Over the past few years, there have been very disturbing yet intriguing discoveries that were made by international hackers who compromised several servers linked to the US government.
The information they sponged off these servers pointed towards a massive conspiracy by the government to conceal evidence that it had funded Middle Eastern terrorists.
As a result of this conspiracy, it is alleged that in November 2014, Obama nominated US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Loretta Lynch, to succeed Eric Holder as Attorney-General.
Lynch was confirmed by the Senate in April this year by a 56-43 vote, making her the first black woman to hold the office in US history.
According to sources, Lynch was tasked with reversing the perception that the US government had “actively funded and protected certain terrorist groups from the Middle East since 1993”.
It was a perception that had almost faded from the American conscience, but regained momentum almost as soon as Lynch was nominated the AG.
Following her nomination, a massive data-leak that made its way to the media took the wraps off a conspiracy by the Swiss banking arm of HSBC, whose officials were accused of helping drug lords and terrorists spirit out dirty money worth billions and billions of dollars from the Middle East through US and global financial systems.
Back in 2014, Lynch virtually let these banking officials off the hook.
Now, Obama and Lynch are believed to have worked out an elaborate scheme to temporarily avert the attention of American voters away from Middle East.
Their worry is that many Americans believe the US government had funded and trained terrorist groups in the Middle East to justify America’s continued presence in Iraq.
Obama does not want that to be a decisive point of comparison among voters during the 2016 presidential election, due in November.
Not long after Lynch’s appointment, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders announced his bid for the White House.
For those of you who haven’t the faintest idea what I’m talking about – and I suspect there might be some of you who don’t – the US is currently facing one of the most polarising electoral race in its history to decide who becomes the next president.
Bernie’s decision proved a threat to the Obama administration in the months that followed.
To Obama, both Bernie and the current Republican nominee for the White House, Donald Trump, was really the same person, albeit with different hairdos.
Like Trump, the Vermont Senator, had tapped into the anger of voters who felt that they were being hoaxed by the system.
Just for the record, that anger isn’t peculiar to the Americans, but to a large number of people around the world who seem to think that the system is rigged against them, to the point that the rich get richer and the poor, poorer.
Even in Malaysia, there are those who believe that the system works against the middle and lower classes and, benefits only the rich.
Anyway, the problem with Bernie was that he didn’t offer much of a solution other than he did hope.
He spoke eloquently and persuasively against economic inequality in a manner that drew thousands and thousands of angry voters.
As Donald Rumsfeld himself put it earlier this year, Bernie “pulls crowds of 20,000 people to an event to hear him speak – even presidents don’t do that.”
Trump, on the other hand, had solutions.
He promised to secure the American border by building a huge wall which “the Mexicans will pay for.”
He assured Americans that the Jihadists would be severely dealt with should he secure the White House.
He calls ISIS “savages” and believes that the only way to rid the world of extremist groups would be to wipe “the savages” off the map.
He may or may not do it, but he certainly has the crowd hyped up.
In an interview with Steven Colbert on CBS earlier this year, former US president Bill Clinton described Trump as a master-brander, who he said was “the most interesting character out there.”
“Trump says, I run things, I do things, and you need somebody who will go out there and fix it. And if they don’t let me fix it, I’ll just get them out of the way. There is a macho appeal to what he’s saying.”
Clinton has every reason to fear a Trump presidency.
Sometime between the years 2001 and 2003, a Chicago based secret agent, Robert Wright, blew the whistle on a conspiracy by the FBI to shut down his 1998 criminal probe into alleged terrorist-training camps in Chicago and Kansas City that were being funded by the Clinton administration.
The apparent goal of the training camps, according to confidential documents that were released by the Weekly, was to recruit and train Palestinian-American youths, who would then slip into Israel.
Recruits at these camps reportedly received weapons training and instruction in bomb-making techniques in the early 1990s.
The bomb-making curriculum included the sort of explosives that were later used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Government documents that were leaked listed two trainees who were said to have come from the Oklahoma City area.
Trump pledged to his campaign that he would get to the bottom of conspiracies involving the Obama administration.
Many among his supporters are more than convinced that both Hillary and Lynch conspired to protect and fund terrorist groups in the Middle East.
Trump is immensely sore that the FBI had resorted to closing its criminal investigations against Hillary on counts of transgressing federal law and abusing her position in office.
Trump sees a conspiracy involving Lynch and Hillary to gloss over evidence that may have been the key to resolving a terrorist attack on US compound in 2012.
Should Trump win the 2016 presidential election in November, he has pledged to re-open files pertaining to criminal investigations against Hillary that Lynch, the FBI and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had suspended early last month.
The worry in the Obama and Clinton camps is that Trump would stumble upon evidence that would criminally implicate Obama, Clinton, Hillary, Lynch and certain FBI officials in a massive conspiracy spanning almost three decades to fund and protect Middle Eastern terrorist groups.
Now, remember how I had spoken of the similarities and differences between the Bernie and Trump campaigns?
The Obama administration and Clinton’s camp feared that Bernie would not survive Trump’s campaign hooves if he were allowed to lead the Democratic Party into the 2016 presidential election.
They had a lot at stake, and as I said before, a lot to fear.
Both the Clinton camp and the Obama administration teamed up to sabotage Bernie’s campaign just so that Hillary would have an unfair advantage during the primaries and caucuses.
Eight days ago, Wikileaks made public a massive trove of hacked emails that pointed towards a conspiracy by Democratic Party insiders to derail Bernie’s campaign towards the White House.
Some of the emails also revealed how DNC staffers had plotted against Trump’s campaign.
Now that the US presidential race has been narrowed down to Hillary versus Trump – discounting, of course, a third candidate, who many do not believe will clinch the presidency – DNC insiders are working hard to sabotage the Republican campaign with allegations that Trump is anti-Evangelical and is a thoroughbred racist.
In the interim, Lynch got together with FBI officials and the DOJ to shift the spotlight from herself and Hillary, by calling for a high-profile press-conference on July 20 to announce the filing of civil forfeiture complaints against an American company that allegedly had links with Malaysia, a Muslim country.
I mean, isn’t it ironical how the lawsuit seemed latched on prominent Malaysian officials in a very roundabout and malicious way?
Even more ironical is the emphasis Lynch drew towards the idea that the US had become a playground “for the corrupt, a platform for money laundering or a place to hide and invest stolen riches.”
Apparently, both Obama and the FBI forgot how Lynch had herself played saviour to banking officials, who helped drug lords and terrorists wash billions and billions of dollars worth of dirty money that was spirited out from the Middle East.
As a matter of fact, they forgot how Hillary had deleted almost 30,000 emails from a private server which she had irresponsibly and criminally used to transact classified national defence information, possibly with Middle Eastern terrorists.
Did it not matter to Lynch that those emails may have held the key to resolving a terrorist attack that had taken place on US grounds in Benghazi, costing four Americans their lives, including the US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens?
Lynch virtually passed a ‘guilty verdict’ against Malaysia and 1MDB to the July 20 presser.
How could an attorney adjudge Malaysian officials or imply that they had defrauded Malaysians when the case has yet to be tried in court?
Isn’t lynch quite the bigoted narcissist?
Is 1MDB a smokescreen by the FBI to convince American voters that both the Obama and Clinton administrations did everything to come down hard on Muslim countries that manipulated funds through the US financial system?
Source: Malaysia Today