Mass College Admission Cheating Scandal

[CooterBrown 18014]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Aunt Becky is gonna be a trustees bitch for about 18-24 months somewhere.  Hopefully there'll be some video of the good parts.  TheIr attorney must be giving them some silly ass advice. 

She'll go out with chardonnay and a bottle of Xanax before she spends a night in jail.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

She'll go out with chardonnay and a bottle of Xanax before she spends a night in jail.

 

That seems a little harsh. I bet Vegas odds on that would be long.  Hell Martha survived it.  She'll go to a white collar crime facility, where she'll star in the inmates yearly production of Guys and Dolls.

[Asithappens 974]

3 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

She'll go out with chardonnay and a bottle of Xanax before she spends a night in jail.

 

She doesn't have the guts to do that.

[CDAK 216]

3 hours ago, achooloco said:

also, thats setting the two examples completely out of context and assuming they exist in a void. does anyone on here know aunt becky personally? probably not. but i don't think it is completely out of the realm of possibility to assume that her motivations are a tad bit more arrogant and entitled than joe schmo citizen who can't afford a private attorney in Tennessee...

Sure, she may be a more arrogant person - I don't know.  But our due process rights are our due process rights.  Attacking her for exercising them is perverse.

3 hours ago, Asithappens said:

 

Equating Tennesseeans to the Loughlins is quite the stretch.

Also, Loughlin has already acted in what most would describe as an arrogant and haughty manner (body language in court, signing autographs before the hearing) which was in marked contrast to Huffman. 

Loughlin and indigent criminal defendants enjoy the same due process rights.  That's the extent of the comparison.  Sure, acting in a haughty manner outside courthouses could be arrogant.  I haven't followed that drama and won't comment on it.  She's not a sympathetic defendant - I get it.  But calling her entitled and arrogant for not pleading guilty is ridiculous.

[Lhorn 4914]

“She's not a sympathetic defendant - I get it.  But calling her entitled and arrogant for not pleading guilty is ridiculous.”

I agree with this. I certainly am speaking as someone not in the know, but pleading not guilty seems to be the norm even when they are on camera committing a crime red handed. Maybe they are posturing that they are going to fight tooth and nail so that they can negotiated a better deal with the state than they could if they came from a place of weakness. Who knows.  

[Beau Vine 54231]

11 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

I just find it hard to believe that someone named Aunt Becky, from such a wholesome, family oriented show such as Full House would stoop to such actions as bribery.  I'm going full fetal position. I only hope the Olsen twins have been sheltered form this silliness.

I hope the Olsen twins make a sex video.

[Lhorn 4914]

Is it time to admit that the hope of he Olsen twins growing up to be hot, sexy twins was an abysmal failure?

[Beau Vine 54231]

33 minutes ago, Lhorn said:

Is it time to admit that the hope of he Olsen twins growing up to be hot, sexy twins was an abysmal failure?

Maybe, but I still hope they make a sex video.

[Lhorn 4914]

Ok they look pretty good there

 

i feel like there are some pics from a few years ago where hey looked kinda creepy 

[phdhorn 6224]

They don't look so good here...



But they don't give a shit.  They avoided college altogether and are apparently killing it (like, earning it and getting all sorts of awards and shit)in the fashion industry (apparently they really know what the fuck they're doing) and are worth more than King Solomon on his best stock day.

Edited April 17, 2019 by phdhorn

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

The super hero Olsen is best Olsen

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

On 4/15/2019 at 9:42 PM, Lhorn said:

I heard Mike Sorrentino (the Sitch) was doing fine in prison. Pretty cushy place. Sees his hot ass wife weekly. In a setting like that I’d take a plea that included prison time - not sure about 4 years though. 

Lots of posters in the stupid wives thread would probably go for an even longer sentence if they didn't have to see their wife weekly.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13513]

If a fed prosecutor wants a guilty plea on a case like this, isn’t the best move to wait out the defendant a few months? 

If I a defendant and I feel my crime was victimless and perhaps not even really a crime, I’m going to immediately say hell no to any jail time.  But let me go home for a couple of months and realize the extreme end of the possible jail time in a trial, and I might very well take the deal.   I’m not as indignant after some time to cool off.

on the question of the severity of the crimes, I wonder what is worse for society: bribing an SAT official or a school official? In some ways, I can see the sat being worse as the ACT and SAT are the backbone of the school admission process.  High school gpa, class rank, family connections are all subjective.  The test is the objective measure where all students are able to be measured equally.  If the test score can be bought, then the whole system falls apart.  

[Asithappens 974]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If a fed prosecutor wants a guilty plea on a case like this, isn’t the best move to wait out the defendant a few months? 

If I a defendant and I feel my crime was victimless and perhaps not even really a crime, I’m going to immediately say hell no to any jail time.  But let me go home for a couple of months and realize the extreme end of the possible jail time in a trial, and I might very well take the deal.   I’m not as indignant after some time to cool off.

on the question of the severity of the crimes, I wonder what is worse for society: bribing an SAT official or a school official? In some ways, I can see the sat being worse as the ACT and SAT are the backbone of the school admission process.  High school gpa, class rank, family connections are all subjective.  The test is the objective measure where all students are able to be measured equally.  If the test score can be bought, then the whole system falls apart.  

I don't think waiting the perp out a few months is the best move by the prosecutors if they want a guilty plea. Put the pressure on now for an immediate decision.

And as far as the person not feeling what they did was a crime? Lol at that. You go on "feeling" whatever it is you want to feel. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13513]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

I don't think waiting the perp out a few months is the best move by the prosecutors if they want a guilty plea. Put the pressure on now for an immediate decision.

And as far as the person not feeling what they did was a crime? Lol at that. You go on "feeling" whatever it is you want to feel. 

Are most federal crimes pled out within a couple of weeks of the arrest? I thought there was at least a few months if not a year.  Admittedly I don’t have experience in fed prosecutions at all, but in any negotiation it’s about getting what you want with as few risks as possible.  Why would a prosecutor want to take this to court.  If you Try to get her to plead to 5-10 years and there’s no way she’s taking that deal.  And she has the money to stretch this case out to the next US attorney in office so he would never see the win. 

Now if her side is saying no prison time, then maybe you have to come over the top.  Personally I’m still wondering if there are irs violations as well with many of these defendants. They masked these payments as charity contributions and is there any doubt their tax accountant wouldn’t have wanted to use it as a deduction. The accountant wouldn’t know it was a college bribe. 

[TwiceHorn 31486]

On 4/17/2019 at 7:31 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Are most federal crimes pled out within a couple of weeks of the arrest? I thought there was at least a few months if not a year.  Admittedly I don’t have experience in fed prosecutions at all, but in any negotiation it’s about getting what you want with as few risks as possible.  Why would a prosecutor want to take this to court.  If you Try to get her to plead to 5-10 years and there’s no way she’s taking that deal.  And she has the money to stretch this case out to the next US attorney in office so he would never see the win. 

Now if her side is saying no prison time, then maybe you have to come over the top.  Personally I’m still wondering if there are irs violations as well with many of these defendants. They masked these payments as charity contributions and is there any doubt their tax accountant wouldn’t have wanted to use it as a deduction. The accountant wouldn’t know it was a college bribe. 

In the usual case, no.  Pleas take some time.  But in the ordinary case, federal prosecutors do not hold back more serious offenses as leverage for pleas.  Their internal policies require them to charge the highest offense the evidence supports (memo posted upthread).  And they don't ordinarily take pleas for anything less than that offense (they may drop some counts or some lesser offenses, or recommend lower sentences).  And the defense may try to develop some counter-evidence or suppress some evidence, so, generally speaking, no pleas don't happen super-fast in federal cases.

[happyfunball 481]

Getting real for those not pleading guilty

[NeverMarryAStripper 21907]

Their dog better run away before he gets shot

[PilotsError 2287]

I've always enjoyed this book, "Three Felonies a Day."  I'm not saying these people are innocent, this book has nothing to do with them.  But we've been discussing the idea that there are so many laws we break multiple a day and how the Feds use their power.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Encounter-Broadsides/dp/1594032556/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3GSD68PMJV1NZ&keywords=three+felonies+a+day&qid=1555686706&s=gateway&sprefix=three+felo%2Caps%2C181&sr=8-1

[TwiceHorn 31486]

For a moment this morning, almost every story on my google feed was Lori Loughlin.

[Rimbo 25941]

On 4/16/2019 at 6:45 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Not saying that, but when the feds get involved you'd be wise take it seriously, BS or not. Seems the prudent thing to do.  

Just sitting around fishing trip campfires with a few of these guys, and you get the sense they are serious when they come after you, and have done their homework (my personal experiences with what I've heard only).

I haven't really taken a position that she was committing a crime, but based on Huffman admitting guilt it sure looks that way (if the charges are similar).  Maybe they just see her as an great target ala Bonfire Of The Vanities.

Yeah. This here. They dropped the first plea deal because they thought it wasn't serious. They thought they were dealing with a local DA, where you can bargain by playing hardball. That's where the apparent arrogance came from. They didn't demand their day in court because they were exercising their rights. They demanded it because they weren't taking the prosecution seriously.

[Brisketexan 105151]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

For a moment this morning, almost every story on my google feed was Lori Loughlin.

You must search for some VERY specific porn.

I ain't judgin'.

[Chewbacca 7780]

On 4/15/2019 at 2:59 PM, CDAK said:

What does that have to do with being arrogant and entitled?  You said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic."  Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal.  Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map.

I don't think any criminal defendant is arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  But of course, it's not always the intelligent decision to request a jury trial.  Those are two very different ideas (i.e., arrogant and entitled vs. an unwise decision).  

Brisket assumes he knows their motives, which is why he says it's arrogant and entitled.  In reality, none of us know the motivations for going the route they have.  Maybe Brisket is right, and maybe he isn't.  But none of us know at this time.

[Brisketexan 105151]

7 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Brisket assumes he knows their motives, which is why he says it's arrogant and entitled.  In reality, none of us know the motivations for going the route they have.  Maybe Brisket is right, and maybe he isn't.  But none of us know at this time.

Brisket assumed nothing.

Brisket said "IF" as literally his first word in the discussion.

Brisket hates people who refer to themselves in the third person.

Does this make Brisket self-loathing?  Maybe.

[CDAK 216]

I hope Loughlin reads this thread at some point before her jail term is up.  I think consistently and vociferously defending her moves me to the front of the conjugal visit line.  Most of you are way down the list.

[Chewbacca 7780]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Brisket assumed nothing.

Brisket said "IF" as literally his first word in the discussion.

Brisket hates people who refer to themselves in the third person.

Does this make Brisket self-loathing?  Maybe.

My bad.  I thought the post from CHIEF DIESEL was yours that originally accused them.

[Brisketexan 105151]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

My bad.  I thought the post from CHIEF DIESEL was yours that originally accused them.

Brisket is not offended.

Brisket is stuck on a conference call.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

My bad.  I thought the post from CHIEF DIESEL was yours that originally accused them.

Bad assumption ?

[Chewbacca 7780]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Bad assumption ?

touche

[Beau Vine 54231]

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

7 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

My bad.  I thought the post from CHIEF DIESEL was yours that originally accused them.

Every time I see that username I read it as CHEF DIESEL, which may or may not be a great name for a chef.  

[Underdog 28662]

17 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

touche

I like that name. 

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

14 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Is this a Loughlin family photo?

[mulletpelini 5211]

Brisky?

[Machinator 32099]

 

[Beau Vine 54231]

Maybe I'm off, but this sounds really arrogant:

Quote

Lori Loughlin and her husband Mossimo Giannulli didn’t fully grasp that their alleged bribery in the college admissions scandal was illegal, a source familiar with the case tells PEOPLE.

“You read the complaint and they look like criminal masterminds,” the source tells PEOPLE. “But they really didn’t know the legalities of what was going on. They’re not lawyers and they’re not experts. They were parents who simply wanted to make sure that their daughters got into a good school.”

The source tells PEOPLE that Loughlin and Giannulli truly believed that their actions were comparable to those of other parents who take extraordinary steps to help their their children get into upper-tier colleges.

“Calling in favors, donating money to the alumni association, hiring consultants. Those are all things that parents do,” says the source. “And so they gave money to this consultant, not entirely knowing everything that was going to be done. When it all fell apart, nobody was as surprised as they were that they were in trouble.”

The source continues, “She never intended to break any laws, and if she did, it was inadvertent.”

RELATED: Why Lori Loughlin’s ‘Only Choice’ Was to Plead Not Guilty in College Admissions Scandal

 

Olivia Jade Giannulli, Lori Loughlin and Isabella Rose Giannulli | Gabriel Olsen/Getty

More

 

The criminal complaint against them alleged the couple devised a plan to “present their younger daughter, falsely, as a crew coxswain for the L.A. Marina Club team, and requested that the Giannullis’s send an ‘Action Picture,’ asking a few days later for a picture on the ‘erg’ — or rowing machine, which Giannulli did a few days later.”

 

[DaysOff 7951]

Unless they got sideways with IRS by way of fake charitable donations, I don't give a shit about how private schools admit students. Looking at you baylor.

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

13 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Maybe I'm off, but this sounds really arrogant:

 

 

Nope, just their lawyer saying "this is the best shot you have: you have to play dumb"

They knew exactly what they were doing was illegal, why in the hell wouldn't you just help your daughter fill out her application? Oh that's right because you knew she wouldn't have gotten in without your help because you allowed her to instagram her way through high school and she didn't learn a damn thing. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31486]

9 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

Nope, just their lawyer saying "this is the best shot you have: you have to play dumb"

They knew exactly what they were doing was illegal, why in the hell wouldn't you just help your daughter fill out her application? Oh that's right because you knew she wouldn't have gotten in without your help because you allowed her to instagram her way through high school and she didn't learn a damn thing. 

 

There's the story for the jury, and that's part of it, but there's also honest services mail/wire fraud, which, thanks to Skilling, only covers "fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks by a third party who had not been deceived."  So I think that gives you an idea of the real defense:  they were deceived by Singer, also.  With Singer cooperating, that's probably not a high-percentage defense, but I guess you never know.

Then there's the money laundering, which I have always thought a bit of a stretch, but I can't figure out what they're actually charged with on that front.

 

[AUS-97HORN 11765]

 

The absolute bullshit of this article just again, goes to prove that the rich exist in a different world than the rest of us.

 

and boo-fucking-hoo

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lori-loughlin-college-admissions-scam-legacy

 

The insider added that Loughlin, 54, and husband Mossimo Giannulli didn't grasp the scope of what they were doing when they allegedly paid $500,000 for their daughters, Olivia Jade and Isabella, to get into University of Southern California (USC). “You read the complaint and they look like criminal masterminds,” the insider said. “But they really didn’t know the legalities of what was going on. They’re not lawyers and they’re not experts. They were parents who simply wanted to make sure that their daughters got into a good school.” The source claimed that Loughlin and Giannulli, 55, didn't know they were allegedly breaking any laws and believed that they were simply working with a consultant and didn't know the ins and outs of what the consultant — scam mastermind William "Rick" Singer — was reportedly doing.

This fucking defense line would be legit if these 2 idiots hadnt  done some obviously stupid shit like paying $15,000 for someone in Houston to TAKE THE ACT FOR THE GIRLS, and then had the girls pose for pictures on rowing crew boats, and you refused to let your daughters fill out their own application....

Those are  3 fucking obvious moments that your $500,000 "donation" is not a donation to the school anymore but is a way to get your borederline moronic offspring into the school.

I dont care what kind of consultant you hired, theres no way you didnt think something was way off when you gave all your daughters information to some clown in Houston (when you live in L.A.), and afterwards, your daughter suddenly has a high level ACT score taken in the Houston area.

 

Even if you wanted to claim complete innocence, no matter how much test prep you paid for, your fucking kids still have the take the god damned SAT/ACT themselves, and the fact that you knew they didnt take the test, proves you were in the scam.   even if the consultant lied to you

 

[smuggs 9353]

17 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

...borederline moronic...

That's the name of my favorite Madonna song.

[CooterBrown 18014]

53 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

This fucking defense line would be legit if these 2 idiots hadnt  done some obviously stupid shit like paying $15,000 for someone in Houston to TAKE THE ACT FOR THE GIRLS

Maybe they should've paid more for a better ACT test score then they could've ended the scam right there and never been found out.  

 

[JimmyHoffa 1188]

2 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

 

The absolute bullshit of this article just again, goes to prove that the rich exist in a different world than the rest of us.

 

and boo-fucking-hoo

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lori-loughlin-college-admissions-scam-legacy

 

 

 

 

 

This fucking defense line would be legit if these 2 idiots hadnt  done some obviously stupid shit like paying $15,000 for someone in Houston to TAKE THE ACT FOR THE GIRLS, and then had the girls pose for pictures on rowing crew boats, and you refused to let your daughters fill out their own application....

Those are  3 fucking obvious moments that your $500,000 "donation" is not a donation to the school anymore but is a way to get your borederline moronic offspring into the school.

I dont care what kind of consultant you hired, theres no way you didnt think something was way off when you gave all your daughters information to some clown in Houston (when you live in L.A.), and afterwards, your daughter suddenly has a high level ACT score taken in the Houston area.

 

Even if you wanted to claim complete innocence, no matter how much test prep you paid for, your fucking kids still have the take the god damned SAT/ACT themselves, and the fact that you knew they didnt take the test, proves you were in the scam.   even if the consultant lied to you

 

 

I actually think it proves the opposite- the rich are just as dumb criminals as the poors. 

[Asithappens 974]

10 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

This fucking defense line would be legit ....

No, it wouldn't.

It absolutely would not be a legit defense.

Jesus.

[Beau Vine 54231]

Sounds pretty arrogant...

Quote

Lori Loughlin and husband Mossimo Giannulli want to face trial in the college admissions scandal because they think it’s their best chance for redemption, a source close to them tells PEOPLE.

“Lori feels like so much damage has been done publicly that the only way for her to counter it is to fight this case in court,” the source tells PEOPLE. “She feels like once all the evidence is presented, that people will understand how things happened.”

Loughlin, 54, and Giannulli, 55, face charges of mail fraud and money laundering conspiracy. If convicted, they face up to 20 years in prison for each charge.

Attorneys for the couple were in court on Monday, entering formal pleas of not guilty of the charges against them. The couple previously turned down a plea deal — and they continue to insist that going to trial is in their best interest.

“She doesn’t want to spend time in jail,” the source says, “but she knows that any sort of plea or conviction at this point will include jail time. Her only chance of avoiding jail is to go to court and be found not guilty.”

“Everyone has seen snippets of the evidence, but there’s a lot more out there,” says the source. “When you look at it in context, you can argue that this is a woman who didn’t understand exactly what she was doing — and she was being counseled and guided by a man who this was his area of expertise. When the evidence comes out, she’ll have a case to make.”

The source adds: “At this point, if she pleads guilty, she feels like the mitigating evidence will never see the light of day.”

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by Beau Vine

[phdhorn 6224]

Yeah, having a right to trial (and exercising it) and being a sanctimonious prick(ess) can be one in the same.
Who doesn't think these two are laughably self-entitled?

[PittsburghTiger 6187]

11 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

“Everyone has seen snippets of the evidence, but there’s a lot more out there,” says the source. “When you look at it in context, you can argue that this is a woman who didn’t understand exactly what she was doing — and she was being counseled and guided by a man who this was his area of expertise. When the evidence comes out, she’ll have a case to make.”

The Source seems like a prick as well.

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

The only thing she “misunderstood” from the evil man was that she could get jail time. 

She knew her kids couldn’t row the boat, didn’t take the tests and that the $500k bribe wasn’t a tax deduction. Her ignorance was only that her actions may have real consequences. Her arrogance tells her she can pay her way out. 

[TwiceHorn 31486]

I think one thing going on here is that the Giannullis are nouveau, low-brow, "petit" riche.  They confused their ability to bribe and defraud their kids' way into college with the more legitimate methods of older, smarter money of building something or endowing a professorship or five.

That is the essential arrogance going on.

The rest of it is delusion.

A couple of articles have noted that they have received discovery from the government, that is, most** of the evidence against them.  That's the lawyer's play:  "it looks kind of bad now, but the only way to see how bad it really is is to plead not guilty, get the evidence, and see."  And there's some truth to that:  I'm sure what we've seen is the best stuff or close to it, there may be something else less damning.  That's probably worth at least another $100k.  Their lawyers are feeding off their delusion.

**worth noting here that Brady requires disclosure to the defendant of ALL potentially exculpatory evidence.  It does not require the government to disclose all inculpatory evidence.  Some prosecutors offices have an open file policy where the defendant gets literally everything the prosecution has.  Most US Attorneys offices do not, so there is always a risk that they pull a rabbit out of their hat at trial, which is yet another reason the feds have a high conviction/plea rate (their actual conviction after trial rate isn't so great, you have to throw pleas in to get to the 90% plus).

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just what sentient human doesn't understand that paying someone to take their kids ACT/ SAT is wrong, and more than likely illegal.