[stuartr]

The reason you can't name a non-celebrity male who has been convicted of this is because it is not newsworthy, not because it doesn't happen...What about Ivan Boesky or Marty Seagal. They went down for this in a much much bigger scandal back in the 80s.
Don't tell me you don't think she sold her shares on the day before it tanked because she had a below 60 clause...wasn't it proven that her broker told her to sell before the public announcement?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally posted by eyeteeth I don't disagree very strongly with you ed. Also if someone could make a case Bush actually knew there were no WMD he'd at least find himself sitting on the hotseat Clinton sat on for lying about Lewinsky.

Yeah, too bad not doing your job correctly and being an ignorant moron are not illegal.

Well, then we'd have some pretty crowded prisons, eh?

Stuart's got a point. Being guilty is being guilty. It's like going to court trying to get out of a speeding ticket saying that everyone else was speeding more than you. You were still speeding. You were just unlucky.

What a waste, though. All of the time and money spent on a show trial with no tangible benefits other than those sick of watching Martha Stewart say, "It's a good thing."

-Ed

 

[braillediver]

“A Witch Hunt”

“Small Potatoes”

“A Travesty of Justice”

“She was only convicted because she was a woman”


You guys are really out there. At what dollar amount do you think it matters? If you only steal $100 should nothing be done? I only killed 1 person; there are serial killers out there.

Isn’t your entire defense of her based on moral relativism? Other people have done worse.

She jury had 8 women and 4 men? What more could you ask for. Next you’ll claim she didn’t have competent lawyers. Like she was too poor to hire the best.


What’s that statement Ocams Razor (I forget the real name)? The simplest explanation is probably the explanation of what happened.

Have you for one minute considered she was guilty and a jury of her pears convicted her?


Mitch

 

[elrod-tom]

Important lesson: when under oath, don't lie...it's called obstruction of justice. Even if the original charge is not held to be applicable, you're still in a heap of trouble if you lie about it.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally posted by elrod-tom Important lesson: when under oath, don't lie...it's called obstruction of justice. Even if the original charge is not held to be applicable, you're still in a heap of trouble if you lie about it.

EXACTLY .

 

[dabeststax]

She earned it. This case isn't just about Martha Stewart, it's about everyone who cheats. Now they know, even martha stewart can go down.

By the way, I'm not surprised by this at all. The owner of imClone the company she was investing in, was found guilty of insider trading, and is currently serving a 7 year sentence.

No tears for him, no tears for Martha. You cheat the hard working honest Americans who count on owners to obey the laws, and you got to jail. Plain and simple.

 

[hottyson]

Quote:

Originally posted by braillediver At what dollar amount do you think it matters? If you only steal $100 should nothing be done? I only killed 1 person; there are serial killers out there. Isn’t your entire defense of her based on moral relativism? Other people have done worse.

I would imagine going into the jungle with a few cooking shows to show the natives what food we cook in my culture. I could explain to the village cooks (probably women too) that this is the most famous cook of my entire land and perhaps the entire universe.

It would however be pretty difficult to explain to them that we might hold her in an animal cage for a few years since she had sold some paper to another. They would probably have a hard time understanding how this could be justified if she were only trying to help her family.

Corporate law and trade ethics are a whole different world. Should we throw a woman in a cage when there are worse things going on in the world? Oh heck, why not.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally posted by dabeststax Now they know, even martha stewart can go down.

This isn't a prison reference, is it??

 

[markl]

I think there's a larger issue and a good reason to make an example of Martha (if it hasn't been mentioned so far). Because it's so high-profile, things like this can undermine the stock market as a whole, people lose faith in the system and decide the average guy can't a fair shake or the same kind of insider information, that it's all rigged for the big boys (and girls) in their favor. They then take out their money from the market. Not that the Martha scandal alone is going to "bring down the market", but you get enough of these in a row, as we have lately, and it can start to have an effect.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by elrod-tom Important lesson: when under oath, don't lie...it's called obstruction of justice. Even if the original charge is not held to be applicable, you're still in a heap of trouble if you lie about it.

She wasn't under oath. She was just being questioned.

Lying under oath is called perjury.

And just lying is called "lying to investigators". Obstruction to justice was all about her touching her secretary's computer and bringing up her phone log.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl I think there's a larger issue and a good reason to make an example of Martha (if it hasn't been mentioned so far). Because it's so high-profile, things like this can undermine the stock market as a whole, people lose faith in the system and decide the average guy can't a fair shake or the same kind of insider information, that it's all rigged for the big boys (and girls) in their favor. They then take out their money from the market. Not that the Martha scandal alone is going to "bring down the market", but you get enough of these in a row, as we have lately, and it can start to have an effect.

What about Ken Lay?

 

[markl]

Absolutely. There's very good reasons to give all of these high-profile cases the maximum penalty. They do have the *potential* to undermine confidence in the system, but in Martha's case it's related more closely to the stock market and cheating and manipulating of the institutions behind the market that is so disturbing and has in my mind greater potential to more directly undermine confidence in the stock market which can be costly for all of us whether or not we have a penny invested in it.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr What about Ivan Boesky or Marty Seagal.

I'm glad you asked. First, they WERE both convicted of insider trading (unlike Stewart). Second Siegel (note the spelling) only got a two month sentence. Third, they made over $200 million from their insider trading (Boesky made $28 million on just one deal.) Fourth, prosecutor Giuliani allowed Boeski to cash out of his holdings, keep his foreign bank accounts secret, and did not touch accounts in Boeski's wife and children's names -- after he was under indictment.

But even though those guys got off relatively lightly for something we all agree was a very serious crime, the person the government spent big buck to nail was: Martha Stewart.

 

[hottyson]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl I think there's a larger issue and a good reason to make an example of Martha (if it hasn't been mentioned so far). Because it's so high-profile, things like this can undermine the stock market as a whole, people lose faith in the system and decide the average guy can't a fair shake or the same kind of insider information, that it's all rigged for the big boys (and girls) in their favor. They then take out their money from the market. Not that the Martha scandal alone is going to "bring down the market", but you get enough of these in a row, as we have lately, and it can start to have an effect.

When an individual tries to undermine the system they should be made an example. In Roman times this was common and effective. They were quite severe about making an example. They once nailed one of the most famous historical icons to a tree to make an example.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by hottyson When an individual tries to undermine the system they should be made an example. In Roman times this was common and effective. They were quite severe about making an example. They once nailed one of the most famous historical icons to a tree to make an example.

(You are speaking of course of Spartacus, heroes to victims of slavery everywhere.)

But I do think you have a point. Isn't jail too good for Martha? Shouldn't we demand crucifixion?