by Richard Levine, Disobedient Media:

Background: In part one of this assessment, I wrote, “If the defiled-bed narrative in the Steele dossier is, indeed, a reconstitution of the narrative that motivated the Anwar [Ibrahim] case, the consequences are not just that the Steele Dossier was cribbed from another case and thus cannot be true, but that those who inserted the story are guilty of a grievous offense, whose yolk was formed by corruption on a scale unknown in the history of presidential politics in America.” The criticality of the Steele dossier to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation cannot be overstated.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, in a January 4, 2018 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, wrote concerning the “FBI’s reliance on Mr. Steele’s dossier in two applications it filed for surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). . . . Both relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims, and both applications were granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).” Thus, the Steele dossier was central to the FBI’s case to permit collection against a US citizen who had worked on the Trump Campaign. This, in turn, exposed much of the Trump campaign to collection.

Those seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 election then made an argument to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein as to the need for a special counsel, though there has been no public specification of the supposed crime. These facts, and the lack of any known limits on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, have led to the present morass that has enveloped the Trump administration. Given broad authorities and no known description of the referred crime to be investigated, this onslaught has been repurposed to seek an economic crime within the Trump business empire or to register charges or aspersions concerning obstruction of justice. This series of actions is of great political utility to those who wish to unseat the President.

A defiled-bed narrative is at the core of both the Anwar and the Trump inquisitions. In Anwar’s case, bodily fluids on a mattress purportedly proved the crime for which he was accused in his Muslim-majority country. In President Trump’s case, he supposedly watched two prostitutes urinating on the hotel bed in Russia where the Obamas had previously slept. Amazingly, in the Los Angeles Times in 1999, former Fulbright Senior Scholar to Malaysia Robert A. Hooper wrote an article entitled, “A Dress Turns Into a Mattress: Malaysia’s Own Monicagate.” In it, Hooper gives evidence that the Anwar sex scandal was purposely packaged by Malaysian officials to emulate the Clinton-Lewinsky matter. Such is the nature of tropes and narratives in fiction.

Hollywood constantly reuses and repurposes storylines. Why? Because they worked before. Those who do not understand literature often believe that an original plotline is the supreme creation of fiction. It is not; the depiction of character is the acme of writing. Of William Shakespeare’s thirty-nine plays, only three were built upon original plotlines, and two of these three were either written at the request of Queen Elizabeth or written for a performance that she was to attend. It was a depravity of character that both the Anwar and the Trump narratives were designed to convey; their assembly, in each case, almost certainly relied on proven parts.

Possession of knowledge: In part one, I noted, “Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Susan Rice, and Ben Rhodes all knew about Anwar’s sodomy case; they also surely knew it to be the most important cudgel that kept the ruling party in Malaysia in power. It was this knowledge that was likely repurposed in an attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign and presidency.” Who else within the orbit of President Obama or Hillary Clinton knew of the Anwar case?

It may be reasoned that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Attorney General Loretta Lynch also had to have known, for their work in suppressing the alleged 1MDB fraud, which involved billions, was entwined with Malaysian politics and, thus, with Anwar’s nemesis, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. Loretta Lynch reportedly said of the matter, “a number of corrupt officials treated this public trust as a personal bank account.” At the time of McCabe’s and Lynch’s 2016 joint press conference concerning 1MDB, Department of Justice officials, in an official FBI statement, described America’s asset recovery actions, pursuant to the case, as “the largest single action ever brought under the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.”

Kleptocracy means “rule by thieves.” To know that both McCabe and Lynch were personally involved in the 1MDB case, but to believe that they did not know of the circumstances and the fate of the principal opposition leader to Prime Minister Najib Razak’s regime, strains credulity.

William Clinton also knew of the circumstances of Anwar’s imprisonment. The New York Times, in an October 15, 1998 article, titled, “In Protest, Clinton Downgrades Visit to Malaysia : U.S. ‘Horrified’ About Anwar,” noted, “The United States intensified its criticism of Malaysia on Wednesday over the treatment of the dismissed deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim.” The article continued, “A senior U.S. official said it was ‘horrifying’ that ‘one of the most respected of Asia’s new generation of leaders’ had apparently been beaten in detention and denied access to his lawyers and family. The official, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Stanley Roth, also made it clear that President Bill Clinton’s trip to Malaysia next month to attend the annual summit meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum was being given unofficial status by the White House as a gesture of top-level concern.”

Thus, to state President Clinton did not know of the circumstances of the Anwar case is to believe he was not told the reason for the downgrade in the status of an important overseas trip to a country he had not visited before as president. Mahathir Mohamad was the prime minister of Malaysia when Anwar was first arrested in 1998. It is therefore curious that William Clinton, in a December 2008 trip to Malaysia, as reported by The Star, a Malaysian newspaper, is said to have relayed the following, “But what Clinton revealed about Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was more interesting. He listed down the names of leaders he admired during his term as US president. They included South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, Palestine’s Yasser Arafat and China’s Jiang Zemin. ‘And certainly, Dr Mahathir.’” Placing Mahathir (and Yasser Arafat) in the company of Nelson Mandela betrays an unscrupulousness on the part of the former president that is remarkable in its boldness.

Stanley Roth, the assistant secretary of state who announced the downgrade of President Clinton’s trip to Malaysia, due to the Anwar controversy, later left government and went on to work for Boeing as a vice president with an international portfolio. In her January 12, 2016 Washington Examiner article, “Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State,” journalist Sarah Westwood noted, “But emails released since then show Boeing, which has donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, enjoyed other perks while Clinton served as secretary of state. For example, Clinton’s closest aides approved security clearance for Stanley Roth, a high-ranking executive at Boeing, to join diplomats on a presidential delegation to Mongolia in June 2009.”

Many questions swirl. Why are so many former officials, who served the Clinton and the Obama administrations, steeped in the Anwar case? Are these other connections just coincidences, too? When does a series of coincidences become something else? Can an absolute nexus be established between the Anwar and the Trump allegations?

The Department of State: In an extraordinary op-ed, published by The Washington Post on February 8, 2018, attorney Jonathan M. Winer, who served previously as the special envoy for Libya for the Department of State, from September 2013 through January 2017, wrote, “In the summer of 2016, [Christopher] Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. . . . In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the ‘dossier.’”

Discussing what transpired, Winer observed, “I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with [Assistant Secretary of State Victoria] Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.”

Read More @ DisobedientMedia.com