While largely ignored by the media, the Clintons have their own university scandal. Donald Trump has been rightfully criticized and sued over his defunct Trump University. There is ample support for claiming that the Trump University was fraudulent in its advertisements and operations. However, the national media has been accused of again sidestepping a scandal involving the Clintons that involves the same type of fraud allegations. The scandal involves a dubious Laureate Education for-profit online college (Walden) and entails many of the common elements with other Clinton scandals: huge sums given to the Clintons and questions of conflicts with Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. There are distinctions to draw between the two stories, but the virtual radio silence on the Clinton/Laureate story is surprising. [I have updated the original column with some additional thoughts, links, and clarifications for readers].
Category: Media
For months, Sanders supporters have objected to what they perceive as highly biased coverage by mainstream media. The media has been condemned for its abbreviated coverage of the Clinton email scandal (including notable failures to ask follow up questions of Clinton) as well as a steady drumbeat dismissing Sanders as a serious challenger. Now, New York Times reporter Yamiche Alcindor has infuriated even non-Sanders supporters with a bizarre suggestion that Sanders is sexist for merely opposing Hillary Clinton. Despite widespread ridicule, Alcindor insists that Sanders was the one in the wrong for expressing legitimate shock at the insulting question. She later tweeted: “Some women think @BernieSanders will be standing in way of history tmrw if HRC wins & he doesn’t concede. He got testy when I asked; Oh well.”
Below is my column in USA Today on the striking similarities between Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton, particularly with regard to the staffers surrounding them. Both tended to blame others about being, to paraphrase Nixon, “kicked around.” However, there are deeper and rather disturbing patterns emerging that are shared by the two leaders in my view.
For those supporting the British exit from the European Union, a new video could not come at a better time. EU critics have argued that Britain is being ruled by five “presidents” that no one can name and Brits have little voice in selecting. As if on cue, one of those five –Luxembourgish politician Jean-Claude Juncker — appeared in public in what appears to be an inebriated state — even playfully slapping people.
Continue reading “President of EU Commission Caught Apparently Drunk in Public Event”
You may recall the controversy of a press conference at the State Department was later edited to remove an embarrassing question and answer regarding the Iran negotiations. When the exchange with Fox New Reporter James Rosen was found missing, Elizabeth Trudeau, director of the press office insisted that “Genuinely, we think it was a glitch.” Now, the State Department is admitting that it was not a glitch but an intentional editing of the transcript to remove the exchange. However, State Department spokesman John Kirby insists that they cannot determine who ordered the deletion.
We have been discussing the rollback of free speech on university and college campuses, particularly when it comes to conservatives or right-to-life advocates. As discussed recently, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulous has been the target of some of the most egregious effort to silence certain speakers and prevent other students from hearing opposing views. The latest such protest was held at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). After protesters blocked fellow students and faculty from entering to hear Yiannopoulous, campus police found an alternative avenue for the audience. However, a bomb threat was later called in and the room cleared by police. Once again, there does not appear to be outrage at the effort of students to block access to such speeches for other students and the denial of free speech on campus. I have no problem with protests but preventing speakers from being heard runs against the core values of an academic community.
I was on NPR yesterday on the Diane Rehm Show to discuss the Clinton email scandal. Appearing on the show was Brian Fallon, spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, who offered a new and rather implausible spin on the worsening scandal. Fallon said that Clinton was relying on her knowledge that Colin Powell used a personal email account as the reason that she thought her server was approved.
Continue reading “Clinton Offers New Explanation For Email Scandal”
We recently discussed the tragedy in Chile where a man sought to commit suicide by jumping into a lion enclosure at the zoo — resulting in two lions being shot and killed to protect him. Now in Cincinnati, a parent failed to properly supervise her 4-year-old son who fell into gorilla enclosure. Even though the lowland gorilla did not seem to be trying to hurt the child, he was nevertheless killed to guarantee the safety of the child. Many commentators have called for the parents to be prosecuted for the loss of Harambe.
Hillary Clinton agreed to a brief interview on the stinging rebuke found in the Inspector General Report that we discussed yesterday. The interview lacks questions on most of the contradictions that we discussed and Clinton insists that the report actually vindicates her — a truly breathtaking spin. Unfortunately, the reporter seemed to move as quickly as possible away from the report to turn to Donald Trump — with no follow up questions. However, there is a far more intriguing issue raised by the emails discussed in the report. Some of the emails revealed that Clinton believed that her personal, unsecure server had been hacked and she stated her desire to use a separate system to protect her personal emails from review — both serious contradictions to prior statements. Yet, the November 2010 reportedly was not among those turned over to the State Department. Indeed, at least three emails had not been seen before. Clinton previously insisted that all work related emails were turned over while her staff deleted personal emails.
While the New York Times has reported that the “State Department’s inspector general sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server” and “undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s previous statements”, the report did far more than criticize and undermine. It directly contradicted Clinton’s assertions on a number of key points. It further indicated not only clear violations of the State Department rules, but rules that were made clear to Clinton and her staff. (The Washington Post took a more critical view of Clinton’s statements in light of the report). Moreover, while this report deals with State regulations and rules (as well as the Federal Records Act), it does have bearing on the ongoing criminal investigation to the degree that it shows knowledge or reckless disregard of the security protocols and rules. It does show precisely that.
Remember that “historic” vote to lift the statutory ban on 9/11 families suing Saudi Arabia? Senators lined up to vote unanimously with the 9/11 families and to reject the threats of Saudi Arabia to wreck economic havoc on the United States. However, it was revealed this week that Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. added a small amendment to the bill that gave the Administration the right to bar such lawsuits. Since the Administration opposes the changing of the law, its position is quite clear. Now many are objecting that the Senate vote was knowingly misleading given the Schumer amendment.
The rapid decline of free speech in England accelerated further this month with a ruling of the British high court banning The Sun newspaper from naming celebrities involved in a sordid sex story despite the fact that all three names are widely known and discussed on the Internet and non-British newspapers. Indeed, papers like the Toronto Star have running virtually mocking accounts of Elton John, his Toronto-born husband David Furnish, and British businessman Daniel Laurence. Elton John is obviously the quintessential public figure who has participated in a wide range of stories and programs on his family life with Furnish and their children. It is a chilling example of England’s rollback on basic free speech and free press protections.
We have been discussing the bizarre situation of the two major parties nominating the two candidates with not just the highest, but unprecedented, negative numbers with voters. The presumptive nomination of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have renewed calls for reforms to challenge the control of a duopoly of power in the country. This week there are new polls showing not only that Trump and Clinton are roughly equal in the high rejection of the majority of the voters, but 58 percent say that they are considering voting for someone other than Trump and Clinton. That could be a huge boast to the Libertarian and Green candidates this election. It also may reflect the dangerous gamble of the establishment in the Democratic party in securing the nomination for Clinton.
Continue reading “Poll: 58 Percent Of Voters Considering Someone Other Than Trump or Clinton”
United States District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a remarkable opinion yesterday that found that Justice Department lawyers not only lied to him and opposing counsel but “it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.” What is even more remarkable however is that, after finding such calculated and unethical conduct, Hanen ordered the lawyers to simply take ethics classes rather than refer them to the bar for suspension or disbarment. Many attorneys object that government lawyers routinely escape serious punishment for false or misleading statements. In this case, the judge found that the Justice Department misled him and opposing counsel in a case by Texas and 25 other states that sought to block President Barack Obama’s controversial immigration programs. Hansen blocked the program. Notably, the Justice Department is even opposing ethical classes as a sanction.
It is not every recent law grad who can claim that he appeared before the state supreme court soon after graduation. Unfortunately, this is one appearance that University of Wisconsin law graduate Joshua Jarrett is unlikely to add to his resume. In a close vote, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Jarrett could be admitted to the bar so long as he is supervised for two years. Bar officials sought to block Jarrett after concluding that he had misrepresented his grades and credentials in a job application.