Community Chat

[gardenman]

 Two days with 85% wiped out means she spends two days in jail. One day will be spent going in and getting processed, one day coming out getting processed. Essentially she'll spend one night in jail. 

[GenXmuse]

I think the fact that she showed humility and contrition helped a lot. She cooperated at least, which is more than I can say for Lori. 

[sidsmom]

The Court of Public Opinion will be much, much, much harsher

than any regular judge could issue. 

[Ketra]

If it had been any one of us who couldn’t afford a top attorney, we would have gotten years in prison not days.

What goes around comes around, even if it’s not in this lifetime. No one gets away with anything.

[jackthebear]

I am not as invested in this story as some of you are

but wouldn't a better sentence be for her to pay for college for 10 or 12 kids, out of her money? 

or even more ? 

[NicksmomESQ]

  Very disappointing!! This sends a very bad message to the rest of us.If you’re rich & famous you get a slap on the wrist. She should have gotten atleast 6 months.

[Greeneyedlady21]

Not exactly a chilling effect for anyone considering doing something similar in the future.

[golding76]

Was it Cory Booker who cited this apt saying during the Democratic debate last night?

"In America, you're much better [off] if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent." 

[denisemb]

---

@jackthebear wrote:

I am not as invested in this story as some of you are

but wouldn't a better sentence be for her to pay for college for 10 or 12 kids, out of her money? 

or even more ? 

---

That's pretty much what my DH has been saying, and I agree.

Wonder how long before we hear of the new Huffman-Macy wing added to the courthouse.  (Yes, I'm bad.)

[gardenman]

---

@Johnnyeager wrote:

Lori gets her trial first, before any books can be thrown.

Keep in mind that a jury could find her not guilty.

---

I think a jury will likely acquit. The defense will be that she followed the advice she was given and didn't realize it was illegal. She didn't invent the guy who pulled the strings. He was in business before she ever came along. She'll pin the blame on whoever referred her to him, likely a school guidance counselor at her daughter's school, or another parent. She did what she was told to do and assumed it was all just how the system worked.

I'm pretty sure no one told her, "This is highly illegal and you could go to jail if you're caught." It's far more likely she was told, "This guy can help get your daughter into the school of her choice. We've worked with him before and he's a miracle worker." 

The guy who was doing the actual bribery had a legitimate-looking storefront and business. He'd been doing it for years. The wealthy tend to pay people to do everything for them, so why not pay a guy to get your kid into her dream college? 

We're in that murky area of proving criminal intent that we've heard a lot about lately in multiple federal cases. Did she act with the intent to commit a crime, or simply try to do what was best for her daughter by hiring a professional to get her into the best college? Proving criminal intent is a big challenge.