money is taken from a corporation to help the disadvantaged through a charitable organization.

Mrs. Clinton herself denounced the predatory practices of for-profit colleges during her first campaign swing through Iowa.

Neither Laureate nor Mr. Clinton would say how much he was paid. But he was hired at a time when the industry was facing pressure from the Obama administration and Tom Harkin, then a senator from Iowa.

FAIL

"they paid him personally". Looks like you just made that up.

Thanks but no thanks.

You see, not everything comes from that scary article.

I don't care that he got payment for speeches. All former Presidents have made money that way.

Tens of millions of dollars went from the US treasury, via State Department programs under Hillary Clinton, to Laureate Education Inc. programs.

Alternatively, millions of dollars in revenue came from Laureate Education Inc. coffers right into the Clinton Family Foundation.

That Bill was on the payroll as this happened is just comic relief!



Don't worry though. It's not enough to put anyone in jail, but the idea of holding high office might have to wait until after the apocalypse.

that none of the Clintons is drawing a salary from.

<snip>

Laureate hired Bill Clinton just as the Obama administration was working on its first try at controversial regulations on “gainful employment” and as then-Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) launched a series of hearings scrutinizing the industry, which relies heavily on federal student aid grants and loans for revenue.

<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/bill-clinton-leaves-for-profit-college-position


Denial on your level is just cray-cray.

While true many of their students are disadvantaged - that mostly reflects that they are the ones targeted. After all, do you think Bill Clinton would have considered that a goo d option for his daughter - even if she were less intelligent than she is?

Consider that a different option for those who can not afford expensive colleges are the community colleges -- the ones some Democrats want to make free. In many states, public college is affordable too.

I was appalled when former Governor Weld was found to have lent his name to some for profit colleges -- and it meant he lost the Republican nomination for NY Governor.

I have no idea why Bill Clinton would allowed his name to be connected to this. No, they really did not need the money that badly.

and it will become an issue. I'm not saying there was any quid pro quo, but a reasonable person looking at the situation could certainly come to that conclusion.

It is rather surprising because I have never heard of these universities even though I have three daughters who have gone through selecting colleges - two now doing PHDs.

In addition to the idea that the degree may not carry the weight that those attending expected, wikipedia speaks of them spending over $200 million in advertising and having average revenue of $2 billion. They also speak of them being 'highly dependent on adjunct faculty and contingent labor. For example, more than 90 percent of Walden’s faculty is employed on a part-time basis.' This means that they are not even providing decent jobs for their faculty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureate_International_Universities

(This is fascinating reading.)

Not too sure about that page.

To your opening question - NO. But the money went to the Foundation and the Foundation is a charitable organization that helps the disadvantage.

I swear -

Beyond the donations, he was hired by them.

You've been provided proof of that from multiple sources and yet you persist in being blatantly mendacious and insisting that the money went to the Foundation. That is just shameful.

The words "hired" and "paid" have nothing to do with charitable donations.

Stop it.

The point is his paid gig with a for profit education corporation

Read the question that was addressed to me.

You see, not everything comes from that scary article.

I wonder what would be left if they divested themselves of all embarrassing sources of income.

says everything you need to know.

People will go after the Clintons with everything they've got. The less ammo we can give them, the better. (Not that they won't find something to swiftboat with).

anywhere near as prudent as they should have been.

It very well may be that there is absolutely nothing illegal here, but there is a reason that HRC is attacking the for profit colleges. They are - in general - very poor choices compared to other alternatives. Imagine that one of these colleges had fascinated a young Chelsea. How quickly would her parents have vetoed that choice? Would you have paid for one of your kids to go there?

Also look at the other side - they have over 90 % adjunct professors many part time. (Interesting question might be how many are receiving some government assistance. Have you read anything about how poorly paid - even in good colleges - many adjuncts are paid?

I am saying that BC should distance himself from anything that would hurt HRC's run for the presidency. And this is a good example of something that they could use against them (in part for the reasons you've listed).

I am actually surprised that it has come to this. Long before HRC became Secretary of State, they were extremely well off from their books and his speeches. His Foundation could have run on donations raised to do the good things it does -- just as Carter's does.

You would think that by 2009, they already had enough money, fame and power to make them completely without any need to do anything that was not 100% kosher. Clearly the game plan was still for her to follow Obama as the first woman President.

In her job, this led her to taking very few risks. No taking on big challenges that were as likely to fail as to succeed. Because she was SoS for Obama - following Bush, she had a job that was simultaneously very strenuous, but very likely to succeed -- repairing the shredded relationships with many countries.

What is too bad is that she did not follow the same prudence in insuring that she was as "clean as Ceasar's wife" had to be. There was no reason, even if she kept her email on her server, that she could not have had two (or more) email accounts AND set up a process where the work email would have gone to the SD and been archived. With the Foundation, she should have followed both the letter and spirit of the Obama agreement. In fact, she could have gotten points by saying that she welcomed the agreement and understood that it protected not just the integrity of the administration, but her own integrity.

Given that it is likely that the ONLY thing they did not have in 2009 that they wanted was HRC being President, you would think that would have been motivation to act with unimpeachable integrity avoiding even the appearance of any conflicts of interest.

Good grief.

Oh, and not only was he paid, the foundation benefited, too.

Anyone posting anything about their finances will get freaked out vehement defences thrown at them. Sorry, but if this is true, it creates a honking big appearance of a conflict of interest, and anyone who doesn't grasp that this is a problem for her campaign, is in some heavy denial.

Here:

US Taxpayer grants TO Laureate:

I don't understand why such money is granted to a for profit educational business.

Thanks for the links, skip

...and I think it's wrong, but some might be from the department of education.

The articles don't disaggregate the funds, but it sure fucking stinks that the Clintons would personally take money and let their foundation take millions.

Dammit.

Isn't that an independent federal government agency?

I don't see how Hillary was the one who made those grants happen?

With the many months she delayed officially declaring, there was more than enough time for each and every one of Bill's money making activities to be vetted.

It's been my theory the reason she delayed officially declaring her candidacy was so that she, Bill & the Family could maximize their payoffs from special interests without having to publicly reveal them via tax returns. The question is not only how much was Bill paid directly, but WHEN he was paid.

Her reputation in that role might now become forever tainted.

activities & history. No wonder she's a corporate darling to the tune of millions and millions and millions in donations/gifts to the Clinton "non-profits".

Shame on any democrat for being involved with them.

to describe the entire "for profit education" sector.

Unlike the degree mills, Laureate's M.O. is to buy up existing colleges and universities and add them to their portfolio. Their model isn't to create useless degree mills like many of the other "private college" chains, but to buy actual and legitimate colleges and then work on their profitability. Only a small percentage of their colleges are in the United States, so they also aren't designed specifically to suck money out of the federal government and student loan programs, like their competitors are.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Bill Clinton fan, and Laureate has it's own issues, but they're a bit of a different beast than some of the colleges they're being lumped in with.

FYI, Laureate is also the funding partner behind Coursera. Anyone familiar with higher ed should know that name. They're well known for bringing free online education to people who can't otherwise afford it using MOOC's.