>>The returns were statistically impossible, and against all human nature.
AND it was a known money laundering technique at the time.
AND her broker got into big trouble for laundering money
AND she quit after making an even $100k
(nobody who has that kind of success would quit)

According to her, she was down $100K at one point as well as up $100K when she quit- which she says was when she learned she was pregnant.

Is it true? Did she make losses as well as wins? Does the timing of her quitting match Chelsea?

If so, then all I see is an amateur trader (gambler) who managed to quit while she was ahead. She's not the only one - when lying awake in the Hyatt with jet lag, I often see hours of TV time dedicated to selling "see how much Martha made last year" systems for trading futures or distressed property and other get rich quick schemes. Sheesh, I had a doctor colleague with a piece of software he used to buy and sell currrency. He swore he'd won up to $1K or $2K per session, but I'm confident that the longer you keep going, the more the odds wear you down. Maybe if Chelsea was a month later, or if her trader mistimed a sale, it would be a story of HRC gambling away twice the family's annual income with a kid on the way so who could trust them with the public purse etc etc.

If you really want to assert corruption - then answer how bankers can accumulate billions by shaving $ from others' meaningful transactions or weighing imaginary massive $ against the best interests of the national economy to move currency or a commodity like silver, with far fewer jailed crooks than success stories. Who is losing if they're all winning?