Posted on 04/10/2019 4:00:07 AM PDT by C19fan
In the weeks since Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin were named in the high-profile college admissions cheating scandal, they have been working with their legal teams to determine what their next move should be. Huffman agreed to plead guilty on Monday, saying, “I am in full acceptance of my guilt, and with deep regret and shame over what I have done, I accept full responsibility for my actions and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
A plea deal is usually a gift from God.
Because you NEVER want to trust other folks with your future.
Unless you have OVERWHELMING evidence that you’re innocent.
Or your that guy Smollett. But then you just get your case thrown out anyway.
Maybe she has an “in” with a local Kim Foxx...
The rules are different for celebrities. Juries are a selected set of the public, and we know the public is fickle and easily manipulated. She only needs to flip ONE juror, and she’s acquitted.
She can afford the best in jury selection, argument, pre-trial motions, and so on.
OJ got off.
Plus, she probably feels she did nothing wrong. I suspect this sort of “buying special treatment” is garden variety common between the well-heeled and academia. The system is crooked, and why shouldn’t she take advantage of that?
lol
Yeah that costs a lot of money and if you have it you are in MUCH better shape than one of us.
My friend defended Gotti Jr. on his fourth trial and he said the feds have unlimited money to throw at cases.
Don’t know if it’s true at other levels but if it is, you do need bucks to go to trial.
The most these people will “serve” is a short, token stint in a high-end hotel masquerading as a minimum-security facility. Celebs and liberal politicians glide above the reach of the justice system that rules over the rest of us.
I am not surprised by the two defendants refusing to accept the consequences of their actions. It seems in keeping with their view of the world - the rules don’t apply to them. They may believe that with their celebrity no jury will convict them. I think they are mistaken. In my view, the jury will dislike them for their wealth and arrogance, and will be angry at how they used their wealth to deprive two unknown students of a chance to attend USC. By refusing to plead guilty, the defendants will not be given any credit for acceptance of responsibility, and for saving the government the time and effort needed to prepare for trial. In addition, the money laundering charge is a much more serious offense than wire or mail fraud. For sentencing purposes, the advisory range of imprisonment starts at a substantially higher level than an ordinary fraud. A bad decision all the way round.
I agree.
When did this turn into money laundering!?!
What are they working for the Gambinos? :)
I assume the donated money was somehow washed.
I stopped following this a week or so ago.
I read yesterday she has additional charges in which she would face up to 40 years and that she’s had an arrogant attitude about the whole thing, and she rejects a plea deal that would have gotten her probably a year served? Bwa ha ha, oh man is she effed. Who does she think she is, Hillary? Honey, you need to steal FBI files first.
What will happen is it will be drawn out with continuances until the defendants are old and gray or they can find some sort of Liberal reason to let them off, not to mention mistrials, i doubt any of them will ever see prison time.
What happens is the feds cherry pick targets, and (lower case) god forbid you draw an honest prosecutor. It becomes personal. Law is a ADVERSARIAL process, so by definition, the government becomes your adversary. How many of these “bribe your way into college” instances do you imagine exist? I would think thousands. Are they all going to be charged? Hahahahah. Fat chance. The government has picked these targets, hoping to stifle certain common conduct.
Another slick trick is to find a judge sympathetic to your side of the war. There is a huge space of “acceptable” judicial practice. What I mean is pick a case, any case. Now imagine that case with a judge who is sympathetic to defendant, and skews all evidentiary, jury selection, etc. calls in defendant’s favor. Imagine in contrast, hostility toward the defendant - not open hostility, but calling all the shots in the prosecutor’s favor. Chances of EITHER approach being reversed on appeal is close to zero.
In this sort of case, justice is pretty much “random,” but money, power and celebrity always talks. The rule of law is not really much different from rule of the jungle. The powerful have HUGE advantage.
The problem I have with this.....( and YES cheating is cheating)......I have never seen Lori Loughlin in anything smarmy, vile, or salacious.....
....she always appears, IMO, wholesome, winsome and upholding family values
So how is it she’s the face.....the whipping boy who gets the most publicity......out of hundreds who did the same thing?
“Plus, she probably feels she did nothing wrong.”
I think that’s partially true. She probably knows it was bad, but not TOO bad. There’s an excellent chance a jury will be kind to her. All her attorney has to do is bring in to evidence all the rich kids who were admitted because their parents made donations such as buildings to colleges. A jury won’t see the difference.
The money laundering part could be a big problem, for her though. Going through that middle man’s phony charity might make the difference.
One other thought. In a celebrity case, a good PR campaign can shine positive light one way, and negative the other.
Call out the prosecutor for selective prosecution. Accuse the prosecutor of personal animus. rais the issue in court of public opinion, attempt to taint the jury pool. You only need ONE juror to side with you. Just ONE.
Argue “what parent doesn’t want every advantage for their child?” I bet MILLIONS of parents help their kids cheat, one way or another. We are a fundamentally dishonest species, and no amount of law will change that.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/
https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=lawreview
Yep, she’s crazy. I read yesterday she’s facing a total of 40 years on additional charges and she rejects a plea in which she probably would have served a year if that?? Like you said, unless she has overwhelming evidence of being innocent, she just signed her own death warrant. Her lawyer needs to slap her upside her head. I read in another article she’s been very arrogant about it, showing up in court sitting with her arms crossed making sounds of disgust “How dare they charge me!” ...She’s setting herself up for a world of sh*t especially if the judge decides to make her an example.
She’s acting.
She’s in actress, you know.
In real life, she’s an accused criminal.
The kids knew what was going on. Their school counselor was suspicious. They are trying now to protect their kids.
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.