[John Vause, Cnn International Anchor:] Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause with the headlines this hour.
[Vause:] A major storm has just made landfall on India's east coast. Tropical Cyclone Fani arrived with winds of 240 kilometers an hour, the strongest in 20 years. Significant storm surges and wind damage are expected. Two hundred million people in northeast India and Bangladesh are in the path of the storm. An arrest warrant has been issued for Venezuelan opposition figure Leopoldo Lopez. He escaped house arrest earlier earlier in the week, just as anti-government protests were getting underway. Lopez and his family have now taken refuge inside the Spanish embassy in Caracas. The Spanish government says it has no intention of turning them over to Venezuelan authorities. And a second woman accused of using a nerve agent to murder the half- brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been released from prison in Malaysia. She's expected to return to her home in Vietnam. Lawyers for the woman argue they had been duped into carrying out the attack at an airport in Kuala Lumpur two years ago. Facebook says it's removing dangerous individuals and groups from its social media platforms. On Thursday the company banned several high- profile and controversial figures, like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who'd already been banned from Facebook and is not out of Instagram; and Mario Yiannopoulos, a fringe right-wing personality, I suppose. The company explained the move to CNN Business, saying, "We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive, and it is what led to our decision to remove these accounts today." Now to the latest in the admissions scandal which is rocking the U.S. university system. A source tells CNN that the family of a Chinese student admitted to Stanford University paid $6.5 million to this man, William "Rick" Singer, who allegedly orchestrated the scam. The family and the student have not been charged. The student's mother says Singer told her she was actually making a legitimate donation to his foundation. Singer has pleaded guilty to charges that he worked with wealthy families to get their children slots at top schools, using bribes and false test scores. CNN legal analyst Areva Martin joins us now from Los Angeles with more. OK, Areva, so we know now just how far-reaching this scam was and how lucrative. Six and a half million dollars paid by a family in China to get their daughter into Stanford, or "Scamford" as "The New York Post" described it. And the university has issued this statement. "It's important to clarify that Stanford did not receive $6.5 million from Singer, or from the student's family working with Singer. Stanford was not aware of this report of $6.5 million payment from the family to Singer until today's news reports." You know, the university like Stanford continue to use the Sergeant Schultz defense: you know, "I know nothing, I see nothing." And it's fishier than the Dumpster outside Red Lobster.
[Areva Martin, Cnn Legal Analyst:] Yes, you know, John, one thing that's interesting about the scandal is that it's ongoing. We should not forget that the federal prosecutors have made it clear that, when they indicted those 50 individuals, that that was just the tip of this tip of the iceberg. We've been we've seen some reports that suggest that Singer may have helped over 700 students get into schools and colleges around the United States using this scam. So I don't think we should conclude anything by the fact that more college admissions, more college officials have not been implicated in this scam. I just think this investigation is going to continue, and we're going to see more shoes drop as they continue to get more parents, which we've seen over the last couple weeks, plead guilty. Because those pleading guilty are also cooperating with federal prosecutors.
[Vause:] Yes, that's the point. Just staying with this family in China, the lawyer for the mother of the student told CNN she thought that $6.5 million would pay "for the salaries of academic staff, scholarships, athletics programs, helping those students who otherwise will not be able to attend Stanford. And essentially, they just thought this was how it was done." Another Chinese family which paid more than a million dollars to Singer, they made a similar statement. Essentially, they just thought that this was how it was done. And to be fair, it is how it's done in China. But in China, there's one rule for the wealthy and the powerful and the elite, another rule for the poor and the powerless, but that's China. I'm just wondering, though: is this why prosecutors at this point don't appear to be bringing any charges against these parents?
[Martin:] In order for prosecutors to bring charges against anyone implicated in this scam, they are going to have to be able to prove specific intent to defraud. And I think what we're seeing with these two Chinese families is that they actually didn't know that Singer was engaged in this, you know, elaborate fraud that involved, you know, taking money from parents who thought they were legitimately donating to his non-profit organization and then, you know, pocketing that money or using that money to pay bribes to college, you know, admissions officials who were then doctoring applications, creating fake, you know, athletic profiles; and then getting these students into the colleges. So I don't think prosecutors believed that these two Chinese families had any indication that what they were doing was a part of this elaborate, you know, fraudulent scheme by the part of Singer. We have language differences and barriers. We have cultural differences and other things that I think caused the prosecutors to say that these two families are perhaps victims. Now, what's going to be interesting, John, is to see if any of the American families try to use the same defense in their cases. Because we know some of these families have pled not guilty. They want their day in court. And they may also say, "Look, we were just, you know, victims in this whole elaborate scheme. We thought our money, as well, was going to help disadvantaged students or to somehow, you know, benefit these colleges and not being used as bribes."
[Vause:] These are a much harder argument to make in the U.S. than it is in China.
[Martin:] Yes.
[Vause:] You talk about these parents who pleaded guilty. There are 17 parents, though, including actress Lori Loughlin, who have entered not-guilty pleas. But here's the thing: Back in 2011, an Ohio woman used her father's address to enroll her two kids in a better school district. She got a lengthy prison sentence. Ultimately, it was nine days in jail is what she spent behind bars. She was put on three years' probation. She was in the last semester before she graduated with her teaching degree, but because she was convicted of a felony, she could no longer go into that job. OK? And that's not the only story like that out there.
[Martin:] Yes.
[Vause:] So if these white rich parents are found guilty, what are the chances they'll do jail time just like the poor black woman raising two kids on her own?
[Martin:] Well, you know, that's an interesting question, John. We heard the federal prosecutor say that everyone involved in this scam was going to get jail time, but I have my doubts about that. And you mentioned that story. There's also the Atlanta cheating schedule [SIC] where scandal where African-American teachers were involved over ten years ago in, you know, doctoring standardized tests for students. And several of them I think over ten went to trial, and many of them convicted and got prison sentences as many as seven years. So there is precedent for, you know, non-affluent white, you know, teachers in this case and the parent in the case you just mentioned, who were involved in some kind of cheating scam; and they actually did get jail time. So it remains to be seen how tough these prosecutors are going to be with these wealthy families. We know Felicity Huffman pled guilty. And the recommendation so far is that she gets the lower end of the federal sentencing guidelines. And there's some rumors now that maybe she's going to do that time, you know, under house arrest. She won't actually go into a federal prison. It concerns me, John, you know, when we talk about celebrity justice
[Vause:] Yes.
[Martin:] when we talk about a dual justice system, one for the rich and one for the poor. And I think this case is the perfect case for federal prosecutors to send a message that, no matter what your ethnicity is, no matter what your wealth status is
[Vause:] Your bank balance, yes.
[Martin:] you cheat the system, you're held accountable for it.
[Vause:] You pay the same price, yes.
[Martin:] Absolutely.
[Vause:] You mentioned this before, but a lot more parents could be facing charges. "The New York Times" reporting this week the investigation is expected to grow significantly. Defense lawyers are being signed up at a great rate, apparently, around the L.A. area. At this point do you have a sense, you know, of how widespread this could actually end up being, how many families could be caught up in this scam? Because to me, it seems there's a growing sort of narrative here that this is just what everyone expected or thought this is how it was done. No one thought it was out of the ordinary. No one thought it was sort of, you know, illegal, you know, or doing anything majorly wrong. It was just sort of one of those things that everyone did.
[Martin:] Well, I'd have to push back some on that narrative, John. Because what we've heard from the prosecutors is that they have a lot of these parents on, you know, audiotape. They have text messages. They have e-mails where they're going to great lengths to hide what they're doing. If this is what everyone was doing, it wouldn't have been done, you know, in such the cloak of secrecy. They would have been talking openly about it. And what we know with the parents that have been charged, they were so careful and so cautious; and they asked, you know, Singer over and over again, you know, "Are you sure no one's going to catch me? Are you sure, you know, that we're going to keep this secret?" So I don't know buy that these parents didn't know what they were doing was illicit and, now, illegal perhaps not. But they weren't proud of what they're doing. They weren't willing to do this in the open. And of course, you can make a donation to a college. Put your name on a building. That's perfectly legal. But when you start doctoring test scores, when you start having people take the exam for you, when you create profiles, athletic profiles, I'm not buying that you don't know that you are engaged in some kind of illicit activity.
[Vause:] We're out of time. But I guess my point, more clearly, it's like cheating on your taxes a little. Everyone does it. It's all going to be OK. We know it's not right.
[Martin:] It's still a crime, John.
[Vause:] Exactly. Still a crime. Areva, thank you. Good point to finish off.
[Martin:] All right. Thank you.
[Vause:] Thanks a lot, Areva. Have a good weekend.
[Martin:] Take care.
[Vause:] Thank you. We'll take a short break. A lot more news when we come back. You're watching CNN.