Why Isn't The Press Covering Clinton For-Profit University Scheme?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Nancy Pelosi Is Also Guilty

Aug 12, 2017, 1:00:04 AM8/12/17
Corruption: No doubt you've heard all about Donald Trump and the
defunct Trump University. The big media have been all over that
"scandal." But what about Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband, and
the Laureate International Universities? There's been a virtual
blackout in the mainstream press.

We won't bore you with the Trump flap because chances are you've
seen countless news clips on it or read pieces in your local
paper about it. Serious questions were raised about the
propriety of Trump University, an online real estate school.
Fair enough.

But what about Laureate International Universities? Haven't
heard of those?

President Clinton in his retirement years affiliated himself
with the Laureate Network, described as the "world's largest for-
profit university network." It has a lot of big-money investors,
mostly Democratic Party supporters: Henry Kravis, George Soros,
Steve Cohen and Paul Allen.

But serious allegations have been raised over just how
legitimate the "universities" affiliated with the Laureate
Network are.

As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley
wrote recently: "Laureate Education has been sued over such
programs as its Walden University Online offering, which many
have alleged is a scam designed to bilk students of tens of
thousands of dollars for degrees."

He added: "Students say that they were repeatedly delayed and
given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them
deeply in debt."

Does that sound like a legitimate organization? It reeks of a
bait-and-switch academic scheme to us, playing off the
desperation of young people who are seeking academic credentials.

Now here's the kicker: Former President Bill Clinton is the
"honorary" chancellor of Laureate International, the parent of
Walden and other online schools of its ilk.

We're not sure what he does for his title, but we do know it's
been extraordinarily lucrative. According to Inside Higher
Education, Clinton received "an obscene" $16.5 million in pay
from 2010 to 2014 for working as a glorified pitchman for the
enterprise. Apparently, the money-backers thought that having a
former U.S. president as their public face would give everything
a patina of respectability.

There are a number of troubling things about this.

First off, along with the Clinton Foundation, this adds to the
pattern of highly suspicious global business dealings conducted
by the Clinton family during Hillary's tenure as secretary of

As Turley, who did much of the reportorial spadework on the
story, notes, "The size of this payment ... raises obvious
concerns as to what the company was seeking to achieve and
whether Laureate received any benefit from the association with
the State Department given its massive international operations."

Second, and perhaps more troubling, is the media's apparent lack
of interest in anything that would serve to call into question
Hillary Clinton's candidacy. As of June 2, Michael Bargo of the
American Thinker points out, "no stories exist online since
2014." It's almost as if the media have officially silenced any
news about it, and will only report it grudgingly, if at all, to
maintain a semblance of fairness.

No doubt Hillary benefited from the big paychecks her hubby took
home for speechifying and serving as "honorary" chancellor of an
ethically questionable chain of universities. This fact adds to
the growing list of ethical questions about her past behavior.

The next time the media get all in a lather about Trump
University, maybe they'll give equal coverage to the curious
Clinton college caper. And if you believe that, we have an
advanced online master's degree in gullibility to sell you.


Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages