calling morons – or rather, mother*****s.
And don’t we know who they are…
Following are some links related to this article which you might find useful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/trump-speech-clinton.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/trump-hillary-clinton-emails-cnn-poll/
http://crooksandliars.com:8080/2016/07/fox-news-promotes-loretta-lynch-conspiracy
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/20/roger-ailes-republican-party-convention-crisis
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/why-rupert-murdoch-decided-to-support-trump.html#
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-election-trump-ailes-commentary-idUSKCN105066
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1040TO
