@northwesty "It is possible that he was to Harvard fencing like Phil Knight is to the Oregon Ducks or T. Boone Pickens is to the OSU Cowboys. "
Did Phil Knight and T Boone Pickens donate to a foundation that immediately directed money to a coach’s newly formed non-profit the year their kids hoped for athletic tips? Did either of them purchase a coach’s home for hundreds of thousands more than it was worth, and then sell it soon after at a big financial loss, the same year their kids hoped for athletic tips?
The Harvard fencing coach might have been (barely) justified with forming a nonprofit for the sole purpose of receiving a $100,000 donation that came from a foundation via a fencing recuit’s dad and then disbanding that nonprofit 2 years later. But when that coach sold his house to that same dad for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than its value, he has overstepped beyond plausibility and I admit I am truly amazed to hear people trying to create scenarios where that would not be grounds for immediate dismissal by the university. I think it is laughable that Harvard is still trying to decide whether it’s wrong or not for a recruit’s dad to overpay (by hundreds of thousands of dollars) for a coach’s home as a “favor” or “gift”. Would any other university hear of such a thing and not already have fired the coach?
@Scipio. I don’t understand why anyone would work if they had $6.5 million to get into a college.??. Whats the point? Geez, I could live very well off that interest. ?.
@northwesty “Since Harvard didn’t do what every other school did, Occam’s razor says the circumstances are not as clear cut to them (or me) as they are to you.”
Occam’s razor would say that Harvard didn’t fire the fencing coach because Harvard does not think there is anything wrong with the dad of a recruit buying a house from the coach of the sport his son competes in for more than $300,000 over market rate.
Problem is she’s not like a great actress. What does she think like she’s going to do on the stand? Maybe she’ll flip on the husband… Lol… Well it’s a theory.
Loughlin got lucky. Now she and her husband can explain they were the victim of “spying” – which is the new word that the feds must use to describe all wiretaps that they use. I wonder if that will help Loughlin and her husband with the jury who now will hear the feds testifying under oath that yes, they spied on Loughlin. In fact, the entire feds undercover admissions case rests on what the feds now must always call spying, so it will be interesting to hear in trial explaining why they felt they needed to spy on Americans.
But what is new is that the feds official themselves apparently now prefer to refer to it as “spying” and won’t use the term “wiretaps” because they feel “spying” is more legally accurate. It will be an interesting trial when Loughlin’s attorneys make sure the feds only use their now-preferred word of “spying” when discussing it. As in “we spied on Lori Loughlin and found out she was concerned about USC finding out her daughter had lied about being an athlete but when we spied on her we also learned that she wasn’t bothered at all about the IRS finding out.” Or “this came about when we decided to spy on Lori Loughlin and her husband”.
Also, I’m amused you are taking the comment so seriously. Although I do think that when the feds have to say in open court that they “spied” instead of using the term “wiretap”, it might make the jury a bit more sympathetic toward Loughlin.
For the record, I am not serious but I do think it will be interesting if defendents now force the feds to always affirmatively answer the question: “We you spying on Lori Loughlin?” and their answer must always be “yes, we did spy on her”.
@lookingforward. I already knew the law since I DO watch Law and Order and like every variation of it. Hmmm. Should qualify me as a junior lawyer or something… Also that’s where the idea of flipping on the husband came from… ?.
I find it hard to believe that any jury is going to see Loughlin as someone to have sympathy for unless it truly is a jury of her peers (which it won’t be).
A link would be nice, observer.
The word used does not change the actions reported and that she’s indicted for. This isn’t the Cold War era. They pick jury who won’t melt at one word.
Are you seriously envisioning a jury freaking at the idea they wiretapped? In this day and age where our movements are tracked via cell?
I say we focus on what is. That’s been hard enough on this thread.
They did not “wiretap” – that word isn’t what the feds believe is the best word. I believe it is the official position from the feds that the word “spy” be used instead of “wiretap”. So please do the same.
“Are you seriously envisioning a jury freaking out at the idea they spied?” I don’t know. But if I were a defendant I would certainly be glad that the feds now had to always characterize all the evidence they gathered as “spying”.
“Federal prosecutors are pursuing a new set of parents in the college admissions fraud scandal, sending ripples of fear through elite circles in Southern California and stirring speculation about which well-heeled executive or celebrity might be the next to be charged.”
@collegemom9 “You don’t get to be the judge and determine the words people use.”
Say what? I don’t want to determine anything. I was simply pointing out that as of today, official fed policy is to refer to “wiretaps” only as “spying” because this is now considered the appropriate word. And my comment is about how juries will feel when the feds do what they are now expected go do as per their boss and only use the term “spying” when they talk about how they gathered evidence against the accused. I think most defendants would be very happy that the feds now only say “spying” is how they gathered evidence. If you disagree, take it up with the Attorney General, not me : )
The feds gathered evidence by spying on Loughlin. That is now a fact that is indisputable. But since “spying” has no negative connotations at all, the feds prefer to use the word “spying” now.
I think LL and hubby have a good chance. They were following the advice of an expert at getting their child into college and it worked for DD#1 so why not do it for DD#2? Why is getting a spot at college different than getting a spot at the country club where you donate a huge amount up front? How is the expert beefing up the application different than a headhunter beefing up a resume, or an actor getting their photos airbrushed?
This is how they’ve been getting into clubs, on teams, roles their entire lives. It’s how ‘everyone’ does it. I don’t think it is unusual to give a big donation up front and that’s what LL is going to claim, that they went to an expert on getting into college, they followed his instructions, and it worked.
I think a lot more jurors will identify with LL than you think. These won’t be Hollywood jurors but Boston jurors (or NH or Maine (not sure how big that judicial district is). They may be people who had/have kids they wanted to send to Harvard or Dartmouth and think others do take advantage of connections to have a chance against all the legacies and old money.
What LL has going for her is that they didn’t cheat on the tests. She can claim she thought this was the system, that Singer was the expert and she was doing what he told her to.
A warrant may not have been necessary if Singer agreed to tape the phone calls. I think California is a 'one party ’ permission state.