One of Martha charges dismissed

[onehandle]

One of Martha charges dismissed

Stewart still faces charges of obstruction of justice and making false statements.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The judge in the Martha Stewart trial has dismissed the securities fraud charge against her, saying prosecutors had failed to present sufficient evidence to allow the jury to decide the matter.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/27/news/companies/martha/index.htm

[underpants]

1. This is being misreported-it's only about the instructions to the jury

As I understand it she is only on trial for lying and obstructing the investigation into what she did but was never charged with.

[MaineDem]

2. I read that this charge is the one with the 10-year sentence

She still faces charges of lying to the investigation.

But it did say the judge "dismissed" the fraud charges.

Another source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4399210/

[priller]

3. It was also by far the shakiest of charges

If I understand this correctly, the charge was that Martha, by stating publicly that she had done no wrong when the initial scandal broke, was engaging in "stock manipulation" and "fraud" to protect the value of her own company's stock.

Like the judge said, it was a "novel" application of the law.

[underpants]

4. Corrected here sorry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x387993#388121

[aquart]

9. So basically this is another Clinton prosecution.

She lied about a case too weak to be brought to trial?

This is crap.

[mac2]

5. This was a corporate witch hunt to buy up control of

Martha's empire by the Wall Street Neo Cons. If she hadn't gone public, this would not have happened. They probably profited when, the news came out down and up. Think about the Atty.General of NY and whose administration this is?

For the last few years, The Wall Street Journal has had very nasty articles about Martha trying to destroy her reputation. Search their files for the MS stories if you can get into them.

The new editor of her magazine is called, Ms. Roach. Neo Cons like symbolic things. The magazine is not Martha's but Ms. Roach in content. They buy up someone else's company and get rid of them...keeping the profits and idea's for their own. They don't do the work to make it a success. They just profit off of others hard work and creativity. They are today's CEO blood suckers (a very strange group).

In the media and financial corporate world, one must be a Neo Con. Not a classy, blond, Polish business woman. And she liked the Clintons..oh my god..all Democrats are liars and crooks. This is the message is it not?

It has cost Martha millions of dollars for a couple thousand investment. Let's not mention the cost to tax payers.

Why not Ken Lay of Enron historic robbery...in the billions? Ex Merrill Lynch trader stole $43 million why isn't he in a public trial like Martha Stewart? He didn't lie and say, he was innocent of all charges?

This whole thing is so...fascist.

[bluedeminredstate]

7. Bravo!

I agree with your fine assessment.
Martha may not be loved by all, but is that reason enough for everyone to positively salivate over her potential imprisonment?

[mac2]

8. But President Bush is?

[yellowcanine]

6. If the main charge is dismissed how is there lying and obstruction?

How can it be lying and obstruction if they can't prove what it is she supposedly lied and obstructed about?

[mobuto]

10. Its really bizarre

I've been following the trial somewhat closely, and the government has done an absolutely miserable job. First of all, even if she was guilty, the case should never have gone to trial. They were exploiting her name in an attempt to set an example to prevent the most minor of securities law infractions, and then couldn't get the evidence to prove their case. If she is guilty, why isn't she being tried for - I don't know - INSIDER TRADING?

[demoman123]

11. Because....

The charge that was dismissed is the charge that she lied to her own stockholders about her Imclone sale. The other lying and obstruction charges are about lying to prosecutors about her Imclone sale. She was never charged with insider trading.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi demoman123!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: