Posted on 04/25/2019 1:59:05 AM PDT by Libloather
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.”
**SNIP**
“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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at people.com ...
I agree. the guy who took their money is to blame, not them.
The Costanza Defense. Works on television.
Paying to get their daughters into school isn’t their biggest problem; the tax fraud scheme is (and I don’t see how they get out of that).
it’s NEVER an excuse.
And I have a feeling they had a clue.
But it sure could sway a jury.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would have done the same thing as these parents, if they were in similar circumstances. Finding a jury of twelve people who all would NOT have done this could be very challenging.
A very wise man told one of the Bush kids about how celebrity men going around grabbing a handful of pu$$y any time they want. I wonder if the young Bush finally understands what the wise man was talking about?
They hired James Comey as their lawyer: no intent.
Oh, well, nevermind then...
Are college tuitions tax deductible?
[Quote] You may be able to deduct qualified education expenses paid during the year for yourself, your spouse or your dependent. ... The qualified expenses must be for higher education. The Tuition and Fees Deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. [Unquote]
[Tax Benefits for Education: Information
IRS.gov › newsroom › tax-benefits-for-e...]
Spend a small fortune for a tax deduction?
Would these idiots be in violation and be considered for tax fraud?
Now there is a fine mess they have gotten themselves into.
They are working the court of public opinion.
I think they’ll crush the prosecution in a trial. You wash my hand, I wash yours is fairly common in everyday life. That’s why the typical target for honest services fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud isn’t generally the people seeking favors, but the people receiving consideration for granting favors. University staff aren’t government employees. Even Supreme Court justices (including the late great Scalia) have said that this kind of conduct is vaguely unethical, but not exactly the stuff of a Federal case. Meanwhile, the far left never-Trump front group misnamed Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington thinks honest services fraud prosecutions are a great thing.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington/
Nevertheless, prosecutors must still prove all the elements of mail fraud or wire fraud in a case regarding a scheme to defraud of honest services.[22]
The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the statute, stating that the clause was so poorly defined that it could be the basis for prosecuting “a mayor for using the prestige of his office to get a table at a restaurant without a reservation.”[24]
In The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, investigative journalist Gary S. Chafetz argued that honest-services fraud is so vague as to be unconstitutional, and that prosecutors abused it as a tool to increase their conviction rates.[25] Bennett L. Gershmann, a professor at Pace University Law School, similarly has contended that the law “is not only subject to abuse...but has been abused.”[26] The case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is often cited as an example of possible prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of the honest services law.[26]
Many interest groups oppose the usage of the honest services law, including the conservative United States Chamber of Commerce and Washington Legal Foundation, as well as the more liberal National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.[26] One notable proponent of the law is the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.[26][27][28] ]
Stupidity is no excuse.
I don’t underestimate the power of some very expensive lawyers who are writing the narrative now.
I don’t mean it wholly as their daughter really isn’t JC material and had no intention of applying herself and excelling in college.
Good thing she has that gig with Sepbora to fall back on...oh wait...
A lack of criminal intent may be a defense or may sometimes be used in mitigation.
And when they head to the slammer, just tell them they’re playing a role in an extended reality series - maybe they won’t realize that’s not the case either.
Such BS. They knew and the girls knew that they were doing something illegal.
To get this assertion before a jury, they would have to testify which would waive their fifth amendment rights and open them to cross examination. While it might be a good public relations move, I am no so sure about it as a legal strategy.
This is a good point. Why are some people demanding that Lori Loughlin play the college admissions game straight when the entire system is racist against whites and legal American citizens? IMO, Lori Loughlin won't do a day in jail and I'm OK with that. Expose the entire mess or move on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.