Martha Stewart Convicted.

[YNGW]

Convicted on all charges. Just came over the radio.

[Rockholm]

1. Activtist Jurors!

[Timefortruth]

2. No real surprise.

The truth has been on a losing streak lately.

[NoMoreRedInk]

11. Do you think they manufactured evidence?

Or did the jury conspire against her?

[eleny]

3. Why does Ken Lay come to mind?

Hrmph!

[tom_paine]

10. Actually Rush "Julius Streicher" Limbaugh comes to mind

Does anyone think he's even going to trial?

I don't, because I understand that we no longer live in a Free Nation.

To put it simply: Imperial Family, Friends, and Assorted Stooges are bound by no law. If it wasn't that they had to maintain the lying illusion of freedom as the Caesers did to Rome and if the nation wasn't bristling with arms, they'd be Gulagging us right now, IMHO.

[NoMoreRedInk]

18. I can't believe they haven't gotten him yet. They've gotten everyone else

at Enron, but not Kenny Boy.

[Nlighten1]

4. Can we bring up Harken now?

Please?

Kerry?

McAwful?

Someone?

[PVnRT]

6. They won't

That harms the status quo and Republican donors, and we can't have that!

[tom_paine]

8. Yeh, sure. Sorry to be cynical but...

You have as much chance of that mostlikely as the German Social Democrats of 1933 posthumously coming out against Hitler's Enabling Act.

[DU9598]

9. Figures

That is what she gets for being friends with Hillary.

[hlthe2b]

5. I'm not a big fan, but this is absolute BS

Sounds like sentencing guidelines are not clear... I hope she gets no jail time. The conviction is going to be painful enough for someone like her.

[eleny]

7. Restitutuion and community service

Those would be more helpful to the community, given her skills. In jail, she just sits and stews in her own juices. No pun intended, really. It's just that it makes no sense when she has so many skills to share and can do more good than being behind bars.

[PCIntern]

15. If she were a Republican

she'd get the Ollie north treatment. Reversal on a technicality (never OK if you're a minority) and elevation to near-mythic proportions, followed by a Fox New show all her own.

[LibertyorDeath]

37. "The conviction is going to be painful enough for someone like her."

Do you mean for someone who takes joy in diminishing those not as rich as her or for someone who thinks they're above the law.

Or for someone dumb enough to get caught and then lie about her actions.

What exactly do you mean?

[hlthe2b]

49. Look, I already said I don't like her personally and I'm not defending

her actions-- just putting it into perspective.

I am saying that she is going to face public humiliation and the stigma associated with being a convicted felon- which typically means more to someone as ego-driven as she, than losing money or even jail-time.

She should certainly pay restitution, whatever that should be, face the major losses coming her way with the damage done to her own businesses, and be forced to do extensive public/community service along with extended terms of probation. Perhaps some voluntary time at a homeless shelter or delivering "meals on wheels" would cause her to regain a bit of humility and humanity. I don't see what jail time is going to accomplish and I'm tired of seeing taxpayers shell out to incarcerate individuals, when better alternative punishments exist.

She did not defraud anyone nor cost them their lifetime savings, unlike our Repub corporate criminals (e.g., Ken Lay), many who either remain uncharged or are likely to escape conviction or major jail time. Martha Stewart wasn/t (couldn't) even be charged with insider trading, for heavens sakes.
Having said that, I don't watch her show, won't buy her crap and have no problem believing her reputation as a self-obsessed, often rude woman. But, that is not at issue here. The punishment should fit the "crime..."

[chelsea0011]

12. "It's a Good Thing"

She was so full of herself she thought she would go to court and win the trial. She could have just pleaded out earlier and gotten a fine and a slap on the wrist, but now she faces jail time. Ken Lay...you're on deck. Enjoy freedom know.

[BillZBubb]

39. You really think Ken Lay will do jail time?

Don't make me laugh. He a Repug insider.

[stldemocrat]

13. Just goes to show...

what they do to women who get to be too powerful. pathetic.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. yeah...that Oprah has gotten in SOOO much trouble

jeez

theProdigal

[goddess40]

23. Women

True about strong women being at risk. And to add salt to the wounds I just heard the two most serious charges were dropped against Dennis Koslovsky and the CFO of TYCO. Watch 'em walk.

[stldemocrat]

46. Women

It's amazing how women are targeted, and then people try to preted that it's not going on. For instance, all the grief that Hillary gets, even in some of these forums. There are certain things I was not all that thrilled about with Bill Clinton, but I don't see him attacked in the same vicious way as Hillary.

[hlthe2b]

51. I do not like Martha Stewart, but I truly DO believe that

those who went after her and who now celebrate her potential upcoming incarceration are driven more by a desire to give a strong, successful, aggressive(and not extremely "likeable),professional female her come-uppance.

Why is it that women can defend her on that score, even if they themselves do not like her, but it seems men will not? With some exceptions, I'm sure...

[stldemocrat]

52. Men

I agree with that sentiment, Martha is not my cup of tea, but I loathe the way she is being
treated.

I think men are too busy guarding their prerogatives.

[tom_paine]

Laugh At Stupid Suckers

Love that sigline.

[sadiesworld]

14. Maybe * will pardon her on his way out...

OK, maybe not.

[papau]

32. Saddly she is on record as a donator to the DNC - so no pardon

Heck - with donations to the RNC there would have been no trial.

Indeed Bush has a letter from a lawyer saying do not sell your stock because that is insider trading, he sells, and while his Dad is Pres the SEC sends a letter saying they "are closing the investigation - BUT - this does not mean they found him innocent and that they may re-open the investigation in the future(paraphrased)".

Now the odds of Bush going on Trial are what?

[YNGW]

16. Scott Peterson trial next.

Stay tuned.

[PCIntern]

17. He's a pure sociopath

He's in good shape...

[patcox2]

30. He is.

I saw him on a talk show shortly after he killed his wife, with four of her best friends, and they were all just fawning over him and I knew, just knew, that he had slept with all of his wife's friends.

[markses]

19. How about the possibility that she IS GUILTY????

It's all a conspiracy here. How about this: She got inside information, and dumped her stock on that basis, then attempted to cover up that action? You know what? I believe it. And you know what? It IS a CRIME.

Whether or not Bernie Ebbers or Ken Lay are ALSO convicted for similar offenses is immaterial here. The question is: Did Stewart perform these illegal actions. I'm with the jury on this, and I think the behavior on this question by most DUers is abysmal.

One person says: "Stewart going to prison and OJ free. Yeah, that makes sense."

Well, of course it doesn't make sense, but the status of OJ's actions or behavior has nothing to do with the question at hand. OJ was vigorously prosecuted, and just happened to have persuasive defense attorneys. The vigorous prosecution does not appear selective, if we see that all the big name CEOs from the late 1990's-early 2000's corporate scandals are either under indictment, or have already been convicted. Sam Waksal is in jail for the same thing Stewart was just convicted of. Andrew Fastow will begin a 10 year federal prison term shortly, and Jeff Skilling was brought in handcuffs to Federal Court less than 2 weeks ago. What's the fucking problem. The Rigas are under indictment, Bernie Ebbers is under indictment, the rest of the Worldcom crew is under indictment, and the Enron cabal have been, for the most part, convicted already.

STEWART - gasp - may actually be guilty of the charges against her. And the jury, having heard the case in full, may have even made a good decision. Whether she is a Democrat or a woman does NOT seem to me to have anything to do with it at all.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. Please cease and desist on intelligent

and rational argument. Irrationality tells us that there is no way that she could have been guilty and your tone only reinforces that logic might prove us wrong...

[sadiesworld]

24. I have mixed feelings on the issue....

but it seems like a case of selective prosecution at least.

[markses]

25. On what basis?

Do you have information about how many people are tried each year for these particular offenses. Having worked closely with the SEC on disclosure issues in the past, I expect that it is many, many people. The only reason this is even being compared to Enron, et.al. is that the defendant in this particular case is famous. These kinds of charges are lodged all the time.

What is you basis for the "selective prosecution" claim? Selective among which group?

[patcox2]

28. Horse crap.

People are rarely charged with lying to an investigator when the underlying conduct being investigated turns out not to have been a crime. As an ex-public defender and attorney for 15 years, personal experience is my basis, in case you want to know.

[NoMoreRedInk]

31. The underlying conduct was a crime

But they couldn't prove that one beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. So they found another way to punish her.

Similar to Al Capone. They couldn't prove the murder charges they knew he was guilty of, so they charged and convicted him on tax evasion.

[markses]

58. The underlying conduct

was an alledged violation of Rule 10(b)-5 in connection with Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Personally, I think they could have gotten a conviction on that charge, but they chose to pursue the more obvious charge of lying to investigators and conspiracy (let's not forget). The reason that they didn't pursue the violation of 10(b)-5 (i.e., insider trading) is that the law is sufficiently ambiguous to have made the case difficult. That being said, her actions were clearly in violation of the spirit of the law.

I'm really not sure what's wrong with you people on this question. Ms. Stewart dumped a load of stocks which may very well have been moved into the account of your grandmothers. She did so - it appears - on the basis of material non-public information. Beside the technical criminality, that's just plain old stealing.

[NoMoreRedInk]

63. Thank you for your objectivity and rationality**********

nm

[patcox2]

26. She's guilty just like Clinton was guilty; did you support impeachment?

Seriously, its a perfect analogy.

She was not charged with insider trading, you know. That was never a charge. It was legal, perfectly legal, for her to act on the information her broker told her, tha Waksal was selling his stock and she should sell hers.

Just like it was legal for Clinton to get a BJ.

But she lied about it, just like Clinton lied about the BJ.

And it was as wrong to prosecute her as it was to impeach Clinton.

One of the charges against Stewart was even more ridiculous, so much so that the Judge threw it out. That charge was that she manipulated her own stock in Martha Stewart Inc., by lying about the sale of Imclone stock. The government argued that she denied she committed a crime in order to falsely inflate the price of her stock (it would have gone down if she admitted she got a tip, they argued.)

This was an absurd prosecution, its always absurd to prosecute someone for lying about lawful behavior. And conspiracy and obstruction are just piling on.

There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. There is such a thing as absurd and unjust prosecutions even if there was a crime, within the strict letter of the law. This was such a case.

And anyone who thinks believing this was an unjust prosecution means I am irrational or unthinking can go take a flying leap.

[markses]

59. First of all

It is not legal for her to authorize a trade on the basis of material non-public information, and, in fact, Stewart's defense throughout the entire drama has been that she DID NOT DO SO. Authorizing or executing a securities trade on the basis of material non-public information is (with some exceptions that do not apply here) a violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, developed to implement Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. This is upheld by In re Cady Roberts & Co. (1961), and subsequent court rulings (especially SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur). The only way Martha Stewart's trade would be legal - if we accept that she traded on the basis of material nonpublic information - is if she would have made public the sales by Waksal to any and all potential purchasers of the securities.

That being said, she was not prosecuted on those charges, but on obstruction. The point here is that the charges themselves could not be pursued as a direct result of the obstruction of justice. You should just be glad that you didn't purchase any ImClone stock on the day Ms. Stewart sold hers.

[eleny]

27. I disagree

It is material if Ken Lay gets away with what happened in his company. He's a Repub and Martha is a Dem. Get the connection or lack of? Who do thay go after and who appears to be above the law when they're well connected to the administration? After all, Lay engineered Ahnold's acension to the California throne being hell bent on delivering the state to * in November. And now, Lay seems to be wearing the teflon. This is not "justice for all". If Martha is guilty, so be it. But get real. We want Lay's head on a platter before Martha's.

[markses]

60. "We Want" being the key term

Everyone else at Enron has been either convicted or indicted for the actions that took place there. We'll see if Mr. Skilling spills the beans on Mr. Lay.

In either case, Enron has no connection to the particular circumstances of this case - outside the resentful imaginations of several delusionals on this board.

[belle]

33. Martha Stewart is ruthless, 1000% corporate.

She has screwed over many, many, many people in her climb to the top. I've no sympathy at all. Yeah, there are other people out there who are even more deserving of conviction and won't be, I realize this. That doesn't mean she should be let off the hook. Buh-bye, Martha.

[Carolina]

35. it's not conspiracy

it's a sense of proportion.

Yes, the evidence may have revealed that Martha was guilty and she was justly convicted. But the sentence will be interesting.

Unlike Enron, Martha did not bilk governments (state and federal) and did not impoverish thousands of people through lost jobs and pension benefits. Let's see what they throw at her versus what happens to the corporate tycoons whose malfeasance has harmed so many people.

Then, I'll don my tinfoil hat.

[markses]

61. Since you don't know what the sentence will be

And since the stilted proportion depends on the sentence, I assume that you have no reason to be upset yet.

As for proportion in general, Ms. Stewart's actions were criminal, and are defined in the criminal statutes. It is not the prosecution that is out of proportion to the actions, but the media coverage that is out of proportion to the prosecution. But that is not the prosecutors doing, nor does it render either the prosecution or the proceedings or the result inherently unfair.

[Democat]

21. Donate to the Democratic Party and it might happen to you.

Be safe, only donate Republican.

[Indiana Democrat]

29. Martha's arrogance did her in.

She could have gotten off with just a slap on the wrist if she hadn't lied and conspired. Plus, her company wouldn't have gone in the tank.

She's screwed a LOT of her stock holders...SCREW HER!!

[shance]

34. So a rich male can be ten times more arrogant and ruthless than Martha

and yet they wind up avoiding any type of repercussion, and then are free to continue to commit more crimes and injustices towards Americans at large?

Marthas arrogance didnt do her in, her gender, political affiliations did.

What she did isnt on the same radar as what so many rich males have done and they buy their ways out of a conviction. Whats harmful about this is that it punishes the wrong individuals and empowers the ones deserving punishment. When power becomes so imbalanced in favor of one group or faction, it threatens a civilized government process and kind of promotes an anarchistic atmosphere, where eventually everyone suffers.

[RobinA]

56. Mens Is Allowed

to be arrogant. Wimmins, no way. Like that uppity b*tch Hillary. She's been planning for years to run for President, dontcha know. Ambitious is what I calls it, them Clintons are just ambitious.

[Indiana Democrat]

64. You're the one saying that, not me.

I don't care what the gender is. Guilty is guilty.

Seems as if you don't think women can be guilty.

[RedEarth]

36. O. J. is still free, Bush didn't get nailed with Harken, she's a Dem

she's a woman, she contributed to Gore, she's a friend of Hillary's, Ken Lay is still free, Schilling is still free, Clinton lied about a blow job and was convicted............so obviously she is not guilty.

[Cleita]

38. No criminal charges have been brought against Ken Lay yet.

Perhaps the same laws don't apply to Republicans as they do to Democrats. Facism is on the rise here. Democrats may really have to go underground. We no longer have the same protections under the law that they do.

[NoMoreRedInk]

45. Is he the last Enron guy left to be charged?

Bush is a self-preservationist and will sell him out as soon as he can.

[LibertyorDeath]

40. About time a jury had the courage to slap a Billionaire.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[SoCalDem]

41. Engage tinfoil hats please...just for a moment

I started this because it was not about the conviction, but it got locked anyway..so here goes....

---

SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-05-04 01:38 PM
Original message
Put your tinfoil hats on for a minute

Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 01:39 PM by SoCalDem
Re; Martha..

The FDA says they will not be approving the ImClone drug..Wacsal starts dumping stock.. Martha gets the call..she starts dumping a bit of hers too..

In pretty short order the SEC goes after both of them..Bothe stocks drop in value...

Then ...it's an .."oops whaddayah know?, that stuff works".. we're gonna approve it after all..

Meanwhile Martha & Sam end up in the slammer.... "someone" buys their stock at cheap prices while the value is down...

FDA....SEC... both governmental agencies.. Both targets are known Democratic supporters.. in fact, the week that Marth was indicted, she had planned to host a large fundraiser for the Democrats.. (It was cancelled)

The tinfoil part of me wonders if this was not a setup from the get-go..

It's not too hard to entrap people who have lots of money at stake..

[Junkdrawer]

55. Martha was undeniably used to move Enron/Harken off the front pages...

your scenario wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. This is a reply to SoCALDEM's thread which was locked -- even though

the issue was different. Socaldem brought up the possibility that Martha was set-up. Here's my reply:

...now you're dealing with issues of whether this meets the standards of entrapment. I don't think so. I believe the very network that created the problem between Martha and her stockbroker friend is far too pervasive. If M.S. is just the tip of the iceberg, there should be more prosecutions and it should be fairly distributed between Republicans and Democrats. I will only believe it's a set-up if they stop with Martha Stewart.

[SoCalDem]

44. I thought mine was sufficiently "different" too..

Personally I do not care one way or another about Martha, but I know that a lot of the "big boys" absolutely hated her..

and I wonder about the fact that Walmart would dearly love to see KMart "killed" for good..

There is just so much serendipity here:(

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. I hope it doesn't stop there, though

I don't want a sop.

I want to go after all of the white collar criminals.

[ChiefJoseph]

47. Am I the only one who smiled when the verdict was announced?

I have no idea what Martha's politics are, but she certainly has a reputation for being an insufferable b*tch who treats people poorly. And I found her story utterly implausible.

I'm glad she was convicted.

[maxanne]

53. not a surprise

many wished her convicted for the crime of being an ambitious, ruthless, uppity woman.

[OneTwentyoNine]

48. 100 times more pressure needed for arrest and conviction of Lay...

Want to play hardball then lets play hardball. If true then shes convicted of exactly the same thing that George W. Bush did with his Harken stock.

Ken Lay screwed millions more than Martha Stewart will ever touch. I say round Lay's fucking ass up this weekend and lets get his trial underway.


David

[SoCalDem]

50. Bush was WORSE.. He was on the board and was on the

FINANCE committee.. He was privy to the ins and outs of the company.. Marth was a stockholder..(mostly because her daughter had dated the guy and he was a family friend) She was not involved with or in the company..

George had access to insider information...and then he "covered it up" by not filing the papers for months past the deadline..and I think he sent them in unsigned, so they had to be returned..

His Daddy was in a position to see that "just the right people" looked into it, and naturally they saw nothing worth prosecuting:(..although, I think they DID say that he did do wrong...

[Baclava]

54. Too bad for her.

All she had to do was come clean and admit that she followed her broker's lead, say she didn't realize it was insider trading, donate the profits to a soup kitchen, cook a few meals in the soup kitchen, and move on.

Instead she chose the path of greater resistance thinking she was above the shitstorm.

She made a bad decision and it cost her big time.

[moondust]

62. But it wasn't insider trading.

She didn't know WHY Waksal was selling his stock. He could have been selling it to buy an island in the Pacific which would not be an indicator that the stock was about to move dramatically up or down. That's why she wasn't charged with insider trading. No case.

I'm waiting for the zealous lie police to go after some BIG TIME liars whose lies have done irreparable, fatal damage to people and the environment: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Sleeza, Powell, & Co.

While they're at it they can surely nab a regiment of military recruiters who over the years have collectively told literally millions of lies to young men and women for personal and organizational gain.

[nomatrix]

57. It has everything to do with the drug

Imclone drug worked
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2003/06/01/101158-ap.html

"Whether ImClone now has enough scientific ammunition to push Erbitux onto the market remains to be seen, but spokesman Davit Pitts said they will ask the FDA's opinion on the latest data.

The sponsor of the new study, the German pharmaceutical firm Merck KGaA, said it will soon seek European approval to sell the drug and could have it on the market there by the end of the year. The company, which owns rights to Erbitux outside North America, is unrelated to the larger U.S.-based Merck & Co."

The financial scandal took the attention off the testing, until it could get clearance. Now watch the stock climb again.