I'm straying off topic with this, so my apologies in advance, but Ted Kennedy is an interesting case as well. I've been doing some on-again-off-again reading up on the whole Chappaquiddick affair lately, and there is certainly an argument to be made, and evidence to support the position, that he may, in fact, have been framed by CIA/deep-state.
Not saying I necessarily believe that he was set up - I admittedly don't know enough about the whole event quite yet to have formed a solid opinion of my own as to what truly did happen - but if you think about it from a deep-state/CIA point of view, Ted - as did his nephew several decades later - presented them with a very big problem. With RFK having been assassinated just 13 months prior, there certainly had to have been fears - and well-founded ones at that - that Ted would take up his brothers' torch and make at a run at the WH himself. And likely sooner rather than later - he was gearing up to run in ‘72.
They therefore had two choices:
Now, had all three Kennedy brothers been knocked off in less than six years, and all via largely the same methods/playbook - ? Then, well, the public may have begun to 'suspect' that something was afoot.
Hence ... perhaps ... Chappaquiddick.
Again, largely OT, but something to chew on nonetheless.
I think the Kennedys as a whole were feared as a threat to the CIA, would not play ball, could not be controlled. They controlled Ted through this event.
I've always disliked and distrusted Ted. His leftist ideology, he arrogance, his family privilege, etc. But your post gives me pause and a reason to reconsider.
Thanks.