When individuals facing asset forfeiture and potential legal exposure hire sophisticated international communications teams, coordinate media timing, and engage multiple institutional channels, it is reasonable to ask whether the objective is merely reputation defence — or whether it is to raise the political cost of continuing the investigation. The public reaction to allegations linking Naimah Daim to a supposed effort to destabilise the government has been swift: disbelief, dismissal, and déjà vu. Many instinctively framed it as another recycled political script, evoking the early defensive chorus during the 1MDB scandal — when critics were accused of plotting regime change rather than exposing financial misconduct. But déjà vu can be intellectually dangerous. It tempts us to conclude before examining.