Lying is an effective political tool because it’s so easy to do and often so hard to debunk. Michelle Ye Hee Lee and the researchers at the Washington Post’s Fact Checker have awarded four Pinocchios to Donald Trump for his recent claim that “Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton through Laureate Education” and had the State Department award $55.2 million in grants to Laureate after Laureate hired Bill Clinton for a $16.5 million position as honorary chancellor.
My eyes glazed over while reading the Fact Checker piece, not because they did a bad job or because it was poorly written, but because I just find it hard to care about this stuff. I pressed on out of a sense of professional responsibility, but almost no one else will bother to look into just how ludicrous Trump’s claims were. What they’ll come away with is a vague sense that something smelly must have been afoot.
For me, the only even vaguely unsettling aspect of the entire thing is that a for-profit network of (mostly foreign) universities decided to give Bill Clinton over 16 million dollars between 2010 and 2015 for work that hardly seemed to merit that level of pay.
Clinton’s main responsibility was to speak to students at Laureate campuses around the world, from Turkey to Peru to Malaysia and beyond, about the “importance of their lives as young people in the world today,” his spokesperson said. He also advised Laureate on youth leadership and expanding access to higher education.
Yes, I’d love to get compensated at that level for that quantity of work which involved some interesting travel as a fringe benefit. And I guess that’s a perk of being a former president that we can like or dislike or not much care about either way.
But the heart of the charge here is completely untrue. To start with, the $55.2 million in grants that Laureate allegedly received between 2010 and 2012 was actually “less than $1.5 million in grants and scholarships for four of its schools in other countries between 2009 and 2016.” It might make sense to give the ex-president $16 million to win $55 million in grants, but it doesn’t makes sense to give him $16 million to win less than one and a half million in grants. Moreover, almost all of that $1.5 million was awarded after Hillary left the State Department and after Bill was hired for the position. In a period that partially overlapped with her serving as Secretary, “three scholarships worth less than $15,000 total were awarded between 2010 and 2014.”
So, supposedly, Hillary Clinton “laundered” $15,000 to her husband over four years in the form of three tiny scholarships.
That’s how accurate Trump’s charge is, when you come right down to it.
There was at least some kernel that this conspiracy theory grew out of, but looking at it doesn’t help vindicate Trump’s outrageous allegations.
So where does the $55.2 million figure come from?
It’s a reference to grants received by another organization: International Youth Foundation (IYF), a nonprofit that promotes education and employment opportunities for youth around the world. Since 1999, IYF has received grants from USAID, the State Department and the Department of Labor to support its various initiatives. IYF received 13 grants from USAID between 2009 and 2013, valued at $52 million. It also received a $30.2 million grant in March 2009 that was negotiated under the George W. Bush administration, according to the IYF president. It competed for and was awarded $1.9 million State Department grant in March 2012 for a workforce development project.
We can already see many ways in which using this figure is wrong. The Secretary of State can’t launder money through the Department of Labor, for example. For another, the International Youth Foundation is a non-profit organization that had a preexisting relationship with Bush’s State Department, and it’s completely distinct from the for-profit Laureate Education.
To get a connection between the IYF and Laureate, the conspiracists need us to take a giant leap.
Critics of the Clintons have conflated IYF and Laureate because of Doug Becker, Laureate’s founder and chief executive. He also is the chairman of IYF’s 14-member volunteer board of directors — but Becker’s role is unpaid, and the two organizations are independent of each other.
So, this is a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, essentially. Mr. Becker, who oversaw the hiring of Bill Clinton as a Laureate ambassador, was not surprisingly on good terms with the former president. As reported by Inside Higher Ed in April, Hillary Clinton wrote an email in 2009 while serving as Secretary asking that a staffer make sure that “Laureate” was represented at a private education-related dinner because it was “the fastest-growing college network in the world,” which was “started by Doug Becker, who Bill likes a lot.”
To untangle this, prior to Bill Clinton being hired by Laureate, he liked the CEO of Laureate. His wife asked that someone from Laureate get an invitation to higher ed policy dinner because the company is a major player internationally. Maybe if you squint, you can see this as cashing in a favor for her husband, but it wasn’t even a dinner invitation for Becker, just someone at his company. And his company was a major player in higher education and there was no reason for them not to be represented at a dinner of this sort.
So, are we are supposed to believe that Becker repaid this dinner invite with a $16 million contract to travel around the world speaking at Laureate venues to international students about “the importance of their lives”?
Actually, we’re not supposed to believe (or understand) anything of the kind. All we’re supposed to know is that a bunch of money changed hands and it’s all somehow corrupt and that the Clinton’s are conniving self-enrichers instead of dedicated public servants.
Thanks for the dissection. After 25 years of supposed Clinton “corruption scandals” being debunked you’d think people would be more skeptical. Really, they deserve to be treated like moon landing hoax conspiracies. But some people, especially conservatives, are really gullible.
Well, most are conservatives, but plenty of people on this site have the same worm in their head. They don’t even realize that 30 years of nonsense has infected them.
‘I won’t vote for Clinton because having Trump appoint 3 Supreme Court justices would be no where near as bad as how Clinton supported reproductive rights with an obscure verbal reference I disagree with. Besides, Trump will be ineffective! And Clinton did not let Sanders dictate the party platform as he sees fit!.’
.
The number of people that claim to be on the left who repeat right-wing talking points is truly disappointing.
The thing is, no matter what they ‘claim’, they are not ‘left’, they are not ‘progressive’.
No person who makes the claim that Trump is a better choice than Clinton because he will be ineffective is anything other than a republican.
.
I would expect the opposite. That’s the purpose of propaganda.
In the political media, it’s called “the appearance of impropriety” and it was part of the argument that finally brought down Richard Nixon, who apparently is still not avenged as far as the conservative movement is concerned.
It works because the audience that is most susceptible to this has in the cliche, “worked hard, played by the rules” and could never imagine getting a deal this sweet. That is also the audience that Trump is playing.
Furthermore, Americans still seem to want their Presidents to retire quietly or do public service in their post-Presidential careers. Jimmy Carter set the standard to which all Democratic Presidents in their post-Presidential careers will be held but not Republican Presidents. The Bushes have had the good sense to stay below the radar. By having Hillary Clinton as a candidate, the Clintons reopened the pre-Presidential scrutiny for the period 2001-present.
As the case with Whitewater and earlier scandals, one has to go through convoluted logic to connect quid with quo. But at the same time, the transactions were never so transparent as to allow a clear declaration of a clean slate, especially because the Clinton’s have traded off of their Presidential experience in charging speaking fees. That never was an open practice or it never was a prevalent practice with previous Presidents. What was political fair game in the media and by opponents changed in the political culture with the Clinton’s arrival in DC in 1993. Likely part Poppy’s Revenge, the Village’s sense of invasion, and GOP desperation, that culture has not reverted to kinder and gentler. Nor has it emerged from the post-fact, post-truth era.
Trump’s offense is in fact a desperate defense to prevent his voters from learning of all the skeleton’s in his closets, the dirty laundry in his past dealings, and the fact that fundamentally like most successful entrepreneurs in the second generation, he is a deadbeat.
To the extent that these lies gain currency among the lefties opposed to Clinton, they are an irritant but not determinative significant loss. Most lefty opponents of Clinton have far more substantial gripes.
To the extent they do their work among Trump’s voters, these folks are already nodding at almost everything Trump says. It is dis-enthrallment, not debunking that is called for.
Love your phrasing: “convoluted logic to connect quid with quo.” Seriously, I hadn’t seen that one before and I dig it.
Hmm. “Whitewater,” which was actually not hard to unpack as a cloud of smoke, upon which it disintegrated, is somehow a pattern of behavior for the Clintons’ post-presidential behavior? Seriously? And things were so murky that no one could declare a “clean slate”?
In fact, anyone who actually took the time to see what was happening saw clean slates everywhere (Lewinsky excepted). If you were too lazy to examine these “scandals” at the time, do not blame your murkiness on others. You are, in fact, playing right into the Republican fallback trope: “Whatever the truth of (Clinton Scandal X), it’s just so complicated that they must have done something wrong.”
The desired effect of 25 years of Republican lying. Congratulations.
It seemed pretty damn hard for the contemporary media to unpack.
Yes, it is. There is just as much there there now as was in Whitewater.
I’m not falling into that trope just by pointing out its longterm application by the media.
You are too quick to make accusations against people who are describing a situation that the Clinton campaign might better after 25 years figure out a way to deal with.
And the media itself sets up the game that failure to scotch a lie must be evidence of some truth. In spite of Susan McDonald’s sitting in jail twenty-some years ago.
But I guess that some people are incapable of looking at things other than as uncritical advocates seeking to stamp out heresy even when it does not exist.
Richard Nixon was brought down because he was involved in a criminal conspiracy and a coverup thereof. “Appearance of impropriety”? Jeezus, he recorded his conversations scheming with his subordinates about the coverup.
I also caught that.
He hired criminals to break into buildings, and steal shit.
But it’s exactly like the things Clinton has been ACCUSED of by republicans! Ya, sure it is.
The disingenuous, pedantry, and projection by some of the posters here is unbelievable.
And God do many of them need an editor, bad.
.
There were many appearances of impropriety that did not bring Nixon down, but the it became a medial catchphrase for demand that politicians be ethically squeaky clean.
You new enforcers here ignore the long history of some of the commenters here.
Raj Shah is playing eleventy-dimension chess. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Mark Sumner, Daily Kos: Project Pander: the secreat Republican Plan to split the Democratic Party
Fails mostly because Sanders voters want him in the Senate, Warren voters want her in the Senate, a Kaine nomination would not satisfy anyone (probably not even Kaine), and the rest have some VP logic to them.
The Republicans cannot split the Democratic Party, but the Clinton campaign can through high-handed treatment of Sanders delegates and voters. So far as best as has been reported the Clinton campaign has either been respectful or successful in keeping major fissures under wraps. We will know better the day after the convention in Philly.
I’m not peddling this notion but common practice in Republican circles it to project Republican practice onto the Democrats. Guess some folks are kinda pissed at the notion of Jeff Sessions representing the party as VP (nah, couldn’t be; they loved Sarah Palin).
“High-handed treatment of Sanders”? Really?
At the rate he’s going, Sanders will not be speaking at the convention, and the resentment he engenders in the party will continue to grow. He was handled with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign, and his thanks is to crap all over anyone who doesn’t worship at his altar.
Keep it up, Bernie. When you get back to the Senate, you won’t get any committee chairmanship, because the Democrats (you don’t count as one) have had it with your fuckery and selfishness. And you won’t even get to sit at the cool kids’ table.
Oh goody, this comment ought to set off a blizzard of name calling and finger pointing.
With self references. I always enjoy the referring to themselves as examples of morality and rectitude.
.
Insisting on rejecting popular platform planks and going out of the way to support fracking in the platform is the sort of high-handed and short-sighted moves intended to punish Sanders voters for abandoning the Clinton reservation. Insistent on environmental catastrophe and and slapping down labor at the convention does not help motivate Democratic voters.
Trump is merely borrowing from the rightwing playbook on how to construct lame-ass lies.
Bill Clinton earned $3.2 million/year during his five year stint as an Honorary Chancellor for Laureate. That’s a less than Zimmer earned as President of the Univ of Chicago in 2010, but more than the other highest paid Presidents of private colleges and universities. (Not that it appears that Clinton’s duties and responsibilities can be compared to those presidents.)
As the domestic students at this school (Walden U) access federal loans and grants (one hundred twenty thousand student loan borrowers as of 2015, why shouldn’t taxpayers have a say on paying $3.2 million for PR?
(Note Laureate is the success or Sylvan Learning, a franchise primary and secondary tutoring operation.)
But the serious money for this operation is in the international arena. Although they do seem to be having some difficulty completing that IPO. Lots of big name and very wealthy investors in the private operation.
Would that be the Walden University invented by Gary Trudeau?
This Walden University
Wikipedia does not mention Gary Trudeau or any relation of the name to Gary Trudeau.
More info on your question.
[2 “r”s] Trudeau.
Also too, Doonesbury went to “Walden College”, not “Walden University”.
Doonesbury’s Walden College did begin going for-profit around 2012, though, a case of art imitating life to very wicked satirical effect.
Wickedly, satirically, (presciently re: Trump U.?) funny indeed.