web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Federal"

Fox vs. Fox: Neil Cavuto clashes with Lou Dobbs on Trump and the deficit

Westlake Legal Group c Fox vs. Fox: Neil Cavuto clashes with Lou Dobbs on Trump and the deficit The Blog Spending Fox Business Federal dobbs Deficit debt cavuto

Via the Examiner, this was making the rounds yesterday but it’s best enjoyed today, on the occasion of the Senate rubber-stamping the latest garbage spending bill.

I’ve never seen a purer microcosm of the news/opinion divide within Fox News than these three minutes. Cavuto straddles that divide to some degree since he delivers his own commentary on air alongside newsier segments, but that commentary has been lukewarm about Trump on a network where opinion about the president runs almost entirely one way. And Cavuto’s show airs dayside, right after Shep, as part of a run of newsy programming. Dobbs, on the other hand, is not only Fox Business’s loudest pro-Trump pundit, he’s part of the circle of Fox hosts like Hannity and Tucker who are on good enough terms personally with the president to chat with him by phone during off-hours. So deep does their mutual admiration run that Trump has reportedly been known to patch Dobbs through on speakerphone during White House meetings.

What I’m saying is that, while we’re probably never going to get a segment in which Hannity and Shep yell at each other on air about Trump, this is the next best thing.

Each man typifies his wing of the network during the exchange. For Cavuto, it’s a matter of simple fact: Not only is this country still running mammoth deficits under Trump, it’s doing so at a moment of tremendous economic growth, when tax revenue should be up and deficits therefore should be down. That’s not a matter of debate. It’s not a “deep state talking point” or whatever. The numbers are what they are. For Dobbs, the imperative at all times is to protect the president (at least unless and until Trump crosses him on a core nationalist concern, like immigration) and so he’s left here to figure out on the fly how to dodge Cavuto’s irrebuttable point. The first thing he does is get personal, telling Cavuto, “You have to work this thing out with the president, Neil” — that “thing” being a reference to Trump taking issue with some of Cavuto’s unflattering commentary about him in the past. What he’s implying, in other words, is that Cavuto wouldn’t be bringing up a basic, basic, basic, basic fact like, “We’re spending way too much money and Trump obviously doesn’t care” if there weren’t some sort of personal grudge between him and the president.

Which is true, at least, to the cult of personality that defines Trumpism. To criticize the president for a policy failure is to impugn our national savior.

Cavuto didn’t care for that, which is why he starts raising his voice — and maybe too out of sheer exasperation that Dobbs couldn’t bring himself to find fault with Trump even when the evidence is indisputable. So he pressed him on the point — what about the debt and deficit? — and, well, just watch. Dobbs has no answer, because what answer could he rightly give? Is he supposed to badmouth the Trump tax cuts, knowing that that’s Trump’s most notable domestic achievement to date? All he can do is try to shift to happier subjects, like the unemployment rate. Never mind that, as I say, booming employment somehow hasn’t done a thing to cut the budget deficit given the insane rate of federal spending under Trump.

This isn’t the only Fox vs. Fox battle simmering today, by the way. Some FNC employees took issue with this Tomi Lahren tweet last night:

Kat Timpf, Britt McHenry, and Janice Dean called her out for that online, with others complaining anonymously to CNN behind the scenes. Lahren has since apologized, which I’m treating as evidence that Fox management also had a word with her. Is Fox’s personnel roster going to survive this election cycle intact? Stay tuned. Exit quotation from the president of the United States, assessing his favorite news network: “What the hell is going on?”

The post Fox vs. Fox: Neil Cavuto clashes with Lou Dobbs on Trump and the deficit appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-300x159 Fox vs. Fox: Neil Cavuto clashes with Lou Dobbs on Trump and the deficit The Blog Spending Fox Business Federal dobbs Deficit debt cavuto  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

It begins: Booker, Biden throwing punches over who’s more overzealous in fighting crime

Westlake Legal Group cb It begins: Booker, Biden throwing punches over who’s more overzealous in fighting crime Voters The Blog police Newark Justice Department Federal doj crime booker bill biden aedpa

Is it the guy who wrote an influential federal crime bill that encouraged states towards mass incarceration for drug offenses?

Or is it the guy who ran a police department that was such a notorious rights-violating dumpster fire that the Obama DOJ hide to ride herd on it?

Such are the choices Democrats will have next year.

Familiarize yourself with this dispute now, as the Booker/Biden clash is likely to be the highlight of night two of the next Dem debate to be held a week from now. Spartacus is a desperate man, fearing that he’s slipped to third in line for black voters behind Biden and Kamala Harris. He needs to make a splash next week, ideally on racial grounds, in order to place himself in contention for those votes. Hence his repeated focus on Biden’s racial sins over the past few months, first dinging him for his cordiality towards segregationist colleagues in the Senate, then taking Harris’s side in her busing dispute with Biden (which of course was itself a play for black votes from Harris by questioning Biden’s commitment to equal treatment), and now hitting Biden hard over his new criminal justice reform plan. Uncle Joe’s trying to very belatedly clean up the political mess created by the crime bill he championed in the mid 90s knowing that it might become a real liability for him as Booker and Harris dig in on it. So he’s a kinder, gentler Joe now — no more mandatory minimum sentences, no more sentencing disparities for “black drugs” like crack, no more death penalty.

Good enough for Cory Booker? Of course not:

“Joe Biden had more than 40 years to get this right,” Mr. Booker said in a statement. “The proud architect of a failed system is not the right person to fix it. The 1994 crime bill accelerated mass incarceration and inflicted immeasurable harm on black, brown and low-income communities. While it’s encouraging to see Vice President Biden finally come around to supporting many of the ideas I and others have proposed, his plan falls short of the transformative change our broken criminal justice system needs.”

He reiterated the point at a NAACP event today. You can’t be Mr. Tough On Crime for 40 years in the Senate and then fart out a reform plan the moment you need to win a progressive beauty contest, said Booker:

Your move, Joe. And Joe *does* have a move ready for this. Team Booker has been telegraphing for days that they’re coming after Biden at the next debate so Team Biden has had time to prepare a response. How can someone who presided over Newark’s police department, the subject of this 2014 Justice Department report, presume to lecture me about mishandling the issue of crime, Biden said today?

Booker was mayor of Newark before becoming a senator, of course. And he provided Biden with at least one choice buck-stops-here quote about Newark PD that can and will be used against him next Wednesday:

Team Joe didn’t stop with Biden’s soundbite. They put out a statement this afternoon reminding Booker of his own sins in detail:

Westlake Legal Group b-4 It begins: Booker, Biden throwing punches over who’s more overzealous in fighting crime Voters The Blog police Newark Justice Department Federal doj crime booker bill biden aedpa

Tough call for black voters in South Carolina, then. “Three Strikes” Joe or “Civil Rights Nightmare” Cory?

Or former California top cop Kamala Harris, who’ll eventually need to answer for her own policies on drug offenses as state AG?

There’s always Pete Buttigieg — except he has a “black problem” back home in South Bend and is now being targeted by Black Lives Matter protesters over the recent police killing of a black resident.

Bernie Sanders must be watching all of this and wondering what the hell he needs to do to get black Democrats excited about him when their other options are this thin.

Anyway, although it’s fun to watch Biden swing at a very thirsty Cory Booker, his case doesn’t rest on proving that Booker is a civil rights nightmare. His defense to Booker’s and Harris’s attacks will boil down to this: The first black president looked at my record and deemed me fit to be his VP. If I was good enough for him, I should be good enough for you. Whether he retains his lead with black voters will depend on how persuasive, or not, that pitch is.

The post It begins: Booker, Biden throwing punches over who’s more overzealous in fighting crime appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group cb-300x159 It begins: Booker, Biden throwing punches over who’s more overzealous in fighting crime Voters The Blog police Newark Justice Department Federal doj crime booker bill biden aedpa  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Oh yes: Bernie Sanders’s campaign hit with … federal labor complaint

Westlake Legal Group bs-2 Oh yes: Bernie Sanders’s campaign hit with … federal labor complaint wages The Blog minimum wage Labor interrogation hours Federal complaint Bernie Sanders

What can one say about this?

Except that it’s the greatest day in American political history, I mean.

Am I still an atheist after reading it? I don’t know. I just. don’t. know.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign has been hit with an unfair labor practice complaint alleging illegal employee interrogation and retaliation against staffers.

The July 19 complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, filed by an unnamed individual in Indiana, was posted to the agency’s website late July 22. It comes as tense negotiations between the Sanders campaign and the union representing staffers recently boiled over publicly. The Washington Post reported July 23 that unionized organizers for the campaign had won a pay raise and reached a compromise to reduce the hours of some workers.

A copy of the charge has not yet been made public, but the agency’s July 22 docket lists five potential violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The charge also alleges that the campaign unlawfully discharged an employee, modified a labor contract, and engaged in illegal discipline.

Illegal employee interrogation, eh? On the one hand, Bloomberg notes that anyone can file a complaint with the NLRB. Conceivably this could be nothing more than baseless mischief-making by a political enemy aiming to capitalize on public attention to Team Bernie’s labor troubles lately, knowing that righties like me are going to snuggle this story like a new puppy. File the complaint, generate the bad headline, and trust that no one will be paying attention when it turns out a month from now that there was nothing to it. Damage done.

But there’s also this recent quote from Bernie himself when he was asked about not paying his field organizers an (average) $15 hourly wage, which of course he believes should be the statutory minimum as a matter of national policy:

“It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media,” he said. “That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it’s improper.”

So management was mad at labor for leaking to the press, and now here’s a complaint claiming that managers interrogated employees illegally and even retaliated against them. Hmmm.

We’re like two days away from Bernie sending in Pinkerton goons to crack heads.

Actually, and alas, the fun we’ve been having with the Sanders campaign’s labor problems seems to be ending. Top officials reached a deal with the union this afternoon to boost the pay of field organizers to $42,000 per year in return for extending the work week from five days to six — with an important caveat:

The deal would extend the workweek from five days to six days. But it also would clarify that the expected hours worked each week would be 50. The changes would mean that if the organizers are working 50-hour weeks, then they would make an annual salary equivalent to more than $15 per hour, which Sanders has said for years should be the federal minimum. But if they work longer hours, which the union said could happen, even voluntarily, then the equivalent hourly rate could drop below that threshold.

Sounds to me like all they did here was give everyone a raise in exchange for labor agreeing to maintain the fiction that they’re only working 50 hours a week on average going forward. That solves everyone’s political problem by producing an average hourly wage greater than $15, but in reality, now that they’re coming into the office six days a week instead of five, they’re going to end up working more than 50 hours weekly “voluntarily.” They were already working an average of 60 before this dispute began, in fact. Maybe private employers could use that dodge if and when they get stuck with a national $15 hourly minimum wage. Workers get $15 an hour for their first 30 hours, say, and then the next 10-20 after that consists of “volunteering.” Sounds like a plan.

The post Oh yes: Bernie Sanders’s campaign hit with … federal labor complaint appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bs-2-300x153 Oh yes: Bernie Sanders’s campaign hit with … federal labor complaint wages The Blog minimum wage Labor interrogation hours Federal complaint Bernie Sanders  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rashida Tlaib: C’mon, let’s make the federal minimum wage $20 per hour

Westlake Legal Group rt-1 Rashida Tlaib: C’mon, let’s make the federal minimum wage $20 per hour tlaib The Blog Pay minimum wage hour Federal CBO Bernie Sanders 20

Via the Free Beacon. I told you she’s the Ringo of the group, did I not?

Two things about this. First, I think it probably does fairly represent Tlaib’s and the Squad’s approach to policy generally, which is really just to take whatever the current progressive conventional wisdom is and super-size it. Progressives want softer borders? F*** that. AOC’s ready to get rid of borders. Progressives want to return to the Paris Accord? F*** that. The Squad is prepared to reorganize America’s economy to fight climate change.

Progressives want a $15 minimum wage? F*** that. Ringo will give you $20. And then, when that becomes prog orthodoxy, she’ll demand $25.

Why not? When your proposals stand no chance of becoming law, you might as well get crazy with the policy cheez whiz. Basic negotiation strategy: Ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars initially and maybe you’ll get one or two of them in the final compromise. And if you don’t, no problem. You signaled your progressive virtue by demanding the utmost in “economic justice.”

The second point is that we couldn’t ask for more in having her demand this at a moment when Bernie Sanders’s campaign is struggling to pay field organizers the $15/hour he wants to set as national policy. Read this post yesterday for background on that. The problems Team Bernie is encountering on a micro level trying to find the money to make that possible are the same problems CBO sees happening on a macro level if the federal minimum wage rises: Hours will need to be scaled back and some workers will need to be laid off. And God only knows how much higher the minimum wage will eventually need to be to help pay for Medicare for All once taxpayers realize that “free” health care isn’t free.

In a better world, Bernie’s disgruntled staffers would see this clip and immediately demand $20/hour from the campaign. Let Sanders and Ringo hash it out in public whether that’s fair or not.

Exit question via Philip Klein: “[I]s there a level at which Democrats believe the government could set a minimum wage that would be so high that the negative effects would outweigh the positive effects?” He wants that one asked at next week’s debate.

The post Rashida Tlaib: C’mon, let’s make the federal minimum wage $20 per hour appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group rt-1-300x159 Rashida Tlaib: C’mon, let’s make the federal minimum wage $20 per hour tlaib The Blog Pay minimum wage hour Federal CBO Bernie Sanders 20  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mark Sanford: I’m seriously considering primarying Trump

Westlake Legal Group m-1 Mark Sanford: I’m seriously considering primarying Trump The Blog tea party Spending south carolina republican primary Mark Sanford Government fiscal Federal debt amash

Gonna be super awkward when Justin Amash wins the Libertarian Party nomination hoping to challenge Trump in the general, only to find himself facing his buddy and new Republican nominee Mark Sanford.

Meh. How many different Republicans have considered primarying Trump over the past two years only to decide against it? Kasich, Hogan, maybe Bob Corker, maybe Jeff Flake, maybe Justin Amash right now (although he doesn’t count as a Republican anymore). Only Bill Weld has decided it’s worth the bother. I strongly suspect Sanford will end up passing too.

Then again, none of them endured the humiliation of losing a congressional primary to a Trump-backed challenger. Trump helped oust Sanford from his congressional seat — which ultimately went to a Democrat — for no grander reason than that Sanford was a tad too free and easy about criticizing the president. Maybe Sanford’s decided that it’s payback time. He can’t win a presidential primary but he can use the soapbox it provides to try to start making the case early against a second Trump term.

Sanford, in an exclusive interview Tuesday with The Post and Courier, confirmed he will take the next month to formulate whether he will mount a potential run against Trump as a way of pushing a national debate about America’s mounting debt, deficit and government spending…

“Sometimes in life you’ve got to say what you’ve got to say, whether there’s an audience or not for that message,” Sanford said. “I feel convicted.”…

“I’m a Republican. I think the Republican Party has lost its way on debt, spending and financial matters,” he said.

That’d be an interesting message for a primary challenge, and traditional in more ways than one. Traditional, of course, in the sense that the GOP pretended to care — a lot — about debt and spending during the Obama era. But traditional too in the sense that this is an old-fashioned reason to primary a president, to force him and the party to pay closer attention to your pet issues. No one but no one on the right is holding Trump’s feet to the fire on spending apart from Amash occasionally. The left and the media want to see someone primary Trump because they’re expecting that challenge to be about “values” and “honor,” how Trump has degraded the office of the presidency, which the Democrats can use to their own advantage in the general election. Sanford, however, might skip the moralizing (mostly) and focus instead on a “Do we care about spending or don’t we?” campaign. He’ll lose bigly either way but he might very well draw more protest votes running on a nuts-and-bolts “shrink government” message than on an “Orange Man bad” Resistance-style pitch.

Anyway, Amash is psyched:

A Sanford challenge in the primary and an Amash challenge in the general might be dangerous for Trump given how similar the two candidates’ politics are. Anyone galvanized by Sanford in the primary should be willing ideologically to redirect their votes to Amash next November. To the extent Sanford manages to pique the interest of some conservatarian voters in the campaign, Amash may ultimately benefit, which is trouble potentially for Trump in a tight race with Joe Biden or whoever. And Sanford could make things *mildly* (emphasis: mildly) interesting in the South Carolina primary, since that’s his home state. There was chatter awhile back that the South Carolina GOP might go full cuck and cancel next year’s primary altogether in the interest of sparing the king from having to lift a finger there to win the state, but maybe they’ll be less inclined to do that when one of their own is on the potential ballot.

Either way, it’ll be fun watching Trump attack Sanford on Twitter for his gubernatorial scandal, oblivious to his own hypocrisy: “Can’t trust leaders who aren’t faithful to their wives! Sad!” And if you don’t think he’d stoop to hypocrisy quite that blatant, I remind you that he’s spent the last few days on Twitter pretending to be offended by some of the “filthy” language used by members of the Squad. This, from the guy responsible for the “Access Hollywood” tape, who was known to use “MFer” in speeches during his first brief vogue in politics in 2011.

By the way, since the federal deficit is momentarily and briefly a topic today thanks to Sanford:

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projected in its midyear review Monday that the federal deficit would surpass $1 trillion this year.

Why it matters: It’s the first time the U.S. deficit has exceeded the $1 trillion level since the 4-year period following the Great Recession. When President Trump was a presidential candidate, he promised to wipe out the deficit and also the entire federal debt, which has surpassed $22 trillion.

It’s downright phenomenal that we’re managing to run a 13-digit deficit during a booming economy, when job growth has been galloping for many months. It’s almost miraculous. Congratulations to both parties but especially to Trump and the GOP, which cut the hell out of taxes and forgot the part about cutting spending too. The official funeral for the tea party will be Sanford primarying Trump and then South Carolina Republicans canceling their primary in order to avoid an uncomfortable debate about … federal spending and debt

The post Mark Sanford: I’m seriously considering primarying Trump appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group m-1-300x153 Mark Sanford: I’m seriously considering primarying Trump The Blog tea party Spending south carolina republican primary Mark Sanford Government fiscal Federal debt amash  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

400+ former federal prosecutors: Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t president

Westlake Legal Group t 400+ former federal prosecutors: Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t president Trump The Blog prosecutors pelosi obstruction mueller Justice impeachment Federal doj barr

Instinctively I started looking for George Conway’s name among the signatories here before realizing that he’s never actually been a federal prosecutor. He almost was — thanks to Donald J. Trump — but then had a change of heart.

Anyway, he’s promoting the hell out of the letter on his Twitter feed today. Even better than a signature as far as the authors are concerned, I’m sure.

Who’s the target of this missive, anyway? Trump, right, but who else?

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Read the specifics for yourself. WaPo describes it as a “rebuttal” to Bill Barr’s conclusion in his initial summary of the Mueller report that Trump didn’t obstruct justice, which I think is right. This letter reads to me like a sort of “counter-summary.” The Democratic complaint about Barr’s summary has been that he pre-spun the report for Trump by omitting Mueller’s own detailed, and more damning, summaries from his letter and by substituting his judgment that there was no obstruction for Mueller’s conclusion that he couldn’t exonerate the president. At best that summary became a sort of guideline for the public in how to read the report; at worst it was a substitute for it, with some people digesting the “no collusion, no obstruction” verdict and deciding that they didn’t need to pay attention to Mueller’s detailed findings when the report was published.

The prosecutors’ letter is the anti-Trump guideline to the report’s obstruction section, emphasizing the dubious actions taken by Trump that Barr neglected to highlight. The amazing thing about it to me is that it presents the obstruction question as an easy call even though no one involved in this case, including Bob Mueller himself, seems to have viewed it that way. Barr concluded that Trump didn’t obstruct in the meaning of the federal statute. Rod Rosenstein apparently agreed with that conclusion. And if you believe NBC, Mueller’s own team was divided on the question:

Three government officials have told NBC News that a dispute within the special counsel’s office on the facts and the law was one factor behind Mueller’s decision not to make a call on the obstruction question.

The lawyers and FBI agents on Mueller’s team could not reach an agreement about whether Trump’s conduct amounted to a corrupt — and therefore illegal — effort to impede the probe, the three officials said…

At least one faction within the office says their intent was to leave the legal question open for Congress and the public to examine the evidence, the U.S. official who has spoken to them said. It’s not clear how Mueller himself feels about the matter.

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,” Mueller’s report states in the introduction to the obstruction section, appearing to confirm that even his own team of lawyers struggled with it. But the prosecutors’ letter doesn’t treat it as “difficult,” it treats it as a slam dunk. That smells more like a political conclusion than a legal one and it makes Mueller another target, possibly inadvertent, of the letter. After all, in the end it was Mueller’s choice to leave the obstruction decision in Bill Barr’s hands; he could have declared, as the signatories here have, that Trump’s actions would amount to obstruction but for his office. If he was wary of accusing Trump on grounds that someone who can’t be indicted has no opportunity at a public trial to answer the accusation, he could have been plainer in suggesting that Congress take up the question. It was his allergy to forming a conclusion about this, not Barr’s summary, that’s the “original sin” of the obstruction debate, so to speak.

But even Mueller’s not the ultimate target here. I think it’s the OLC, which authored the DOJ precedent that sitting presidents can’t be indicted. Most of the evidence of obstruction that the letter cites refers to Trump exercising presidential powers — threatening to fire Mueller, trying to get Sessions to un-recuse himself from Russiagate, hinting at pardons for witnesses who refuse to cooperate. Ultimately the signatories’ complaint is with the constitutional argument that the president can’t be charged for interfering with investigations because the prosecution power properly belongs to him as the chief executive under Article II. In a twisted way, he’s exercising “prosecutorial discretion” by behaving the way he did. He can certainly be punished, but that punishment is political, not legal: Impeach him, remove him, then indict him. He’s accountable! — but to the people’s representatives in Congress, not to the DOJ. If they don’t have the stones and/or the integrity to remove him, that’s a failure of the legislature.

Which means maybe Congress is the ultimate target of the letter.

Here’s Andrew Napolitano weighing Trump’s options in blocking Mueller from testifying. Exit question: Given that the letter increases the pressure to impeach Trump even though there’s zero possibility of Senate Republicans removing Trump from office, the person likely to suffer the most from it is Nancy Pelosi, not Trump, right?

The post 400+ former federal prosecutors: Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t president appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-300x153 400+ former federal prosecutors: Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he wasn’t president Trump The Blog prosecutors pelosi obstruction mueller Justice impeachment Federal doj barr  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: Lori Loughlin stupidly rejected feds’ plea deal, now faces much stiffer charges

Westlake Legal Group report-lori-loughlin-stupidly-rejected-feds-plea-deal-now-faces-much-stiffer-charges Report: Lori Loughlin stupidly rejected feds’ plea deal, now faces much stiffer charges The Blog plea olivia jade Money Laundering Lori Loughlin Justice giannulli Federal doj college admissions bargain

Westlake Legal Group ll Report: Lori Loughlin stupidly rejected feds’ plea deal, now faces much stiffer charges The Blog plea olivia jade Money Laundering Lori Loughlin Justice giannulli Federal doj college admissions bargain

This was a logical assumption after yesterday’s news that she and 15 others were now being charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, but a source who spoke to People magazine confirms it. The feds apparently offered her a deal that would have required her to serve a year or two and threatened to pile on more charges if she didn’t accept.

She passed. With the two new charges added, she now faces a maximum of 40 years. What is she thinking?

And more importantly, who’s going to play Aunt Becky in the “Full House” reboot while Loughlin’s in the joint making license plates? Can they get Cindy Crawford, maybe? They’re almost the same age and I’ve always thought there was a resemblance.

Loughlin and her husband, fashion designer J. Mossimo Giannulli, have not entered pleas — and a source close to them tells PEOPLE that they have resisted any agreements that would result in jail time. Under federal guidelines, both of them would have gotten between 18-24 months in jail under a plea agreement.

“They weren’t ready to accept that,” says the source, who is familiar with the legal discussions in the case. “They’re really not seeing how serious this is.”

“They were offered the carrot and the stick,” the source tells PEOPLE. “The carrot was that this can all go away and you can serve your time and put it behind you. Remember, they were facing 20 years, even before the latest charges. The stick was that [the prosecution] would and could pile on more serious charges.”…

“They decided to roll the dice,” the source says, “and it may have been a bad gamble. Now they’re in worse shape than before.”

Granted, Cindy Crawford’s not an actress by trade. But how demanding can a “Full House” guest shot be?

Loughlin and her husband may have believed that the feds simply weren’t serious about insisting on prison time for two perps whose motive was simply to give their children every advantage in life. But they are serious: “Prosecutors know this is a high profile case and they want to make an example of the defendants,” a second source told People. Which, frankly, should have been clear after Felicity Huffman copped a plea in return for the feds agreeing to ask for a sentence on the “low end” of the 4-10 months she was facing. Clearly they wanted Huffman to serve *some* time. Given that Loughlin allegedly paid a much bigger bribe, just as clearly they want her to serve more.

And so, legal eagles, what are Loughlin and her no doubt very capable and well-paid lawyers banking on here? It goes without saying that she won’t receive anything like the statutory maximum if she’s found guilty — she and her husband are first-time offenders — but a former public defender in L.A. told Fox News, “I wouldn’t be surprised if she got between 5-10 years of federal prison because of the amount of negative publicity in this case.” Why, why, why would Loughlin pass on a potential 18-month sentence knowing she was running the risk of 5-10 if she did?

The temptation is to say that she’s counting on her celebrity status to produce an acquittal at trial, which is always a fair bet in America, but remember that the alleged mastermind of the college admissions plot is and has been cooperating with the feds for a long time. He’ll testify in exquisite detail in court as to Loughlin’s and her husband’s culpability. It’d be one thing if she was facing an O.J. situation where the alternative to rolling the dice at trial is life in prison but I can’t understand her believing that the odds are so strongly in her favor before a jury that she’d risk a sentence many times longer than what she’d receive from a deal.

Did her lawyers think maybe the feds were bluffing about adding on charges, decided to call that bluff, and now hope/expect they’ll be able to convince them to go back to the original plea offer in exchange for a promise to accept it? Would the U.S. Attorney even agree to that?

Exit question: How about Sandra Bullock as Aunt Becky? Right, she’s too A-list for the role. But maybe she’d do it for sh*ts and giggles?

The post Report: Lori Loughlin stupidly rejected feds’ plea deal, now faces much stiffer charges appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group ll-300x153 Report: Lori Loughlin stupidly rejected feds’ plea deal, now faces much stiffer charges The Blog plea olivia jade Money Laundering Lori Loughlin Justice giannulli Federal doj college admissions bargain  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com