>>Her broker was a KNOWN MONEY LAUNDERER.

NO HE WASN'T. That was not what the brokers were censured for.

In one of several investigations of these allegations over the years, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, reviewed HRC's trading records. His conclusion?

"A tempest in a teapot."

Later, when evidence of larger trades was produced, he said "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions." More recently, Merton Miller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, agreed with Melamed that none of the details of her trades suggest that there was allocation (or prove that there was not.)

IOW there's no proof of anything, just a whole lot of scuttlebutt that people want to investigate again and again and again.

To those wondering about all this: it boils down to documentation. In the old wild west futures days, brokers would assign account numbers to buy/sell orders at end of day. This does create potential for money laundering. To transfer $ to somebody, a broker would make identical buy/sell orders and at end of day, when they saw which way the market moved, they'd assign the buy and sell orders so the receiver always gets the winning side, with those wins coming out of the payer's account. Thus substantial payments could be disguised as successful trades. Certainly Clinton's brokers were censured for shonky record keeping even over and above this and the rules were subsequently changed so you have to assign the account when the order is placed. The point is: if it is true that Clinton was being sneaked cash by these means, then there's no investigation on earth can prove it unless one of the culprits confesses.