- As promised last month, actress Felicity Huffman has now pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud.
- Huffman admitted to paying $15,000 to have her daughters SAT scores boosted and says her daughter knew nothing of the scheme.
- The conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, but prosecutors are recommending a four-month prison term, a $20,000 fine, and 12 months of supervised release.
Huffman Admits Guilt
Actress Felicity Huffman pleaded guilty in a Boston courtroom on Monday for her involvement in the massive college admissions scandal dubbed Operation Varsity Blues.
The “Desperate Housewives” star pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud. Huffman had previously promised to enter a guilty plea after admitting she paid admissions consultant William Rick Singer $15,000 to have a proctor correct her oldest daughter’s answers on the SAT. Huffman allegedly considered doing the same for her younger daughter, but later decided against it.
Huffman became emotional in court as she explained to the judge that her daughter knew nothing about the scam to improve her score. Huffman also claimed that her daughter’s accommodation for more time on the test was legitimate and assured the judge that her daughter’s neuropsychologist, who had treated her daughter since she was 8-year-old, was also not involved in the cheating scheme.
“Everything else” that prosecutors accused her of doing, she said, “I did.”
“I am in full acceptance of my guilt, and with deep regret and shame over what I have done, I accept full responsibility for my actions and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions,” she said in a statement last month. “I am ashamed of the pain I have caused my daughter, my family, my friends, my colleagues and the educational community,” she continued.
Experts believe that Huffman is hoping her plea and apology will help her earn a lenient sentence. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. However, prosecutors are recommending a four-month prison sentence. They are also recommending a $20,000 fine and 12 months of supervised release.
Huffman’s sentencing is scheduled to take place on September 13.
Huffman is one of 50 people charged in the bribery scam involving wealthy parents, test proctors, college coaches, and more. At least 20 people, including Huffman, have now pleaded guilty or have announced that they intend to.
Another parent, Los Angeles businessman Devin Sloane, also pleaded guilty on Monday during a joint court hearing, but he is likely facing a longer sentence. According to prosecutors, Sloane paid $250,000 in bribes, disguised charitable donations, to help get his son recruited as a student-athlete on the Waterpolo team and the University of Southern California. His son was never a competitive player.
Sloane even purchased water polo gear on Amazon, including a ball and a cap, and gave it to his son to wear during a photo shoot. He later had photos doctored to make it appear as if the student was in the water during a game.
Guidance counselors became suspicious, so arrangements were then made to have someone at USC tell the director of admissions that the student played in summer water polo tournaments abroad, in places like Greece, Serbia, and Portugal.
Prosecutors are recommending a year in prison and $75,000 in fines for Sloane.
The person making the corrections on Huffman’s daughter’s test has also pleaded guilty.
Meanwhile, others involved in the corruption scandal have chosen to plead not guilty, including the exam proctor who allegedly allowed Huffman’s test score scam to happen.
The parents at the forefront of the scandal, actress Lori Loughlin and her husband fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, are also fighting the charges. The parents are accused of paying $500,000 in bribes to get their daughters, 19-year-old Olivia and 20-year-old Bella, admitted to the University of Southern California, as recruits for the crew team, even though neither of them participated in the sport.
After declining to enter a guilty plea, Loughlin and Giannuli were hit with a second count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. They could face up to 40 years in prison—a maximum of 20 years for each of the charges.
See what others are saying (NPR) (Fox News) (New York Times)
Nearly 700,000 People to Lose Food Stamp Aid Under New Policy
- A new rule was finalized on Wednesday that tightens work restrictions for the federal food stamp program.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 688,000 people will be cut from the program when the rule takes effect next year.
- Those in favor of the change argue that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs, while critics say it will hurt them more than it will help them.
Trump administration finalized a new rule that could remove almost 700,000 people from the federal food stamp program. The rule, announced in a press release on Wednesday, creates stricter work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) final rule promotes work for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents,” the press release said.
Under current regulations, this demographic can receive three months of SNAP benefits throughout a three year period, unless they work or undergo professional training for at least 20 hours a week.
States have had the ability to waive this time limit to account for economic turbulence, and counties with unemployment rates as low as 2.5% were eligible for these remissions. The new rule will make 6% the minimum unemployment rate to qualify for these waivers, according to the Washington Post.
It will take effect on April 1, 2020.
Impact on Americans
While the USDA originally estimated that up to 750,000 people would be cut from SNAP with this change, now they have adjusted that number to 688,000.
The finalized regulation is the first of three proposed measures to limit access to the federal food stamp program. A new study by the Urban Institute found that if the other two rules are approved, nearly 4 million people would lose access to food benefits.
After the new rule was proposed in February, there was an abundance of public comments imploring the administration not to go through with it.
But the USDA was not swayed and held strong in their argument that SNAP should be a form of temporary assistance instead of a long-term lifestyle.
“Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream,” said Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture. “We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”
Those who support the rule are optimistic that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs.
“The changes reflect the belief that more Americans can enter and reenter the workforce,” Brandon Lipps, the USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary, told the Washington Post. “So they can know the dignity of work.”
Critics of the change were extremely disappointed upon the news of the rule’s finalization, deeming it a step in the wrong direction.
“The Trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the Christmas season approaches,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Wednesday. “It is heartless. It is cruel. It exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this administration.”
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on nutrition, released a press statement on Wednesday after hearing the news.
“The Administration refuses to take an honest look at the people they are targeting with this rule and what challenges they face that contribute to their hunger…” she said. “…Instead of considering hungry individuals and their unique struggles and needs, the Department has chosen to paint them with the broadest brush, demonizing them as lazy and undeserving.”
See what others are saying: (New York Times) (NPR) (NBC)
Melania Trump Blasts Law Professor for Dropping Son’s Name in Impeachment Testimony Joke
- Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan made a joke referencing President Donald Trump’s son in her impeachment hearing testimony on Wednesday.
- Melania Trump criticized Karlan on Twitter for bringing her child into a political matter.
- Some condemned Karlan while others thought her wordplay was harmless.
- Many Twitter users called the FLOTUS hypocritical for defending her child but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experiencing inhumane treatment at the border.
Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor, dropped a controversial joke while testifying in the ongoing impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday.
While explaining the difference between the POTUS and a king, she used a play on words with the name of his teenage son, Barron.
“The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility,” Karlan said. “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
Karlan’s joke received a scattering of laughter around the room, including a chuckle from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who posed the question of how the president compares to royalty.
Melania Trump took to Twitter to defend her son, condemning Karlan’s name-dropping comment.
“A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics,” the first lady wrote. “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”
Karlan was put on blast by other prominent figures for her mention of the president’s son. Vice President Mike Pence called her joke a “new low.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida who strongly supports the president, chastised her directly on the floor Wednesday.
“Let me also suggest that when you invoke the President’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument,” he said. “It makes you look mean.”
The Trump campaign released an official statement on the topic.
“Only in the mind of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old into the impeachment nonsense,” National Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.
Later in the day, Prof. Karlan apologized for her remarks, but not without mentioning that she wishes Donald Trump would also admit to his faults.
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” she said during her testimony. “I wish the president would apologize obviously for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”
Defense of the Professor
While some were outraged by Karlan’s play on words, others spoke up to defend her, deeming the joke harmless.
It was NOT the minor child she was referencing.— Linda Kemp (@LindaLarsonKemp) December 5, 2019
It was INSTEAD the father’s delusions of royal grandeur in his naming of the child—the monarchical mindset & legacy the Framers were establishing specific guardrails against.
Barron you’re not the issue. Your dad’s the issue.
Some Twitter users criticized the FLOTUS for being quick to defend her own son but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experience inhumane treatment at the border.
Your husband attacked a 16 year old climate activist for her views on climate change. Your husband separates children from their parents at the border and locks them in cages. #BeBestMyAss #shutupmelania— PitStainPeter (@PitStainPeter) December 5, 2019
Hey @FLOTUS nothing negative was said about your son, I watched every minute. If you are so concerned with minor children then why haven’t you done anything about #KidsInCages! This rule applies to all kids everywhere not just your son!— FloridaDem (@MarilouGeorge) December 5, 2019
George Zimmerman Sues Trayvon Martin’s Family for $100M, Citing Defamation
- George Zimmerman is suing Trayvon Martin’s parents, their lawyer, and a publishing company for $100 million, citing defamation relating to the 2013 case involving Martin’s shooting.
- The lawsuit cites a documentary titled The Trayvon Hoax, which accuses Martin’s parents of falsifying testimony.
- Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin’s parents, called the lawsuit unfounded and reckless.
The man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin is now suing Martin’s family, their lawyer, and a publishing company for allegedly engaging in false testimony during the 2013 trials related to Martin’s death.
According to reports, George Zimmerman and his lawyers are alleging defamation, saying that Martin family and their prosecutors “have worked in concert to deprive Zimmerman of his constitutional and other legal rights.” Because of this, Zimmerman is asking for $100 million in civil damages.
Zimmerman’s suit cites information from a documentary titled The Trayvon Hoax. It also claims that the Martin family lied in court.
Zimmerman’s suit cites information from a documentary titled The Trayvon Hoax. It also claims that the Martin family lied in court.
On top of suing Martin’s family, Zimmerman is also suing the publisher Harper Collins after it released a book titled Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People, which was written by Ben Crump, the lawyer who represented Martin’s family in the case against Zimmerman.
While The Trayvon Hoax was scheduled to be screened at the Coral Gable Art Cinema Thursday following a noon press conference giving more details about the lawsuit, the theater later canceled the screening as news of Zimmerman’s lawsuit surfaced.
In a statement responding to the allegations, Crump said he hoped the lawsuit would soon be thrown out.
“I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is – another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others,” he said.
Trayvon Martin’s Death
Zimmerman shot and killed Martin in Florida on Feb. 26, 2012. At the time, Martin had been visiting his father.
The night he died, Martin had reportedly been walking home after buying candy and a drink at a gas station. Zimmerman, who was part of the community’s volunteer neighborhood watch, then called the police to report a suspicious-looking person in a dark hoodie.
“These assholes, they always get away,” Zimmerman told the dispatcher.
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said he saw Martin then began to run. He then chased after Martin despite the dispatcher telling him not to.
Soon after the phone call ended, Zimmerman and Martin reportedly engaged in a violent altercation that ultimately led to Martin’s death.
Zimmerman was then arrested and charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter.
In the months that followed, the trial gained national scrutiny as many waited to see what would happen to Zimmerman after shooting an unarmed black teenager.
Ultimately, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in 2013 after claiming self-defense in court.