Community Chat

[PinkSunset]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

---

@Isobel Archer, their defense is that they were not involved in a conspiracy. They will likely not be successful with that, but that is the crux of their defense.

---

That is the technicality they are challenging.  But Lori's statements reflect what I said.  Her "moral defense" is - I really did nothing seriously wrong here - or at least it shouldn't be considered serious.

---

Being immoral is not illegal.

The Court of Public Opinion can rule on morality but having an attitude 

is not illegal.

---

I'm surprised that people still continue to seem amazed that any of the defendants mount a defense. who wouldn't? someone who commits murder can still plead not guilty and get a trial,  Are these people supposed  to just roll over and say "sentence me to jail".  I will say it again, no one ever heard of honest mail fraud before this scandal. These people did something unethical and unsavory but I am sure they didn't think it was illegal. 

[Johnnyeager]

Exactly! OJ had a trial because his legal team mounted a defense.

[dex]

@PinkSunset @Claiming the bribe money as a charitable donation is illegal and I am sure they all knew that.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@PinkSunset wrote:

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

---

@Isobel Archer, their defense is that they were not involved in a conspiracy. They will likely not be successful with that, but that is the crux of their defense.

---

That is the technicality they are challenging.  But Lori's statements reflect what I said.  Her "moral defense" is - I really did nothing seriously wrong here - or at least it shouldn't be considered serious.

---

Being immoral is not illegal.

The Court of Public Opinion can rule on morality but having an attitude 

is not illegal.

---

I'm surprised that people still continue to seem amazed that any of the defendants mount a defense. who wouldn't? someone who commits murder can still plead not guilty and get a trial,  Are these people supposed  to just roll over and say "sentence me to jail".  I will say it again, no one ever heard of honest mail fraud before this scandal. These people did something unethical and unsavory but I am sure they didn't think it was illegal. 

---

I'm not amazed at all.  Nor am I amazed that they truly believe they did nothing wrong.  And apparently some folks here don't think they did either.  Or at least nothing for which they should suffer any penalty legal or otherwise.

I still think it's funny that some are more upset with people who donate a library that benefits all students than with these folks who were only out to benefit their own - and in depriving other more deserving kids at the same time.

But then I guess that's what celebrity entitles them to - or something.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@PinkSunset wrote:

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:
I'm sort of surprised some posters don't want these parents to present a defense. If you love the Constitution you know that this is their right.

It may be ridiculous, far-fetched, but they can do it.

---

I think what grates on folks - or at least on me - is that there is no doubt whatsoever that they did what they did.  The "defense" is all about - the law really shouldn't apply to me because - I didn't know (well I did know, but didn't think it would really be applied to me), and -  I was just doing what any parent would do if they had the money and power I have.  So while I am willing to accept a slap on the wrist - and maybe even a fine, there is no way I should ever have to do any jail time.

So even if they can get off on technicalities, I hardly think this is upholding the Constitution.

---

@Isobel Archer, their defense is that they were not involved in a conspiracy. They will likely not be successful with that, but that is the crux of their defense.

---

That is the technicality they are challenging.  But Lori's statements reflect what I said.  Her "moral defense" is - I really did nothing seriously wrong here - or at least it shouldn't be considered serious.

---

Being immoral is not illegal.

The Court of Public Opinion can rule on morality but having an attitude 

is not illegal.

---

I'm surprised that people still continue to seem amazed that any of the defendants mount a defense. who wouldn't? someone who commits murder can still plead not guilty and get a trial,  Are these people supposed  to just roll over and say "sentence me to jail".  I will say it again, no one ever heard of honest mail fraud before this scandal. These people did something unethical and unsavory but I am sure they didn't think it was illegal. 

---

I'm not amazed at all.  Nor am I amazed that they truly believe they did nothing wrong.  And apparently some folks here don't think they did either.  Or at least nothing for which they should suffer any penalty legal or otherwise.

I still think it's funny that some are more upset with people who donate a library that benefits all students than with these folks who were only out to benefit their own - and in depriving other more deserving kids at the same time.

But then I guess that's what celebrity entitles them to - or something.

---

@Isobel Archer, I've read that in only one post. I don't think that it's in any way a prevailing opinion. I disagree with it, but each to his own, I guess.