Here is a very interesting article about Donald Trumps connections to the "MOB" it will be interesting to see how he responds.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910?paginate=falseThe article gives a good argument for a closer look to be made into Trumps dealings. However as an investigative journalist the author fails to bring any proof that TRUMP has broken any laws. It can also be argued that it would have been impossible not to have become successful in property development without having to have done business with MOB organisations, as the author points out they dominated the construction industry and its unions.
Paradoxically this whole election is a struggle between the mob against the Establishment who are seen by many as corrupt. Perhaps our best shot at real change is to have someone with Trumps credentials to take them on?
To be honest, I figured very early on in my research of who Trump even was that if he did not have some exposure to and experience with 'the mob' it would be a miracle. This, of course, because of his vocation. I decided that if Trump used the mob to intimidate people with bodily harm as part of his 'deals toolkit', I would not support him (and continue to hold this view.) If he simply over-payed for some concrete, and especially if it helped deal with union issues, I'm actually pretty OK with that all things considered.
Speaking of 'the mob', in some circles I read that 'they' quit litterally moved right into banking as an evolutionary path, and at the highest levels of the biggest banks. This compared to the rhetorical throw-away words like 'banksters.' I actually don't rule this out especially after observing the likes of Paulson in relation to the 2008 financial goings-on. I mention it because in this case Hillary and the massive money she gets from 'the banksters' for flapping her gums in front of them for a bit comes into focus.
They may not even have proofs of transcripts of her paid appearances...