i have noticed that a lot of people who have lost their utility to the clintons have been, ... , well, expended. you know, as in shot, or otherwise killed.
this is fairly extraordinary in american politics. american gangsters, of lots of stripes, have resorted readily to eliminating rivals and turncoats, and american gangsters have long had ties to politicians and corrupt governmental agencies. but, the lines of "demarcation" have seldom been crossed, at least in my knowledge. (limited as it is.)
but, the clintons seem to have attracted henchmen seemingly unfettered by any vestige of remorse or decency, not the least inhibited by bourgeoisie distaste for the killing of others. at least it would seem, given the number of people whose demise has immediately fallen upon disappointing or failing or displeasing the clintons.
i have long suspected that the clintons have had handlers or overseers. they did not come into the world, after all, full fledged as rich and powerful. they seem to have benefited by the largess, if not control, of others.
so, the question in my mind frames itself as follows.--
at what point, having themselves lost and/or squandered their utility to their handlers, ... , (say, just for the sake of speculation, the russian intelligence apparatus, or the favor of george soros, rich and powerful and no stranger to involvement in mass murder as a young henchman expropriating the property of jews for the nazis in wwii) ... , do the clintons themselves become expendable?
i would say that bill's sexual proclivities, and his association w/ known sexual predators, and hillary having becoming ensnared in so many political scandals, and being an un-indicted multiple felon, marks them as used up, no longer useful, and eligible for elimination. to put the matter bluntly.
the same goes for huma abedin.
i don't know about you, but i wouldn't get on the same airplane as bill and hillary clinton, and huma abedin, for all the rice in china. at this point, it would be suicidal to do so. imho.
john jay @ 10.31.2016