Actresses, prominent business owners charged in nationwide college admissions cheating scandal

[Xelor]

Because I stated that I had spent the better part of yesterday afternoon reading the FBI affidavit with the quoted taped conversations and had posted a link to that document.

You realize that post 301 isn't your post, right?

Red:
Oh, my....

 

[Xelor]

Because I stated that I had spent the better part of yesterday afternoon reading the FBI affidavit with the quoted taped conversations and had posted a link to that document.

Well, I supposed you noticed several things that are quite surprising and occasionally entertaining:

• Laura Smith's "Complaint" Affidavit:
  • 218 - At least one student as "coached" (presumably by her parents so as to seem legit) to cast herself, if asked, as a walk-on sports-team candidate.
    • I wonder what be the ratio of "walk-on" athletics candidates who were/have been "properly" admitted to schools to those who availed legerdemain to gain admittance.
  • 230 - I had to laugh -- at both the circumstances and the ironic similarity of the man's name to "hubris" -- when I read part of A. Hunees' conversation with CW-1:
    HUNEEUS And is there any risk that this thing blows up in my face?
    CW-1 Hasn’t in 24 years.
    HUNEEUS Yeah--
    CW-1 We’re not doing--
    HUNEEUS I know but but the, the, the, the environment. . . . [L]ike some article comes out that the, the--
    CW-1 Oh no.
    HUNEEUS --polo team is selling seats into the school for 250 grand.
    CW-1 Well, no, because she’s a water polo player.
    HUNEEUS But she’s not. I mean that’s what I mean--​
    
    Is there any risk? The man is the president of a winery. How did he not know even before asking the question aloud that the answer to that was "yes?" How did his business law training not inform him that he was willfully partaking in a criminal conspiracy?
    
    Well, yeah, a bunch of articles "came out," the main one in federal court, no less; it's called a criminal complaint and it charges him with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
  • Among the other folks involved:
    • Business executives
      • Toby MacFarlane
      • Elisabeth Kimmel
      • Marci Palatella (Wife of former SF 49ers player Lou Palatella)
      • Jane Buckingham, a marketing executive, in May 2018, posted this:
        
        
        
        
        
        From the complaint:
        In or about June 2018, BUCKINGHAM agreed to make a purported charitable donation of $50,000 to KWF, in exchange for which CW-1 arranged to have CW-2 take the ACT on behalf of BUCKINGHAM’s son at the Houston Test Center the following month.​
        
        You know, you just can't make this crap up...Not a whole month passed before she was cheating!

I have to say...If one is wanting for a good read, that affidavit sure is one.

 

[ClaraD]

You have proof?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

College-admissions scandal brings attention to Kushner, Trump educations - Business Insider

 

[ClaraD]

I'm still not sure why this is such a big deal. Numerous people lie on job applications, including members of Congress, and I've never heard of anyone going to jail over it.


Why is this any different?

bribery is a crime....why this is a big deal is because other students that have less money, but are better academically are being denied entrance.

 

[JasperL]

I hope Trump pardons all the parents who were looking out for their children.

Of course, because Trump might share the idea that his kids are dullards who cannot get by on merit and so it's necessary to bribe, cheat, lie to help them be successful. What are laws when your kid wants to get in a certain school - **** the law. What matters is who has the money to buy an admission! It's a nation of men, not of laws. Merit is for suckers, losers!

 

[Excon]

Of course, because Trump might share the idea that his kids are dullards who cannot get by on merit and so it's necessary to bribe, cheat, lie to help them be successful. What are laws when your kid wants to get in a certain school - **** the law. What matters is who has the money to buy an admission! It's a nation of men, not of laws. Merit is for suckers, losers!

iLOL No.
And I fully support academic merit being the only measure used. But we do not have that and many are not able to benefit because of that.

 

[JasperL]

iLOL No.
And I fully support academic merit being the only measure used. But we do not have that and many are not able to benefit because of that.

iLOL no you don't. You said you "hope Trump pardons all the parents who were looking out for their children." They weren't "looking out for them" but bribing schools to accept their dullard kids who couldn't compete on the merits, and committing crimes in the process, and while doing so taking slots from more deserving applicants.

If he pardons them, he's memorializing plutocracy, rules for thee (the proles) not for me. Or perhaps you support the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. There's nothing merit based about what the parents did.

It's true that the wealthy have other means to influence admissions, but you cannot support a merit based system while supporting pardons for parents who can't even get their stupid kids into college using those other, legal, levers like big contributions or connections or tutors or providing private school educations that spend 12 years preparing their kids just for this moment - applying to colleges.

 

[tres borrachos]

Of course, because Trump might share the idea that his kids are dullards who cannot get by on merit and so it's necessary to bribe, cheat, lie to help them be successful. What are laws when your kid wants to get in a certain school - **** the law. What matters is who has the money to buy an admission! It's a nation of men, not of laws. Merit is for suckers, losers!

In Trumpland, bribery is now "looking out for someone".

 

[Excon]

iLOL no you don't.

:lamo Wrong as usual.

You said you "hope Trump pardons all the parents who were looking out for their children." They weren't "looking out for them" but bribing schools to accept their dullard kids who couldn't compete on the merits, and committing crimes in the process, and while doing so taking slots from more deserving applicants.

If he pardons them, he's memorializing plutocracy, rules for thee (the proles) not for me. Or perhaps you support the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. There's nothing merit based about what the parents did.

It's true that the wealthy have other means to influence admissions, but you cannot support a merit based system while supporting pardons for parents who can't even get their stupid kids into college using those other, legal, levers like big contributions or connections or tutors or providing private school educations that spend 12 years preparing their kids just for this moment - applying to colleges.

Apparently you you do not understand.
What I support, solely "academic merit", we do not have and is thus irrelevant to the current issue. I am ok with pardoning them because the underlying activity there were engaged in (looking out for their children) was not illegal. Don't conflate the two things.

 

[Jack Hays]

“It’s all there: 1600 in small, marked bubbles.”​

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, so-called religious people have justified all manner of atrocities over the years. No need to go to S. Africa - just use our own history of slavery and Jim Crow, all of it justified in some form or fashion by good "Christians" in the region by cherry picking parts of the Bible.

Texas: DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC



That still doesn't explain how engaging in lies, dishonesty, deception, fraud is consistent with genuine religious faith. You said it depends on the context, and the context is this incident, so explain how a good "Christian" can justify having someone else take their child's SAT and submit it as their child's test, then to bribe coaches to say their kid is being recruited as elite athletes, sometimes when the child doesn't even participate in the sport, and all of it to rob a more deserving person out of their slot at that school.

You cannot do it, we all know you cannot, so it's hilarious you're flailing about making dumb attempts. Give it up - these schemes are/were immoral, unethical, and no religion I know of can justify this behavior as ethical. How is cheating and lying, and recruiting others to participate in a scheme rooted in cheating and lying for financial gain, doing God's will?

You are once again led astray by your assumptions. I'm agnostic myself and have no stake in the religiosity of these people. However, you said lying and dishonest behavior could not be squared with religious faith. I just pointed out they can.

 

[JasperL]

:lamo Wrong as usual.

Apparently you you do not understand.
What I support, solely "academic merit", we do not have and is thus irrelevant to the current issue. I am ok with pardoning them because the underlying activity there were engaged in (looking out for their children) was not illegal. Don't conflate the two things.

:2rofll:

I understand you're making no sense.

If it was not illegal, they won't be convicted of any crimes and there will be no need for a pardon. Let the courts decide what was legal and what was not, and let those decisions stand. Problem solved. eace

BTW, moving the goal posts to "looking out for their children" is pretty hilariously dishonest in this context. What if I "look out for my children" by selling cocaine and using the money to pay for tuition at a private school? Should I not be punished because the ends justify the means? How far do you want to take this stupid principle? Or maybe the principle is if you're wealthy, laws don't apply to you? Not sure, but you're making no sense.

 

[Excon]

In Trumpland, bribery is now "looking out for someone".

When the underlying activity is legal? Of course it is.

I spoke directly to the parents charged with mail fraud.
I suppose someone helping Russia sew discord wouldn't understand that.

'Affirmative action for the rich:' Wealthy parents use their privilege to game the college system. And it's perfectly legal​

 

[Excon]

:2rofll:

I understand you're making no sense.

If it was not illegal, they won't be convicted of any crimes and there will be no need for a pardon. Let the courts decide what was legal and what was not, and let those decisions stand. Problem solved. eace

BTW, moving the goal posts to "looking out for their children" is pretty hilariously dishonest in this context. What if I "look out for my children" by selling cocaine and using the money to pay for tuition at a private school? Should I not be punished because the ends justify the means? How far do you want to take this stupid principle? Or maybe the principle is if you're wealthy, laws don't apply to you? Not sure, but you're making no sense.

So you know not of what you speak and are only operating on emotion? Figures.
I spoke to the underlying activity. Going after them for mail fraud is absurdity.

'Affirmative action for the rich:' Wealthy parents use their privilege to game the college system. And it's perfectly legal​

 

[JasperL]

You are once again led astray by your assumptions. I'm agnostic myself and have no stake in the religiosity of these people. However, you said lying and dishonest behavior could not be squared with religious faith. I just pointed out they can.

As usual you assert your conclusions and somehow believe "I SAID SO!" demonstrates your point. It doesn't. If you'd like to address this simple question, have at it:

"How is cheating and lying, and recruiting others to participate in a scheme rooted in cheating and lying for financial gain, doing God's will?"

 

[Jack Hays]

As usual you assert your conclusions and somehow believe "I SAID SO!" demonstrates your point. It doesn't. If you'd like to address this simple question, have at it:

"How is cheating and lying, and recruiting others to participate in a scheme rooted in cheating and lying for financial gain, doing God's will?"

That was not your original proposition. I don't respond to mobile goal posts.

 

[Jack Hays]

As usual you assert your conclusions and somehow believe "I SAID SO!" demonstrates your point. It doesn't. If you'd like to address this simple question, have at it:

"How is cheating and lying, and recruiting others to participate in a scheme rooted in cheating and lying for financial gain, doing God's will?"

Your #215:

But this was criminal, fraud, cheating, dishonesty. I'd like to thing there's a contradiction between that and genuine religious faith.

My reply is to point out that when confronted by an immoral regime, "fraud cheating and dishonesty" can be not only excused but actually demanded by religious faith.

 

[JasperL]

So you know not of what you speak and are only operating on emotion? Figures.
I spoke to the underlying activity. Going after them for mail fraud is absurdity.

You said it wasn't illegal. Let's let the courts figure that out. These wealthy people can hire good lawyers - if the charges are absurd they will be exonerated. Or don't the laws apply to the wealthy and you cannot trust the courts?

I'm not interested in your new goal posts of the legal ways to game the system. Ignored.

 

[JasperL]

Your #215:

But this was criminal, fraud, cheating, dishonesty. I'd like to thing there's a contradiction between that and genuine religious faith.

My reply is to point out that when confronted by an immoral regime, "fraud cheating and dishonesty" can be not only excused but actually demanded by religious faith.

What's immoral about the regime of applying for colleges that would justify a person of faith lying, cheating, bribing their kids' way into school, and engaging others in their scheme, all in the pursuit of money and fame and unearned privilege? What is it about religious faith in this case that "demands" such immoral and illegal actions?

 

[Jack Hays]

What's immoral about the regime of applying for colleges that would justify a person of faith lying, cheating, bribing their kids' way into school, and engaging others in their scheme, all in the pursuit of money and fame and unearned privilege? What is it about religious faith in this case that "demands" such immoral and illegal actions?

I didn't say there was. I merely responded to your unlimited claim.

 

[Excon]

You said it wasn't illegal.

And as I told you I am speaking of the underlying act not being illegal. That is why the mail fraud charge is ridiculous and they should be pardoned if found guilty.

Let's let the courts figure that out. These wealthy people can hire good lawyers - if the charges are absurd they will be exonerated. Or don't the laws apply to the wealthy and you cannot trust the courts?


I'm not interested in your new goal posts of the legal ways to game the system.

So clearly you do not understand what was argued.

 

[JasperL]

That was not your original proposition. I don't respond to mobile goal posts.

I think it's pretty obvious that my original proposition was directly related to the facts of this case, the OP, and not every possible case in the history of thousands of religions for all of time.

For example, yes, it was criminal, fraud, dishonest to hide Jews during the holocaust, and people of faith that did so were operating within the confines of their faith to act against an immoral regime. But if that's the example, of course anyone can place their actions within the Christian or Jewish faiths, and explain WHY such "criminal, fraud, cheating, dishonesty" was doing God's will - saving people from slaughter. Same thing for those involved in the underground railroad in this country.

But I was obviously not making a statement about those cases, but the topic of the OP, and on that I still want to know: "How is cheating and lying, and recruiting others to participate in a scheme rooted in cheating and lying for financial gain, doing God's will?"

If your point is that I was too broad or you interpreted my comment over broadly, fine. We'll leave it here, but when discussing the OP, it's safe to assume comments relate to the OP, not unidentified facts from 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years ago.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think it's pretty obvious that my original proposition was directly related to the facts of this case, the OP, and not every possible case in the history of thousands of religions for all of time.

For example, yes, it was criminal, fraud, dishonest to hide Jews during the holocaust, and people of faith that did so were operating within the confines of their faith to act against an immoral regime. But if that's the example, of course anyone can place their actions within the Christian or Jewish faiths, and explain WHY such "criminal, fraud, cheating, dishonesty" was doing God's will - saving people from slaughter. Same thing for those involved in the underground railroad in this country.

But I was obviously not making a statement about those cases, but the topic of the OP, and on that I still want to know: "How is cheating and lying, and recruiting others to participate in a scheme rooted in cheating and lying for financial gain, doing God's will?"

If your point is that I was too broad or you interpreted my comment over broadly, fine. We'll leave it here, but when discussing the OP, it's safe to assume comments relate to the OP, not unidentified facts from 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years ago.

Your point was too broad and I interpreted it as written.

 

[JasperL]

And as I told you I am speaking of the underlying act not being illegal. That is why the mail fraud charge is ridiculous and they should be pardoned if found guilty.

Again, if the underlying act isn't illegal and you define that to be "(looking out for their children)" then selling cocaine to fund college should also be pardoned, same with stealing cars, robbing banks - the ends justify the means. I don't agree!

 

[JasperL]

Your point was too broad and I interpreted it as written.

Fine, I award you a gold star for stubbornly and deliberately missing the obvious point to prevail in a debate on semantics! :applaud

So we agree, the behavior in THIS case cannot be squared with sincerely held religious faith, because it cannot be argued to be advancing god's will.