Leonardo DiCaprio Testifies Obama Received 20-30 Million Dollars for Reelection from Foreign Fugitive

On Monday, actor Leonardo DiCaprio testified in federal court about an alleged money laundering scheme for then-President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012. According to numerous reports, Malaysian businessman-turned-fugitive Jho Low informed DiCaprio at a party that “he, or he and a group, were going to make a significant contribution to the Democratic Party” to aid in the reelection of President Obama. “It was a significant sum… something to the tune of $20-30 million. I said, ‘Wow that’s a lot of money,” DiCaprio replied.

Additionally, the New York Post revealed more about the money laundering scheme when it reported the following:

“Low allegedly recruited Prakazrel “Pras” Michel – the founding member of the iconic 1990s hip-hop group The Fugees – to funnel the money to Obama’s reelection bid as foreigners cannot donate to US campaigns under federal election law. Michel took tens of millions of dollars to lobby the government on behalf of Low and the Chinese government as a whole, prosecutors alleged. Much of the money was reportedly stolen. Low is accused of embezzling a whopping $4.5 billion from Malaysia’s state investment fund known as 1MDB. Prosecutors have accused Michel of receiving $21.6 million in payments from foreign accounts linked to Low which the rapper then paid out to roughly 20 straw donors from June to November 2012. Those 20 or so donors were expected to make contributions to the Obama campaign in their names so the money wouldn’t be traced back to Low. Following DiCaprio’s testimony, additional witnesses testified that Michel had wired them thousands and asked them to make shadow donations to the campaign.”

Of the 11 criminal counts Low faces, not all are related to his attempts to influence the Obama Administration, as he is also charged with attempting to influence the Trump Administration. Low allegedly tried to influence the Trump Administration to drop an investigation into 1MDB through a “back-channel campaign.” According to BBC, 1MDB was an investment fund set up by the Malaysian government that was involved in fraudulent activity that resulted in the loss of billions of dollars. “Mr. Low was at the heart of the scandal which helped topple Malaysia’s former regime,” says BBC.

The timing of this testimony is beyond ironic. As this significant development about campaign finance laws was unfolding, the world was distracted with President Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan criminal court which also centered on campaign finance laws, though even Trump’s fiercest critics claim the case against him is extremely weak.

Despite its media cronies working around the clock to paint it in a good light, this is not the first time the Obama Administration has been tied to unethical financial maneuvering. In 2013, Obama was forced to pay one of the largest campaign finance violation fees ever, 375 thousand dollars for “reporting violations.” The difference in coverage of Obama’s situation compared to Trump’s further exposes the current double standard in America, especially considering the former allegation seems to have more incriminating evidence than the latter.

Obama previously violated campaign finance law and was ordered to pay over something far less serious than this current development that is ongoing. A sitting President allegedly receiving over 20 million dollars in stolen foreign money to influence an election should receive significant coverage. especially considering how often the media talks about the “integrity of our elections.”

But of course, that is not the case, though it undoubtedly would be if this allegation involved the Trump Administration. Unlike Obama, Trump was never found guilty or ordered to pay any fines for violating campaign finance laws, yet it was Trump who was arrested earlier this week.

Rules for thee, not for me has long been the standard for Democrats in government. Rarely do we see Democrats held accountable, while Republicans are dragged through the mud for similar allegations. But if President Trump is now labeled as a “disgraced former president” despite exculpatory evidence, wouldn’t it only be fair for the media to now refer to Barack Obama, who is yet to be exonerated in this instance, as the same? As Nancy Pelosi recently tweeted, “everyone has the right to prove innocence.” That’s not how things (should) work in the United States of America, but I digress. As far as Barack Obama being held to the same standard as Trump? Don’t hold your breath.