Aiyoyo Ambiga!! Are you working for the US Department of Justice??
The Third Force
For the past five days or so, Malaysiakini has been adding every ounce of twist it could to a statement the US Attorney-General (AG), Loretta Lynch, delivered to a press conference last Wednesday. From the abuse of the American financial system to rumours that Lyinch was inching in on the Prime Minister, the news portal gave the US Attorney-General so much coverage, it almost succeeded in making her look like the AG of Malaysia.
Now, it is not my intention to explain why it was highly malicious, prejudicial and discriminatory for Lynch to have declared a case of defraud against the Malaysian people by 1MDB officials – if anything, blogger Lim Sian See (LSS) has done a fantastic job to show you guys why it was fundamentally flawed for anyone to say that money had ever been stolen from 1MDB (refer http://limsiansee.blogspot.my/).
To drive the point through, LSS stated correctly that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had failed to take note of documents that may have put a different complexion to the whole ‘stolen money’ bullshit. Just to add on to his arguments, a Thursday press release by 1MDB expressly stated that it had “not been contacted by the US Department of Justice or any other foreign agency in relation to their investigations.”
Now isn’t that highly irregular?
As a matter of fact, neither were officials from the Malaysian government or investigative teams from the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) ever contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). And that is strange, since you would expect a foreign authority to have had the decency, wisdom and discernment to get in touch with principal enforcement agencies here, since it was coming from them that money had been stolen from a firm in Malaysia.
Thus, it is not wrong for me to say that both Lynch and the DoJ were looking at complaints they had received regarding 1MDB through blue glasses, since all of the evidence they presented to the US Federal Court were one-sided and missing material information that authorities and officials in Malaysia either possess or may possess.
Let me put it to you in simple terms by conjuring an example for the sake of argument. Note, that while this example may not necessarily relate to 1MDB or the recent civil suit that the US Department of Justice had filed, it serves to highlight a point, that evidence one might deem admissible in the court of law should be investigated from all angles material to a claim that is made.
Now, let us assume that a guy by the name of John who lives in the US came to Malaysia, saying that officials from a government linked company based here, company X, had stolen money that belonged to him. According to him, he and several others had invested in company X and were promised returns, but that company X had laundered their money through bogus offshore entities and had fraudulently declared bankruptcy.
I think the example is simple enough for many of you to understand and not as convoluted as the so called 1MDB ‘stolen funds’ saga. The long and short of it is this – John is accusing company X, a government linked company, of stealing his money and laundering it.
John then proceeds to lodge complaints of the alleged conspiracy with several enforcement agencies here and submits documentary evidence that includes agreements between him and company X to corroborate his claim. The agencies then begin a discovery into company X and find that John’s claims were unfounded.
A very discontented and aggrieved John then returns to America and lodges a complaint with the FBI. Now let us assume that John is a very, very influential VIP in the Obama administration, such that the FBI would even care to conduct a discovery based on his claim. Let us further assume that the FBI did not ever refer to company X or local authorities here regarding John’s complaint, and simply took whatever John had to submit as material evidence that was admissible in the court of law.
In other words, the FBI did not view or even seek to obtain documents from company X that may have been able to dispel John’s claims. Now, if the US Attorney-General were to suddenly issue a press statement to the effect that a conspiracy existed between company X and several offshore entities to launder money, would that make any sense, any sense at all, to you?
Or would you say that a conspiracy existed between the US Attorney-General and the FBI to frame company X? If I were to say that, would I be going too far into conspiracy theory or attempting to, as many here would say, contort the truth to protect government officials?
Ask Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, and she’ll tell you that the FBI speaks no evil. Yesterday, the former Bar Council president – and if I need to spell it out, a lawyer herself – claimed that the court action brought by the US Department of Justice was based on criminal conduct, meaning, the evidence that was presented by Lynch and the DoJ was based on a discovery by the FBI that was thorough and complete.
Really, Ambiga? I mean, really??
Doesn’t it amaze you how this lady had ever become the president of the Bar Council?
Now remember, neither were officers from PDRM nor officials from the Malaysian government ever consulted by the FBI at any point throughout discoveries that the American bureau conducted following complaints it received from a source in Malaysia (refer http://www.malaysia-today.net/heres-my-two-tight-slaps-to-malaysiakini-and-khairuddin-abu-hassan-over-the-civil-suit-by-the-us-justice-department/). As a matter of fact, the FBI seemed extremely eager to meet up with a former UMNO leader, Khairuddin Abu Hassan, who incidentally, is one of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s many minions, tasked to blacken the name of the Prime Minister.
Now, isn’t that highly peculiar? Since when did Khairuddin become an aggrieved party in the whole 1MDB saga?
Did it not occur to Ambiga that the FBI ought to have interviewed Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM) governor instead, who surely would have known of money that had ended in the Prime Minister’s account? Has Ambiga read my article yet, the one in which I declared that it was the former governor of BNM, Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, who had advised the Prime Minister to transfer funds from the Saudi government into his personal account (refer http://www.malaysia-today.net/lim-guan-engs-fate-rests-with-tan-sri-zeti-akhtar-aziz-believe-it-or-not/)?
Now, it is no secret that Lynch is prejudiced and skewed in her quest to weed out instances of money laundering and terrorist funding using the American financial system. Yesterday, in an article that was carried by Malaysia Today (refer http://www.malaysia-today.net/the-billions-that-us-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-kept-a-secret-from-you/), I spoke of a possible complicity that involved Lynch and the US Department of Justice to deflate and play down a massive conspiracy that existed between HSBC officials to help drug lords, arms dealers, Middle East terrorists and very influential billionaires from around the world to conceal the nature and amount of funds they had in their accounts from taxmen.
In other words, both Lynch and the DoJ may have conspired with the FBI to protect certain banking officials who had helped terrorists and drug kingpins wash dirty money that may even have been linked to ISIS. But last week, Lynch was adamant that money from 1MDB had been stolen by officials and their associates who had used “the American financial system as a conduit for corruption.”
Now doesn’t that make Lynch a bigoted narcissist?
Of late, both Lynch and the FBI have been in damage control mode following revelations that the former had acted sub-judicially by meeting up with Bill Clinton at a time when the US Department of justice was contemplating on a case that involved the former president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is rumoured that the DoJ and Lynch had resorted to ‘pulling a fast one’ on the American people by filing a civil case against ‘anything or anyone who was even remotely associated with 1MDB’.
Can that be true?
I’ll be back with more on that in the next article, so stick around.