So we're up to 2 students? the Yalie and the Cardinal?

Apparently USC is "thinking about it." I'm not holding my breath.

I imagine that, as the guilty pleas roll in, it will become more and more difficult for the universities in question to refrain from taking action.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
So we're up to 2 students? the Yalie and the Cardinal?

Apparently USC is "thinking about it." I'm not holding my breath.

As I mentioned a week or two ago, they telegraphed that they were prepared to do nothing. At least if the kids were under 18 at application time, which most are.

I would imagine there will be demonstrations on campus if USC decides to take no action against students who were admitted based on lies on their applications.

Some new facts.

A number of people who aren't pleading guilty were hit with new charges, including money laundering. Because that's what prosecutors do.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/me...akingnews:newsletter

Also, in the same article, it indicated that the low-end recommended jail time for Felicity Huffman will be between four and ten months. In terms of the recommended fine, it also pointed out that the amount that she paid was substantially less than what others paid.

Personally, I think Huffman is getting better legal advice than some of the others.

Ah, but these things are complicated.

It is possible that the evidence against some defendants is less robust? Isn't she one of the ones who said incriminating things in eamil, like "Ruh Roh" when the wrong proctor showed up? Perhaps some of the others covered their tracks a bit better.

Also, I imagine that the consequences of a guilty plea are more serious for some defendants than others. If you're an actress, pleading guilty won't kill you professionally (she already lost some commercial opportunities without pleading guilty). But if you're a lawyer, pleading guilty to certain things can end your legal career.

It is also possible that some defendants have their own story to tell. Like, say they asked the ringleader whether this was all legal, and he assured them that it was. Or say the defendant hired the ringleader with a self-serving email saying the payment is for tutoring and counseling, but it is important that everything be above-board.

I dunno. Wealthy, "attractive" people with no priors who committed what is in some sense a victimless crime often don't spend time in jail. The ones who haven't pled may be the smart ones. You'd at least want to see what happens when your lawyer files a motion for dismissal.

Sometimes if you are wealthy it pays to maintain your innocence come hell or high water.

Jussie Smollet and OJ Simpson can explain how that works.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

If you're an actress, pleading guilty won't kill you professionally (she already lost some commercial opportunities without pleading guilty).

And yet, one actress pleaded guilty, and one did not. So perhaps being an actress isn't what's driving the difference here.

What may be driving the difference ... the actress who pleaded guilty only paid around $15K. The one who was hit with new charges paid $500K. Also, the one who pled guilty paid someone else to do the dirty work, while the one who was hit with new charges was an active participant in the fraud (taking pictures of her child on an ergometer). I imagine those differences could have led a prosecutor to offer different deals.

quote:

Sometimes if you are wealthy it pays to maintain your innocence come hell or high water.

Jussie Smollet and OJ Simpson can explain how that works.

Fair enough, except that, in neither of those cases, were there emails and taped cell phone calls establishing guilt. And, in neither of those cases, were there cooperating witnesses who were really part of the scheme.

In any event, I imagine both the Smollet and Simpson don't think that they came away unscathed, both in terms of PR (which affects job opportunities) and in terms of the legal bills they paid. Wasn't Smollet fired from his show? I didn't see that they rehired him, but maybe they did. And isn't Rahm still after him for the city's costs, threatening potential criminal action by the city?

Would you watch anything that Jussie Smollet was in now? If I knew he was in it, I wouldn't. I just wouldn't. And I'm willing to bet I'm not the only viewer who feels that way.

My point was pretty simple: If you are rich and wealthy, maintaining your innocence can sometimes serve you better than pleading guilty. Smollett and Simpson are surely better off than if they had pled guilty, no?

As far as the evidence, we only have one-sided media accounts. The prosecutors still have to prove it all. I suspect the high-priced defense lawyers fully understand how to give their privileged clients the best chance of getting away with it.

Suggesting that the perps who have pled guilty to date are poorly represented is a bit of a stretch at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
My point was pretty simple: If you are rich and wealthy, maintaining your innocence can sometimes serve you better than pleading guilty. Smollett and Simpson are surely better off than if they had pled guilty, no?

As far as the evidence, we only have one-sided media accounts. The prosecutors still have to prove it all. I suspect the high-priced defense lawyers fully understand how to give their privileged clients the best chance of getting away with it.

Suggesting that the perps who have pled guilty to date are poorly represented is a bit of a stretch at this point.

You need to read more carefully. I said that the actress who pled guilty ... Felicity Huffman ... was well represented.

Unless you meant “not” but didn’t say so.

I meant holding out might be the better option for the wealthy and privileged. Hence my reference to OJ and Jussie.

Sorry for the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
I meant holding out might be the better option for the wealthy and privileged. Hence my reference to OJ and Jussie.

Sorry for the confusion.

But I didn’t say that the people who pled guilty were poorly served. I said they were well served.

I know it’s painful to admit you misspoke, but ... get over it.

Do you really not understand? I feel like I’m being clear, but maybe not.

You said those who plead guilty are well served.

I want to point that this not necessarily so, re OJ and Smollett. The ones who pled already might have been able get off, per privilege.

I might have misspoken along the way and said it backward. Was typing on a phone withy teeny screen.

I think we’re done here.

Meanwhile, the kids learn more from their 15 minutes of fame then they ever would for gutting out 4 years in one of these hallowed halls of higher learning.

Money well spent, I’d say.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Do you really not understand? I feel like I’m being clear, but maybe not.

You said those who plead guilty are well served.

I want to point that this not necessarily so, re OJ and Smollett. The ones who pled already might have been able get off, per privilege.

I might have misspoken along the way and said it backward. Was typing on a phone withy teeny screen.

I think we’re done here.

Yes, you misspoke. If you'd just reread what you said instead of trying to defend it, we might have avoided this little frolic and detour.

quote:

People reports that Loughlin and her fashion-designer husband Mossimo Giannulli had the opportunity to take a plea deal before the additional charges were filed, but they refused. And now, according to E! News, Loughlin is apparently “freaking out” as she’s starting to realize the severity of the situation.

* * * *

TMZ reported earlier this week that prosecutors will only accept plea deals that include prison time, but People noted that Loughlin and Giannulli resisted agreements that came with jail time. But then things got more serious: The U.S. Attorney’s office announced on Tuesday that Loughlin and Giannulli were among 16 parents indicted on additional charges, including conspiring to launder bribes and other payments for the scheme. TMZ reports that the U.S. Attorney’s office went to a federal grand jury with the additional charges after Loughlin and others refused to take a plea deal.

A source told E! News that Loughlin had been in “denial” and thought she could “skate by” without getting jail time. The source added, “She is seeing the light that she will do jail time and is freaking out.”

That sounds a lot like my guesswork.

Also, if the reports are accurate, it might not be too soon to assume that some people, such as Felicity Huffman, will see some time in jail.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/04...a0KiyTz6v2ml4Y9AlYqE