09-03-2019, 11:03 PM
Plus ça change
09-03-2019, 11:07 PM
09-04-2019, 05:01 AM
But this version is much better as I can read the Bloomberg article, not the WSJ.
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
But this version is much better as I can read the Bloomberg article, not the WSJ.
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
09-04-2019, 05:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2019, 05:34 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(09-04-2019, 05:01 AM)CTcard Wrote: But this version is much better as I can read the Bloomberg article, not the WSJ.
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
I had the same question when seeing the defense was not that payments weren't made, but that it is standard practice to make them.
I'm not familiar with the indictments/law enough to know, but could it be the payola is one charge and the hiring surrogates to take tests is another, so the defense is trying to defeat one of the charges by exposing USC's secret, and maybe they plead guilty to the other?
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2019, 05:34 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(09-04-2019, 05:01 AM)CTcard Wrote: But this version is much better as I can read the Bloomberg article, not the WSJ.
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
I had the same question when seeing the defense was not that payments weren't made, but that it is standard practice to make them.
I'm not familiar with the indictments/law enough to know, but could it be the payola is one charge and the hiring surrogates to take tests is another, so the defense is trying to defeat one of the charges by exposing USC's secret, and maybe they plead guilty to the other?
09-04-2019, 07:32 AM
(09-04-2019, 05:01 AM)CTcard Wrote: But this version is much better as I can read the Bloomberg article, not the WSJ.
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
Weird, I don’t have a subscription to the WSJ, so I’m not sure why I was able to see it (but others couldn’t).
BC
(09-04-2019, 05:01 AM)CTcard Wrote: But this version is much better as I can read the Bloomberg article, not the WSJ.
I have to admit I am a little confused by the legal theory for the defense. It seems to be that since U$C gives admissions breaks to some kids whose families donate large sums of money, then it should be legal to hire people to pose as their kids to take tests or to bribe coaches to provide fake credentials for admissions. Why are those related items?
Weird, I don’t have a subscription to the WSJ, so I’m not sure why I was able to see it (but others couldn’t).
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »