First a non-denial, now a non-lawsuit

comments     Yoursay     Published     Updated

YOURSAY ‘Which part of WSJ report that Najib does not understand?’

                                                                       

Najib wants WSJ to confirm claims in 14 days

Odin Tajué: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has already very clearly reported on the money trail. It has stated very clearly the sources of the massive amounts of illicit funds, the exact amount remitted by each source, and the receiver's account numbers.

 

Next, it stated that it stood by its report. And after that, it even uploaded more graphics to illustrate further the money trail.

 

The demand now made of WSJ is akin to PM Najib Razak's bollocks being squeezed hard, and he screeches, "Tell me you are squeezing my balls before I can punch you!"

 

With this demand, Najib has brought yet more shame to Malaysia.

 

Joker: The letter/email from the lawyers is misleading. They are questioning WSJ why WSJ is not sure where the money originally came from and how it was used after it left the accounts purportedly belonging to Najib.

 

However, it is clear to all and sundry that the main point the WSJ article is raising is that a substantial sum of money passed from government-linked parties to Najib's personal bank accounts.

 

In all of Najib's denials and bluster, including this 'email' from his lawyers, he has not categorically denied the fact that money flowed into his accounts. That is telling something.

 

David: Did I read it correctly that the last paragraph suggests legal proceeding against WSJ is to be done in Malaysia. WSJ should be laughing their toes off.

 

The fact remains that RM2.6 billion of public funds had allegedly went into his personal account. If this is not theft, what is?

 

Abasir: So a non-denial is followed by a non-lawsuit... by a man who is clearly not PM material by any measure.

 

Anyway, what if the WSJ ignores this so-called 'legal letter' which asked the offending party to clarify "to enable us to advise our client the appropriate legal recourse he can take to seek redress in relation to the publication of these articles"?

 

What if the WSJ simply replies "take our exposé any way you wish and do what you will"?

 

Maplesyrup: This is yet another delay tactic by Najib. Why the need for confirmation, when the publication had printed everything clearly.

 

Essentially there is questionable transfer of substantial amount of money into the PM's personal bank accounts.

 

Which part of the report Najib that does not understand? This is just another signal to the people that he is guilty as charged.

                                   

Slumdog: WSJ’s smart lawyers will state that their client only stated that the money was transferred to Najib’s private bank accounts.

 

Their claim was based on documents apparently sourced from the special task force investigating the transactions. This information was confirmed by the attorney-general (AG).

 

WSJ never accused Najib of misappropriating the US$700 million. If Najib has half-past-six lawyers like this, he really does not need any more enemies.

 

Najib’s lawyers appear so incompetent. I can see a big cover-up by the special task force with some poor low level bank clerk blamed for incorrectly crediting Najib’s bank account.

 

Odysseus: WSJ already said they stood by their report. Utusan Malaysia and your ministers have dismissed the accuracy of the report.

 

The only thing missing is for Najib to acknowledge if he did own such accounts and if money did flow into them. Please don't try to fool the rakyat.

 

Myrights: Indeed, what a bunch of bull. First, why send by email instead of a formal letter?

 

Second, WSJ did not claim misappropriation but they reported a trail of funds transferred to Najib's personal accounts in Ambank.

 

Third, do you think WSJ is so dumb to agree to a court case in Malaysia? The Malaysian judicial system and biasness/fairness track record is known worldwide to be a joke. Do it openly in an international court where it is neutral.

 

My bet is WSJ will write a response published in WSJ that they stand by their report and will insist that any legal proceedings be in a neutral developed country other than Malaysia.

 

Wira: Maybe those lawyers working for Najib don't understand English. WSJ already published those bank documents online. What are they expecting? That WSJ does not stand by what they publish?

 

Are you trying to use the 14 days to fool the rural rakyat?

 

Justine Gow: The legal letter does not seem to challenge WSJ on the truth or accuracy of its report, but rather on the impression it may create.

 

It is like I write truthfully that A punches B and A does not deny that he punches B but tries to sue me for creating the impression that he tries to murder B.

 

Anonymous_1372163476: What exactly is the letter's purpose - asking WSJ for their permission to be sued?

Najib seeks to buy time with WSJ letter


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.

Related reports

Siti Hasmah: I pray my husband finishes his struggle

Rosmah-like claim 'unthinkable in the past'

Fissures appear in Umno as crisis deepens

Najib: Stop slander and hate in this holy month

IGP urged to quit 1MDB probe for transparency

Tail on Jho Low over another RM1.9b

Bonds falling as 1MDB probe hurts sentiment

Fear not, ministers will ensure task force does its job

Source: Audit team finds directors not consulted

Task force or ‘forced task’?



Malaysiakini
news and views that matter


Sign In