The Clintons are best understood as an organized crime family.
Murder, lies, drug dealing, blackmail, bribery, that is the name of the game.
Bill Clinton always said he admired the Kennedys. Joe Kennedy (patriarch) was a leading member of organized crime in the 1930s and remained influential in it until his stroke in the early 1960s.
The Kennedy model for controlling the Boston media (intelligence gathering for blackmail, bribes, threats) was utilized nationwide by the Clintons.
The “touchy subject” is the relationship between intelligence agencies and organized crime. Let’s just say opposition would _not_ be a fully accurate description. :-)
In the early days of FR many of us were trying to crack the Vince Foster “case”. We were stunned to find that the intelligence community wanted the matter closed—but we did not find out why.
There is an intelligence community tie to the Clintons—it may date back to their anti-war days as moles reporting to law enforcement—the evidence is spotty but circumstantial.
However, the Mena Arkansas drug dealing tie to the CIA is well documented. It is hard to believe that could have happened unless the Clintons had not already established their criminal and intelligence community bona fides earlier in their careers.
Back to today: The Clinton Foundation and “innocent Chelsea” is classic Godfather 3 stuff.
Remember the Mena Train Deaths?
“innocent Chelsea”
That is the key. That should be the target. That is their future.
It would be interesting to see if she is made of the same stuff as the “parents”. The press certainly gives her a low profile, almost invisible. She is no longer the innocent child in the White House and off bounds. Her position in the Foundation should expose her to investigation, if not by the press, or the alphabet agencies, at least by us.
The press goes after Trumps kids. She should be bar-b-qued.
Zactly. Saul Alinsky worked for the mob, IIRC.
We were stunned to find that the intelligence community wanted the matter closed—but we did not find out why.
You remember that he fired all the Federal Attorneys (100 or so). It is obvious that it was done as a protection racket. And Bush did not reverse this. It is naïve to think that he efforts to make a protection racket stopped at the firing of the attorneys.