- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 32,513
- Reaction score
- 22,793
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So let me see if I've got this straight
1) Hillary has a "Clinton University problem" even though there is no Clinton University
2) Neither Bill nor Hillary have anything to do with the running of this mythical university
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/meetings/cgi-university/about/about-cgiu
Clinton Global Initiative
Still want to contend there's zero Clinton tie?
3) Bill Clinton sold cocaine while in the Whitehouse.
4) The Clinton's murdered Vince Foster.
5) The Clinton's sold plots at the National Cemetery.
6) The Clinton's are in effect serial killers and their murders are documented in the 90s documentary "The Clinton Murders".
All these and more are examples of popular right wing mythology about the Clintons. For every legitimate scandal regarding the Clinton's, you can bet the rabid right will invent at least 5 more.
So let me see if I've got this straight
1) Hillary has a "Clinton University problem" even though there is no Clinton University
2) Neither Bill nor Hillary have anything to do with the running of this mythical university
So let me see if I've got this straight
1) Hillary has a "Clinton University problem" even though there is no Clinton University
2) Neither Bill nor Hillary have anything to do with the running of this mythical university
There are at least 20 women who have accused Bill Clinton of rape or sexual assault (this is not including consensual affairs like Lewinsky). Many of those women pointed to Hillary and claimed she also victimized them after the fact. Many of his victims have independently stated Bill Clinton likes to bite (one said her lower lip was almost totally severed). My source is Roger Stones book ,, “The Clintons War on Women.”3) Bill Clinton sold cocaine while in the Whitehouse.
4) The Clinton's murdered Vince Foster.
5) The Clinton's sold plots at the National Cemetery.
6) The Clinton's are in effect serial killers and their murders are documented in the 90s documentary "The Clinton Murders".
All these and more are examples of popular right wing mythology about the Clintons. For every legitimate scandal regarding the Clinton's, you can bet the rabid right will invent at least 5 more.
Keep up dummy, even Corrupt Google confirms everything bubbabegone said.
There are at least 20 women who have accused Bill Clinton of rape or sexual assault (this is not including consensual affairs like Lewinsky). Many of those women pointed to Hillary and claimed she also victimized them after the fact. Many of his victims have independently stated Bill Clinton likes to bite (one said her lower lip was almost totally severed). My source is Roger Stones book ,, “The Clintons War on Women.”
Lmao, Clinton wasn't running the university. How the hell can it be irrelevant?
Not yet.
What standard? You created it. Hillary isn't in court for any of this.
Even the OP in the thread about that later admitted he was wrong. Which is odd for any conservative on this board.
I forget what I say a lot. What did I say I was wrong about this time?
Yep , ONLY you .:lamo:lamo
Did you bother reading the article, or even the OP?
The link is broken...goes to the Clinton Foundation error page (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/cl...out/about-cgiu).
Not you, but in the thread about Google's "bias" in the auto-complete.
Then explain it to me...
What's missing?
How is it that the Clintons (Bill in particular and Hillary by extension) can be held liable for fraud committed by a institution of higher learning towhich they don't own nor manage? If anything, Bill was hired by the school - that $16 million he was paid over the course of 6 years to be its honorary Chancellor. Wouldn't that make him an employee? Someone on their payroll?
Now, if you want to say there's a quid pro quo here since Bill (and Hillary) is the founder (co-founder) of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, then I could agree to that. But if neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton own either university nor take part in their day-to-day operations/management decisions, how can they be held liable for any illegal activity these universities have allegedly conducted?
Explain it to me...
Want to respond to something I said, or will you continue to respond to points that are just as mythical as this "Clinton University"?
What about the grants ?:lamo
Various sites have reported that the State Department funneled $55 million in grants during Hillary Clinton’s tenure to groups associated with Laureate’s founder. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal. The stories on the grants do not name Laureate directly. Accordingly, the company might have not received direct grants (my first column did not make that clear and, in fairness to Laureate, there is no evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement or even direct grants). However, there are references to the International Youth Federation (connected to Laureate chairman Douglas Becker) as receiving USAID funding. Becker, who reportedly did not graduate college, is a controversial figure and the Washington Post wrote that “Becker’s peers in the education industry paint him as a tireless promoter, skilled at pitching Laureate to investors and persuading universities to sell to him.” Becker is reportedly a major donor to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.
...
“Laureate Universities, started by Doug Becker who Bill likes a lot.”
There was even a class action [lawsuit] — like the Trump University scandal. Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland, but was dismissed in 2015.
I did, please continue to deny the existence of the Clinton university.
CGI U is more than just an event. It is a growing community of young leaders who don't just discuss global challenges--they take real, concrete steps toward solving them. Throughout the year, and as a prerequisite of attending the CGI U meeting, students develop their own Commitments to Action: new, specific, and measurable initiatives that address pressing challenges on campus, in local communities, or around the world. Commitments range from manufacturing wheelchairs for developing countries to establishing campus bike share programs, from creating free vision clinics to developing e-learning applications for mobile phones.
Throughout the year, students are also invited to apply to become CGI U Campus Representatives. Colleges and universities can engage with CGI U by joining the CGI University Network to support and mentor innovative student commitment-makers from their respective campuses by providing seed funding for new projects and initiatives.
Wow , next you will claim HRC is nominated for sainthood ! :lamo Liberals can't help themselves facts elude them easily . :lamo
What about them?
So, since no federal funds went directly to Laureate University(ies), Walden University or Mr. Becker, I fail to see where the scandal lay except if we are to go the circular route, towit:
Bill Clinton convinces Doug Becker to make him Chancellor of Laureate International Universities at a cost of $16 million. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's State Department issues federal grants to various schools and charities owned, operated or associated with Laureate International Universities. Doug Becker goes around promoting Laureate convincing investors to donate money while he buys up share in the institution. He then turns around and makes donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Alright...but I still fail to see how any of this implicates the Clintons in Laureate's or Walden's alleged fraud scheme which, by the way...
So, again explain to me how the Clinton's (Hillary in particular) are complicit in any of Laureate's or Walden's problems since there's no evicent connecting them to forming, owning, operating or managing any educational entities formerly under scrutiny? If the backhanded claim is tied in any way to circular money as I've outlined above (and that's a stretch even for me!), then let's discuss it. Maybe there's something there. But the rest of it is more of a stretch than even I've conjured up.
(grin!)
You're not very good at this, are you.
Objective voice , pretty damned funny !! :lamo:lamo:lamo
If that's the best comeback you have - to crack on my screen name - then that tells me you have nothing more to add to the discussion.
As to my objectivity, I've asked straightforward questions that I think any person would ask if they looked at this situation with logic and reason. I've stated that although there may be a quid pro quo in play here specifically between Bill Clinton and Doug Becker, that line of fraud alleged against Laureate International Universities (LIU) and involving the Clinton's is a very crooked line. The dots don't connect.
So, unless you can connect them there's nothing to see here except speculation. I've pointed out from the OP article itself that:
1) LIU isn't owned or operated by the Clintons and that they weren't involved in setting education policy.
2) Bill Clinton was essentially a paid pitch man (employee) for LIU by virtue of his chancellery.
3) no federal funds went directly to LIU nor Walden University (despite apparently being approved from the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as opposed to being approved via the Department of Education).
4) Doug Becker was apparently playing both ends of the financial stick by pitching LIU to investors and selling shares towhich he obviously profited from on the one hand, while on the other making donations to the Clinton Foundation. (Nothing illegal about that, BTW.)
5) the fraud case was dismissed in 2015.
So, unless you can show proof of illegal activity on the part of the Clinton's in this matter as opposed to trying to create a case much as the OP's author has done, this is nothing to do about nothing.
Now, I've given a scenarios which may be far-fetched, but it certainly stands up to better scrutiny than the OP storyline. If you can do better, go for it. In any case, don't get it twisted. Just because I don't see criminal activity here directly involving the Clinton's and disagree with the accessment given doesn't mean that I don't think something shaking is going on here. Yourself and other just haven't convinced me of any illegal wrong-doing.
Baaaa , baaaa, baaa ! HRC sheep . :lamo
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?