This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/lori-loughlin-felicity-huffman-admissions-scandal.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman: 1 Scandal, 2 Actresses, Diverging Paths Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman: 1 Scandal, 2 Actresses, Diverging Paths
(about 2 hours later)
On television, they both have played doting mothers who could do no wrong. LOS ANGELES — On television, they both have played doting mothers who could do no wrong.
Now, the Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin find themselves as the twin public faces of a sprawling college admissions bribery scheme — the best-known symbols of presumptuous entitlement at the center of widespread ire.Now, the Hollywood actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin find themselves as the twin public faces of a sprawling college admissions bribery scheme — the best-known symbols of presumptuous entitlement at the center of widespread ire.
But even as the admissions scandal has placed Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin side by side in the spotlight amid dozens of lesser-known parents, the actresses’ roles in this real-life drama are actually quite different — and diverging by the minute.But even as the admissions scandal has placed Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin side by side in the spotlight amid dozens of lesser-known parents, the actresses’ roles in this real-life drama are actually quite different — and diverging by the minute.
One glimpse of that?One glimpse of that?
When Ms. Huffman announced this week that she would plead guilty to the crime she’s accused of, she issued a long, hand-wringing apology and her appearances in court have been somber — lips pursed and eyes avoiding the dozens of news cameras all around. Ms. Loughlin, who so far has not opted to enter a plea, has seemed to approach her courthouse visits with an affect more common on the red carpet — she has repeatedly been photographed smiling, at one point signing autographs for fans before she walked into federal court.When Ms. Huffman announced this week that she would plead guilty to the crime she’s accused of, she issued a long, hand-wringing apology and her appearances in court have been somber — lips pursed and eyes avoiding the dozens of news cameras all around. Ms. Loughlin, who so far has not opted to enter a plea, has seemed to approach her courthouse visits with an affect more common on the red carpet — she has repeatedly been photographed smiling, at one point signing autographs for fans before she walked into federal court.
Distinctions between the two actresses’ cases, though, run far deeper, and they offer hints at the legal fight that may be ahead in the nation’s largest-ever admissions prosecution. The amounts the women are accused of spending in the fraud are far different — $15,000 versus $500,000. The circumstances outlined in court documents are distinct as well: a faked test for a daughter versus deals to get two daughters admitted to the University of Southern California with phony athletic claims.Distinctions between the two actresses’ cases, though, run far deeper, and they offer hints at the legal fight that may be ahead in the nation’s largest-ever admissions prosecution. The amounts the women are accused of spending in the fraud are far different — $15,000 versus $500,000. The circumstances outlined in court documents are distinct as well: a faked test for a daughter versus deals to get two daughters admitted to the University of Southern California with phony athletic claims.
“There are enormous differences between them and it is a critical factor,” Eileen Decker, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, said of the cases against Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin. “It goes to their individual culpability. This scheme had so many levels to it: having a person take the test for them, putting money through the fake charity, hiding it from children and authorities. So far, the Loughlin case indicates far more significant involvement in the fraud.”“There are enormous differences between them and it is a critical factor,” Eileen Decker, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, said of the cases against Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin. “It goes to their individual culpability. This scheme had so many levels to it: having a person take the test for them, putting money through the fake charity, hiding it from children and authorities. So far, the Loughlin case indicates far more significant involvement in the fraud.”
Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin are charged in the same sweeping criminal complaint, but the particular claims against them suggest far different plots. Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin are charged in the same sweeping criminal complaint, but the particular claims against them veer into far different plots.
In 2017, William Singer, the private college admissions consultant who has admitted to being the architect of a ring that used bribes from parents to get children into colleges, came to the Los Angeles home Ms. Huffman shared with her husband, the actor William H. Macy. Mr. Singer, who has plead guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy, bribery and fraud, explained that for $15,000 he could pay someone to supervise their daughter’s SAT at a test center he “controlled.” That person would then secretly correct her answers. The essential claim against Ms. Huffman? That she spent $15,000 to get William Singer, the college consultant who has admitted to being the architect of a ring that used bribes to help parents get their children into selective colleges, to arrange for someone to secretly correct her daughter’s answers on the SAT.
Over several months, Ms. Huffman exchanged emails with Mr. Singer, making sure she understood the precise details of how the cheating would work. When a counselor at her daughter’s school suggested she take the exam somewhere other than at Mr. Singer’s preferred testing center, Ms. Huffman wrote to Mr. Singer with alarm, copies of her emails show: “Ruh Ro! Looks like [my daughter’s high school] wants to provide own proctor.” The plans required Ms. Huffman to help her daughter receive extra time and choose a specific testing location where cheating could occur — and Ms. Huffman clearly understood what would occur, prosecution documents suggest. When her daughter’s high school suggested that she take the test at school, Ms. Huffman sent an email to Mr. Singer that said: “Ruh Ro!”
In the end, prosecutors say, the scheme went forward. Ms. Huffman’s daughter, who apparently knew nothing of the plans, got a score of 1420, about 400 points higher than she had earned on her Preliminary SAT exams. In the end, prosecutors say, the scheme went forward, and Ms. Huffman’s daughter, who is now a senior in high school and apparently knew nothing of the plans, got a score of 1420, about 400 points higher than she had earned on her Preliminary SAT exams.
According to the criminal complaint against Ms. Huffman, when it came time for her younger daughter to take the exams, Ms. Huffman and Mr. Singer again spoke in great detail and plans began for a similar process. But those plans were ultimately scrapped, the prosecutors said, and the younger girl took the tests on her own. When it came time for Ms. Huffman’s younger daughter to take the test, Ms. Huffman and Mr. Singer again spoke in detail and plans began for a similar process, according to the criminal complaint against Ms. Huffman. The plans, though, were ultimately scrapped, the prosecutors said, and the younger girl apparently took the tests on her own.
Ms. Loughlin’s lawyers did not return calls on Wednesday, but prosecutors suggest that for Ms. Loughlin and her husband, the fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, plans with Mr. Singer began in 2016 and were far more complicated. Plans in the case of Ms. Loughlin, and her husband, the designer Mossimo Giannulli, were far more complex and focused around the entire college admissions process, not a test, the criminal complaint against them suggests.
Mr. Giannulli, who, like Ms. Loughlin, has been indicted on conspiracy to commit mail fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering, told Mr. Singer he was concerned about his oldest daughter and needed to ensure a “road map for success” for “getting her into a school other than ASU!” Ms. Loughlin’s lawyers did not return calls on Wednesday.
For months, investigators say, Ms. Loughlin kept in close touch with Mr. Singer, even while the family vacationed in the Bahamas. Following his suggestion, they would present the daughter — Isabella Rose Giannulli — as a coxswain, though she had never rowed crew. Once her spot at the University of Southern California was assured, they wired $200,000 to Mr. Singers supposed charity. Prosecutors say that the family worked to get both of their daughters into “a school other than ASU,” going along with Mr. Singer’s plans for falsified athletic credentials and paying larger sums of money.
According to prosecutors, Ms. Loughlin and Mr. Giannulli followed a similar path with their younger daughter. The total price tag? $500,000. For months, investigators say, Ms. Loughlin kept in close touch with Mr. Singer, even while the family vacationed in the Bahamas. Following his suggestion, they would present the daughter — Isabella Rose Giannulli — as a coxswain, though she had never rowed crew. Once her spot at the University of Southern California was assured, they wired $200,000 to Mr. Singer’s supposed charity.
On the same week that Ms. Huffman announced that she would plead guilty to the single criminal count against her, Ms. Loughlin was indicted in the case, and a criminal count — conspiracy to commit money laundering — was added. So the legal case against Ms. Huffman headed toward a final, penalty phase even as the legal stakes appeared to be mounting for Ms. Loughlin. According to prosecutors, Ms. Loughlin and Mr. Giannulli followed a similar path with their younger daughter. Both were enrolled at U.S.C. The total price tag, by prosecutors’ tally? $500,000.
On the same week that Ms. Huffman announced that she would plead guilty to a single criminal count against her, Ms. Loughlin was indicted on a count of conspiracy to commit fraud as well as an additional count, of money laundering conspiracy. So the case against Ms. Huffman headed toward a final, penalty phase even as the legal stakes appeared to be mounting for Ms. Loughlin.
In public, Ms. Huffman has appeared reserved, issuing a statement this week but saying little else in public.
“This transgression toward her and the public I will carry for the rest of my life,” she said of her daughter. “My desire to help my daughter is no excuse to break the law or engage in dishonesty.”
Back home in Southern California, Ms. Loughlin has been spotted out and about by eager paparazzi. She politely told one that he was welcome to follow her all day, but that she would not talk about the case. When he wished her well, she responded: “You have a beautiful day.”Back home in Southern California, Ms. Loughlin has been spotted out and about by eager paparazzi. She politely told one that he was welcome to follow her all day, but that she would not talk about the case. When he wished her well, she responded: “You have a beautiful day.”
She added: “Thank you so much. Thanks, honey.”She added: “Thank you so much. Thanks, honey.”
Ms. Huffman has appeared more reserved, saying little beyond her public statement this week as she announced she intended to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. “This transgression toward her and the public I will carry for the rest of my life,” she said of her daughter. “My desire to help my daughter is no excuse to break the law or engage in dishonesty.” Mr. Giannulli was indicted along with Ms. Loughlin, and, like her, could face a prison sentence.
But Ms. Huffman’s husband, the actor William H. Macy, is only referenced in passing in the criminal complaint.
In Hollywood circles, Mr. Macy and Ms. Huffman have been regarded as royalty — a power couple with Oscar wins who helped create the Atlantic Theater Company with the renowned playwright David Mamet. They cultivated an image of being approachable and deeply involved in their children’s schools, and were beloved in part because of their partnership.
Several times, the complaint alludes to Ms. Huffman’s “spouse,” noting that Mr. Singer told the authorities that he met with Ms. Huffman and her spouse to explain how “the college entrance scheme worked.” The complaint does not charge Mr. Macy with wrongdoing, nor does it elaborate on that decision.
On one front, the experiences of Ms. Huffman and Ms. Loughlin have been nearly identical: Work has vanished.
Netflix said it would delay plans to release “Otherhood,” a comedy about motherhood starring Ms. Huffman. She also quickly deleted her parenting blog, “What the Flicka,” where she had publicly shared all sorts of motherly angst.
The Hallmark Channel announced it would not continue any shows that feature Ms. Loughlin. Ms. Loughlin’s role on “Fuller House,” a Netflix project reprising the hit sitcom, also apparently evaporated.
Her children’s college futures also appeared uncertain. U.S.C. officials have said they would block any student tied to the scandal from registering for new classes or withdrawing from the university, leaving Isabella Rose Giannulli and Olivia Jade Giannulli in an academic limbo. Last month, Sephora dropped their partnership with Olivia Jade, whose millions of social media followers eagerly watched her broadcast videos from her dorm room.