The Clinton “University” Scandal is a Much Bigger Story

Bill and HillPosted by Tina

Campaign items in the news are heating up. The following caught my attention late Saturday evening. Looks like the Clintons are involved in a “university” scandal Of their own:

In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.

As the Washington Post reports, “Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue.” During Bill Clinton’s tenure as Laureate’s chancellor, the school spent over $200 million a year on aggressive telemarketing, flashy Internet banner ads, and billboards designed to lure often unprepared students from impoverished countries to enroll in its for-profit classes. The goal: get as many students, regardless of skill level, signed up and paying tuition. …

…Shortly after Bill Clinton’s lucrative 2010 Laureate appointment, Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. began pumping millions of its USAID dollars to a sister nonprofit, International Youth Foundation (IYF), which is run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker. Indeed, State Dept. funding skyrocketed once Bill Clinton got on the Laureate payroll, according to Bloomberg

The Clintons should never again be allowed in the White House. Stephen K. Bannon of Breitbart rounds out this information with the following statement: “Throughout ten Democratic Party debates, Establishment Media have not asked Hillary Clinton a single question about she and her husband’s for-profit education scam.”

It wouldn’t matter if they had, Hillary doesn’t answer questions. Nevertheless, the FBI is on the case.

This entry was posted in Police, Crime, Security. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Clinton “University” Scandal is a Much Bigger Story

  1. RHT447 says:

    Aw, what the heck. Speaking of education, here’s your Sunday morning giggle—

    http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-to-do-with-250-copies-of-book-of.html

  2. J. Soden says:

    The Clintons are what’s known in the South as Trailer Trash. (Apologies to all those who live in trailers – you have much more class!)
    Neither Bubba nor $hrilLIARy never met a ca$h scam they didn’t like. Much more fodder here than for ANY accusations regarding Trump U.

  3. Chris says:

    Just based on the quoted portion of the Breitbart article you cited, I see no evidence of illegal or even unethical behavior. The scandal of Trump University is that students did not get anywhere close to the education they were promised; is there any evidence that this was true of Laureate Education? According to Wikipedia both Condaleeza Rice and Tony Blair have spoken at universities affiliated with this group. The article also uses lots of words like “funneled” or “pumped” to describe what seems like a normal process of donations in order to make it sound sinister, but provides no evidence of anything shady.

    This seems like an attempt by Breitbart (which threw its own reporter, Michelle Fields, under the bus to save Trump) to deflect from Trump U and Trump’s disgusting comments that the judge presiding over the case can’t be trusted because he’s Mexican. (But wait, I thought Mexicans loved Trump? Is he saying there is something anti-Mexican about his statements and proposals? Who would have thunk!) By this logic a Muslim judge or a female judge would also have to recuse themselves from any Trump-related case. Suggesting judges recuse themselves due to their minority status is a slippery slope, which is why it isn’t done.

    If you have a reliable source that provides actual evidence of unethical activity here I’d love to see it. But so far this just seems like a convenient way for you to ignore the serious charges against Trump’s scam, and for you to say “They do it too!”

  4. Chris says:

    Ok, read the full Breitbart piece. In the lede it claims that the school has faced “criminal investigations,” but doesn’t back this up. A search of “Laureate education criminal investigation” turned up nothing but the Breitbart piece. Do you have evidence that Laureate is the subject of criminal investigations?

    And where are the students saying they have been the victims of a scam? Where are the lawsuits? Do you and Breitbart not understand that this is the scandal of Trump university–people saying they were ripped off and not given the education they were promised?

    National Review quotes many of Trump U’s victims. Where are the equivalents from Laureate?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432010/trump-university-scam

  5. Chris says:

    Apparently Trump thinks a Muslim judge might be unfair to him too:

    Donald J. Trump said Sunday that a Muslim judge might have trouble remaining neutral in a lawsuit against him, extending his race-based criticism of the jurist overseeing the case to include religion.

    His remarks, in an interview with John Dickerson, the host of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” come amid growing disapproval from fellow Republicans over his attacks on Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, a federal judge in California overseeing a suit against the defunct Trump University, whose impartiality Mr. Trump questioned based on the judge’s Mexican heritage.

    Mr. Trump has called Judge Curiel, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, a “Mexican” and said he has a “conflict of interest” in the case because of Mr. Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico.

    Mr. Dickerson asked Mr. Trump if, in his view, a Muslim judge would be similarly biased because of the Republican presumptive nominee’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. “It’s possible, yes,” Mr. Trump said. “Yeah. That would be possible. Absolutely.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The candidate’s broadside against Judge Curiel was one of the most overtly racial remarks he has made in the presidential race, and it has been roundly criticized by prominent Republicans.

    On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, did not directly answer a question about whether the remark was racist, but said he completely disagreed with it. “All of us came here from somewhere else,” Mr. McConnell said in reference to Judge Curiel’s heritage. “That’s an important part of what makes America work.”

    Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a Republican who had been floated as a potential vice presidential nominee alongside Mr. Trump, said on ABC News’s “This Week” of Mr. Trump’s behavior: “I think that he’s going to have to change.” And Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who has been among Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters, called Mr. Trump’s remarks about Judge Curiel “inexcusable” on “Fox News Sunday.”

    “This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made,” Mr. Gingrich said.

    https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/could-a-muslim-judge-be-trump-neutral-trump-thinks-not.amp.html?client=safari#

    Gee, why would so many diverse people from so many different identity groups have a bias against Trump? Has Trump previously said offensive things about these groups of people? I simply can’t imagine.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Re : “Just based on the quoted portion of the Breitbart article you cited, I see no evidence of illegal or even unethical behavior.”

    Which is precisely why the FBI is — or should be — investigating and not a politically motivated, sycophantic progressive toad like Chris.

  7. Tina says:

    The Clinton University scam is a much bigger story and part of the larger story of Clinton Foundations activities while Clinton was Secretary of State. (Remember too, the expectation in 2008 was that she would be president)

    The LA Times offers extensive coverage of possible criminal activity:

    Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

    Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

    But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

    These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

    The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

    Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

    The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

    Influence is one thing; Quid Pro Quo is quite another. There’s enough evidence to warrant an investigation. There’s enough evidence to suggest corruption and ethics problems. There’s enough evidence to suggest criminal charges could be brought.

    Judge Napolitano: “…these allegations are far more serious than those for which Robert Menendez of New Jersey was indicted and they essentially form the same – the same type of allegation, a quid pro quo. You give cash to me or someone else on my behalf and I exercise my official, governmental judgment in favor of you.”

    Commentary: “Hillary loyalists are going to find it quite a bit harder to pooh-pooh the furor over Clinton Cash today after the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton State Department approved the sale of one of America’s largest uranium mines to a unit of the Russian state nuclear agency after those involved with the sale had donated a staggering $2.35 million to the Clinton charity and former president Bill Clinton had been invited to speak in Moscow by another firm with ties to the Kremlin for an equally astounding $500,000 honorarium. At the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest behind a decision that seems to strengthen one of America’s leading geopolitical foes is obvious. At worst, those searching for a clear case of a corrupt quid pro quo between the Clintons and foreign donors have found their answer.”

    Wall Street Journal: “We’re not the first to make the comparison, but Bill and Hillary Clinton’s adventures in the uranium trade recall nothing as much as Tammany Hall’s concept of “honest graft.” Except maybe their never-ending use of power and status for personal and political gain requires a new special terminology. Dishonest graft?”

    TownHall: “Former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust was disconcerted by this revelation, furthering the notion that the Clinton Foundation is just a bank to deposit favors with the political couple, along with being a textbook example of quid pro quo politics:

    This disturbing revelation reveals the Clinton’s quid pro quo approach to operating their family business interests. The formula was simple: If someone wanted access to the Clintons or a favor from them, they needed to be a top donor to their campaigns or philanthropic efforts. Whether it was the State Department, the Clinton Foundation or now the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clintons used these entities as revolving doors of access to reward their top donors and closest friends. This type of behavior poses very serious ethical and trust challenges for the Clintons, and especially Hillary who seeks the presidency to represent ordinary citizens who would never get this kind of treatment.”

    See also, Dick Morris, The Hill.

    • Libby says:

      If the Arabs are going to deal with ISIS themselves, they’re gonna need stuff.

      Or, we could be arming yet another party that turns round and chomps our butt, who knows? Theoretically, Hillary does. However, it can be categorically stated with absolute certainty that The ELE does not.

      And if it’s any consolation, I read something recently about how much trouble assorted
      Oil States are in, assessing Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi A. The Sauds got good marks for a solid grasp of the problem and a willingness to make changes to their economy. That’s sensible. I like us only to send fighter jets to sensible parties.

      And we will not be accepting rather bald-butted, pre-election muck-raking, without serious scrutiny.

      • Tina says:

        “If the Arabs are going to deal with ISIS themselves, they’re gonna need stuff.”

        Yeah, that’s exactly what you would have said if Romney had done this, right Libby?

        “The Sauds got good marks for a solid grasp of the problem and a willingness to make changes to their economy. ”

        You mean they finally got smart about cutting subsidies? Agreed. Their total dependence on oil has to change before they will see any real change in their economy.

        Trump is a natural visceral, response to the deep doo doo piled up from what the left’s been peddling for decades. When people have finally had enough good manners go out the window with tolerance. A much deserved punch in the nose to follow.

  8. Tina says:

    A university (Latin: universitas, “a whole”) is an institution of higher (or tertiary) education and research which grants academic degrees in various subjects.

    Trump erred when he chose to use the term “university” for what amounts to a series of seminars. One’s expectation would be high just because of what we associate with that word. But if you look at almost any commercial advertisement you will find this hardly represents anything unusual. Like any other similar course, a lot depends on what you bring to it and how much you apply yourself as well as the actual information and inspiration provided in the seminar. People always have different experiences with some being much more well received than others. Buyer beware.

    I find it unusual that a massage therapist would choose to do several $100.00 to $600.00 real estate based seminars and then upon completion, be so “uninspired” that she would go ahead and spend thousands more. Therefore i find this suit suspect.

    I also find it suspect that the judge in the case is associated with La Raza:

    United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

    In his 2011 judicial questionnaire to become a federal judge, Curiel revealed his history with La Raza. GotNews.com originally reported this Tuesday, and The Daily Caller has independently verified.

    Curiel lists “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego” as a legal association he has been a part of in the questionnaire. Curiel’s office at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed to TheDC the judge’s membership in the group.

    Trump claims he’s being “railroaded by the legal system.” It’s quite possible that he’s right. jlaforums quotes from an American Spectator article:

    It comes to light from LawNewz that the law firm Robbins Geller appointed by Judge Gonzalo Curiel to represent a plaintiff in the Trump University class action suits has another connection to Hillary Clinton beyond a $2700 campaign contribution from firm chairman Darren Robbins. LawNewz did not mention the firm´s connection to the Trump University case. The information was apparently retrieved from a Washington Post data base with the Clinton financial filings on file.
    (The Post itself has not reported on this connection.)

    It seems that Robbins Geller “paid the Clintons nearly half a million dollars in less than a year.” Why? Speeches of course.

    That´s right. One of the law firms picked by the Judge in the Trump University case – the very Judge Donald Trump accuses by name of anti-Trump bias – awarded this firm the case after – say again after – Hillary and Bill Clinton had been paid a cool $450,000 for two speeches by the firm.

    While one might have expected this connection to Trump´s presumed rival in the campaign to be called out as a potential conflict of interest, amazingly, this hasn´t happened – either in the courtroom or in the press.

    A related Spectator article is here:

    Move on to the two law firms that Curiel selected to represent the class action case against Trump University. The first, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, lists as its senior partner partner Darren J. Robbins. And a check with the FEC shows that Robbins has made over a hundred campaign contributions over the years, far and away most of them going to Democrats. Including a contribution of $2700 on May 12, 2015 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.* That would be the Hillary Clinton who, assuming she polishes off the Sanders challenge, will be the Democratic nominee against… Donald Trump.

    Then there’s that second firm selected by Judge Curiel to be involved in the Trump University lawsuit — Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP. The senior partner in that firm? If you guessed she was a multiple contributor to Barack Obama you would of course be right. But she was also a one-time donor in 2004 to… MoveOn.org. You know Move On, the people who back there in 2004 were running an ad comparing President Bush to Hitler. Today? Today MoveOn has this to say about Donald Trump:

    For as long as Donald Trump is a presidential candidate, MoveOn members will continue to call out and nonviolently protest his racist, bigoted, misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent behavior… Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House.

    And let’s not forget New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman filed a $40 million law suit against Trump University in 2013 charging fraud. This after repeated campaign solicitations to Trump family members and business associates, as I detailed here three years ago. Solicitations along the line of the Mafia Don who stops by to say “ya gotta nice little business going here, ya wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.” Curiously, this very same Eric Schneiderman got a $15,000 campaign contribution in 2010 from two lawyers in a law firm named… Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. They being one of the firms Judge Curiel would assign to the Trump University class action cases. Amazing coincidence.

    Let’s cut to the chase here, shall we? The accusation here is not that all these people have broken some law somewhere. The point is very simple. By October 2014 — when Judge Curiel granted that class certification to the Trump lawsuits and gave the nod to two law firms led by serious liberals who between them had given money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and MoveOn.org — it was well known that Donald Trump was considering a race for president in 2016, as noted here among other places by the Huffington Post. He was not a shy man about his views. And, of course, he was Donald Trump the famous billionaire whether he ran for the White House or not. What a big, fat exciting target for liberal activist lawyers!

    Stinky, stinky, stinky.

    And, of course, this isn´t the only connection in the case against Trump University that would raise eyebrows, at the very least, or lead one to wonder if this isn´t just a big charade – witch hunt – aimed at trashing the presumed GOP nominee.

    As The American Spectator reports, several other key players in the lawsuit have some interesting ties to Democrats.

  9. Libby says:

    Ok, we’ll get him a nice WASP, who will then find him guilty of fraud.

    Only we won’t. Trump will be convicted by the judge assigned to the case, because rascist slurs cast by defendant are not grounds for recusal. Just the opposite. In fact, defendant better shut his big fat yap, because none of us, not even libeled judges, can be entirely, perfectly, stoicly mpartial.

    I’ve heard that The ELE has actually spoken in public about getting libel laws changed, so he can throw journalists and such like impertinent people in prison … like that despot in Turkey does. Oh, the Republic, she is in some DEEP Doo-Doo.

  10. Tina says:

    An activist judge who has openly advocated for Trumps rival, Hillary Clinton, SHOULD recuse himself. Since he has not, he deserves the derision.

    • Libby says:

      Has the judge done that? Trump has not said so, and I doubt it. Judges tend to be circumspect about public politicizing.

      Trump objects to the judge entirely on the basis of his ethnic heritage. Cokie Roberts informs us that if Trump’s lawyers file such an objection they would face professional sanctions. Which is why all we have, and will ever have, is the blow hard … blowing hard.

  11. Tina says:

    Meant to post this on Saturday:

    Bernie Sanders: “Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships… yeah I do.”

    • Chris says:

      Judge Curiel has not advocated for Hillary Clinton. Stop lying.

      And Trump didn’t say the judge should recuse himself because he supports Hillary. He said he should recuse himself because he is Mexican. That is racist, by definition.

      Don’t vote for a racist.

  12. Tina says:

    According to the NYT in a sympathy piece in defense of the judge, Trump has said the following:

    At a rally last week, Mr. Trump said the judge “happens to be, we believe, Mexican,” suggesting that he was biased because of Mr. Trump’s calls to build a wall along the border to prevent illegal immigration.

    “I’m building the wall, I’m building the wall,” Mr. Trump said. “I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things.”

    Trump did not say something like, “that dirty Mexican judge,” which would be a racist slur. He expressed valid and reasonable concern that a judge that sits in a case against him has a personal bias due to his his heritage and association with la Raza. He may know more about the judge than any of us…I sure would if I were being sued, my lawyer would see to it!

    The American Freedom Party posted the following which includes a document from the La Raza Lawyers Association:

    The Trump hating “Mexican” judge once stressed his Mexican heritage as being essential to relationship he built with Mexican government, saluted his own “immigrant” origins, and repeatedly worked with anti-white activist group La Raza.

    Judge Gonzalo Curiel even awarded scholarships to illegal immigrants in San Diego in 2014.

    While nearly all of the scholarship winners were born in another country Ricardo Elorza bragged about his accomplishments as an illegal.

    Mr. Elorza immigration to the United States when he was 11 years old. In college, he led worships at high schools, non-profit organizations, colleges and parks where he talked about the DREAM ACT…. Mr. Elorza wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, “Look, a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney.”

    I wouldn’t go so far as saying the judge “hates” trump as this article does.

    I would say there is plenty to suggest this judge should recuse himself due to the perception that he might not preside fairly. What is important in this case now is the integrity of the law as well as the ultimate decision whatever it is.

    Don’t listen to a biased knee-jerk partisan who screams, “racism” before knowing all the facts.

    • Libby says:

      Geez, you people are losing it.

      You might as well say that members of the Sons of Knute must recuse themselves from suits involving Lutherans.

      It is becoming more and more apparent that the founding principles don’t, and never did, mean anything to you.

    • Chris says:

      Bullsh*t.

      The case is not about Trump’s wall. It is about Trump’s alleged scamming via Trump University. There is no evidence that Judge Curial would allow his own opinions of Trump to override his judgement in this case.

      And it remains prima facie racist to assert that someone’s ethnic heritage makes them unfit to rule on a case. Even Erick Erickson can see that.

      Also, La Raza is not “anti-white.” The American Freedom Party, which you cite, sure is anti-minority and anti-Semitic though:

      “The American Freedom Party (formerly the American Third Position Party or A3P) is a third position American political party that promotes white nationalism.[1][2][3][4]”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_Party

      But keep pretending there is no racism among the Trump crowd.

      You’ve been lying down with dogs so long you’re crawling with fleas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.