`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Thursday, July 9, 2015

Still an 'evolving' story on najib's alleged naughtiness

OK, Najib's lawyers law firm Hafarizam & Aisha Mubarak Advocates & Solicitors want Dow Jones & Company (owner of WSJ) to make its stand clear on the WSJ news article about US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) ending up in Najib’s personal bank accounts.


aiyah Yingluck sweetie, you've only the entire Thai army against you

I OTOH have a far more powerful one-man Army against me


wakakaka

Najib’s lawyers wrote that the offending WSJ article had stated the writers were uncertain of the source and purpose of the funds, so:

“We are instructed to procure your position because the articles collectively suggest that you are unsure of the original source of ‘the money and what happened to the money’ whilst on the other hand, the general gist of the articles create a clear impression that our client has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad."

In other words, WSJ's article has lent an impression disadvantagous to Najib's reputation, to wit, Ah Jib Gor has misappropriated about USD 700 million belonging to 1Malaysia Development Berhad, while tap dancing away by also stating they (WSJ's writers) were unsure of the original source of ‘the money and what happened to the money'?

Well, Najib’s legal eagles believe WSJ can't have it both ways, so want it to make its 'position' clear (have they been saying Najib took the money, or not?).

They are basically cornering WSJ into firm commitment on its stand vis-a-vis the story, presumably so that they can squeeze WSJ's balls kau kau in the legal suit - well, they didn't say it so crudely in the way kaytee did, wakakaka, but put it in nice legal words like "... confirmation is also necessary to enable them to then advise their client on his “appropriate legal recourse”.

So what did WSJ say?

“We stand behind our fair and accurate coverage of this evolving story.”

But that's NOT what Najib's lawyers ask!

WSJ was saying its responsibility thus far is just "fair and accurate coverage of this evolving story" but without taking any position on Najib's naughtiness, though its article had been written in such a way Najib has been seen to be a very naughty boy, wakakaka.

I like the word 'evolving story' meaning WSJ is hedging, and that the end is still unknown, where it may well end up with Najib emerging and smelling sweetly of bunga cempaka, wakakaka. 

If Najib is eventually found guilty, it will proudly publish "I told you so" but OTOH, if Najib is found innocent, then it's all about accurate coverage of an evolving story, wakakaka.

Yes, WSJ has cleverly avoided meeting the question posed by Najib's lawyers head on. But will Najib's lawyers leave it at that? I doubt it - in the meantime WSJ hopes for another humongous 'LEAK' from you know who, wakakaka.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.