@observer12 This was what you said…
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.
No one here has to use the word “spying”. They can use any word they like here. We aren’t in a courtroom.
People - turn on C-SPAN -pretty sure @observer12 is alluding to AG Barr’s discussion/usage of “spying” - and, if I may be so bold, I believe observer’s intent is fully tongue in cheek - we really do need a sarcasm font here on CC.
LL can’t claim ignorance of the law. It may be true but isn’t a legit defense. And apparently did it twice.
And imo, a juror wont acquit just because they would’ve loved a similar cheat. I’d guess theyll be instructed to follow the law and how the case is proved.
As of today, the official position of the federal government is that it is correct and proper to refer to legal wiretaps as “spying” because using the word “spying” is a better word to use in the opinion of the federal government whenever the issue of legal wiretaps is mentioned.
So, using the Attorney General’s own preferences, we should start saying that the feds spied on Lori Loughlin (and other parents) and I think it will be interesting to see a trial when feds use the word “spying on” to describe what they did to the parents involved in this. But not to worry because the feds believe “spying” is a very good word to use from now on to describe how they gather evidence. Whether that is true may be revealed in the Loughlin trial when I assume they will use the word “spying” to describe how they gathered evidence against her.
Not claiming ignorance, but that what she did wasn’t illegal and now she wants to prove that. She gave $500k to a registered 501©3 organization that had been in operation for 20 years. That organization gave donations to educational organizations as a pass through, just like the United Way collects money and gives it away to other organizations… Nothing illegal about it.
People buy tickets to events all the time that are really donations to an organization or cause, but they get to go to the event. My sister did it for Hamilton paying much more than the face value of the ticket. A runners wants to get into the Boston Marathon but regular application spots are hard to get and a lottery. He learns he can get a spot through another organization (Firefighters Union? Jimmie Fund?) if he raises the most money (or just donates it himself). Yep, the runner gets something he wants by buying his way into the race and it’s a donation to the cause. And it’s not illegal.
@CUandUCmom Yes, I was watching C-Span and was very surprised to see Barr testifying under oath under penalty of perjury that it is now appropriate for his justice department to refer to wiretaps as “spying” because the official policy of the feds is that there is absolutely no difference in the two things.
So presumably (if Loughlin’s lawyers are smart) they will be conducting the entire trial with the feds always having to testify under oath like their boss does that the defense is absolutely correct that their evidence was gathered by spying on the Loughlins.
@CUandUCmom Not so sure considering how many times Observer has felt the need to stress that spying is the new term to be used as if semantics is going to sway us.
What Barr said is not legal precedent. Find us a link to a source that explains it as new reality.
Barr was discussing wiretaps on a particular individual who wants to rally public sentiment. It was a form of spin. Not an absolute under the law, as it stands. And he alone is not how laws are made or revised.
LL gave to a certified 501. That’s not enough defense when the purpose was currying an admit. Nor when the 501 turns out to be bogus, despite certification.
@lookingforward Why are you arguing with me? Barr himself said under oath that using the term “spying” is a perfectly correct way to describe a federal wiretap. He is the attorney general, so let’s just agree that the feds spied on Loughlin and leave it at that. It will be a good term for her lawyer to have the feds confirm in court. Did you spy on Loughlin? “yes, according to our boss we did spy on Loughlin and that’s how we gathered all the evidence.”
That seems like a very sweeping statement that giving to a certified 501 which may in turn help your child gets admitted is automatically illegal. Is that really your opinion?
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Might I “suggest” we move past the definition of any terms including, but not limited to, “spying” and “wiretap.” The conversation is getting too debate-y.
Apologies, ski. We x posted.
No worries; I deleted the x-posts.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/us/isackson-guilty-college-admissions/index.html
Authorities also say the Isacksons underpaid their federal income taxes by deducting the bribe payments as purported charitable contributions.
Today’s WSJ front page “In College Admissions Scandal, Family Paid $6.5 Million to Get Their Daughter Into Stanford”
Wow, more to come. People must be freaking out.
Since I don’t have a dog in this race, I believe that Lori Loughlin and the others who are not pleading guilty are doing a public service by taking this to court so we don’t have to speculate about what is legally a crime and what is a legal donation to get your child an admissions boost as long as he or she meets a minimal standard or what is unethical lying on an application that gets your child expelled but is not a legal crime.
I’m not a big fan of prosecutors threatening non-violent criminals with even more charges and decades in prison because they won’t plead guilty. If I am a prosecutor and I think I have the guy cold (so to speak), I would welcome a trial and a chance to prove every single misdeed those criminals did. I’d also not overlook other similar issues by seemingly sending a message to parents that “it’s fine to give bribes to coaches as long as you aren’t caught on tape because without an audio recording in which you specifically admit that you gave lots of money to the UCLA or Yale coaches or bought a coach’s house as thanks for an admissions boost or to help get an admissions boost we won’t prosecute.” I think it sends a bad message that the only way someone could ever get caught is through a wiretap (or “spying”) on a parent
@Nrdsb4 “Authorities also say the Isacksons underpaid their federal income taxes by deducting the bribe payments as purported charitable contributions.”
Yes, the Isacksons paid to have someone else take their kids’ ACT or SAT test. That’s clearly not a charitable donation when you are hiring a Harvard grad to fix your child’s test scores. It’s like Huffman and I presume those parents will all plead guilty.
The parents who only received an admissions boost for their kid in exchange for a donation they (supposedly) believed was going to an athletic fund at the university are in a different position. Donating to have someone take your child’s SAT test for her is never going to fly but donating to give your child an admissions boost might since in the first case, the money is going to a criminal willing to take a test for a student while in the second case, the money is going to a foundation or to the university’s athletic department.
Here’s a hint: if you pay a third party and hide it from the college administration and high school guidance counselor, and creatively report it to the IRS, and you arrange for photos of your kid training for a sport they don’t play all with the understanding it will “boost” admission chances, you’re on the wrong path.
I’m not sure why some are so quick to exonerate these parents when it’s so obvious what they were doing was fraudulently attempting to get their kids into colleges that they did not have the qualifications for. My wife is a presecutor and I have asked her and her colleagues how many of the defendants that come to their courthouse are guilty and without a question they say 100%. It’s not whether or not they are guilty, they all are, it’s really a question of “do they have enough evidence to convict”.
With that said, the Varisty Blues case spanned 8 years, 6 states, and 11 universities, and 50 indictments. The US Attorney isn’t going to commit substantial resources without a pretty good knowledge that multiple federal crimes were being committed.
One has to wonder what other potential cases to prosecute there were out there, much prior to this, and which will probably never be revealed.