... all long overdue, the self-anointed democrat do-gooders have been saying for decades. For-profit schools draw unqualified naïve students, saddle them with high debt, and leave them with poor employment prospects. If all that is true, then why the special kid-gloves treatment for the identically for-profit modeled Laureate International which has contributed tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/23/news/clinton-laureate-university/
To Republicans, people who strive to "do good" are something to scoff at.
Good question.
Only answer is she is political Teflon. Nothing sticks to her and she never has to answer to anyone.
No matter how much shadyness is around her people still treat her as a victim and woman scorn. It's kind of amazing how much leeway she is granted.
Too bad he didn't add all the third-rate brick-and-mortar law schools that are churning out graduates with huge debt and little hope of securing employment that will be able to even service the debt on those educational loans, let alone pay any of it back.
And as far as La Clinton Nostra's high priced international school . . .that's just a move to cram the Clinton money vacuum even deeper into the pockets of the US taxpayer (most of their "efforts" are international, impossible to monitor; most of the money comes from tax dollars. A LOT of bureaucratic "wheels" are getting greased along the way.
He's starting with the worst offenders. Actually, getting conservatives to start ranting about Laureate was a key part of the strategy, because now Republicans won't want to stop until funding is cut off for Laureate, and it'll take awhile to work the way down the list of worst offenders.
