Against what? Im arguing this actual trial not your view that all rich people are evil.
Who says all rich people are evil? I just say that right-wing conservative rich people who support Dubya are evil. This doesn’t mean I think your girl is evil, but hope that she can serve as an example as we go after some real scum, like that Kenny-Boy.
Myself, I think making a show trial of Martha Stewart, for something I suspect just about everyone in power does, is kind of ridiculous.
This case has nothing to do with any of that. Your using the same kind of rational as Bush, as if going after Saddam Hussein is serving an example as we go after Osama Bin Laden.
To make a comparison, Bush has his political slant goggles on and somehow equates Bin Laden and Hussein as the same issue. Why? who knows maybe because they are both Arabs and Muslims?
Midnight Son has his political slant goggles on and somehow equates Stewart to “Kenny-boy”. Why? who knows maybe because they are both rich and CEOs?
Ya see its the same logic. It just doesn’t make any sense.
If you ever compare me to Dubya again, I’m gonna start insulting YOU and you don’t want that.
Hurray personal attacks, just like what the neocons do when they can’t argue on logic.
I’m sorry, your button pushing skills are not advanced enough. Try again.
That’s all fine and good and all, except that she wasn’t charged with insider trading, let alone convicted of it.
She was found guilty of lying about the trade, not the trade itself. Which is not to say that she didn’t deserve to be convicted on the charges she was. Obstructing a federal investigation should carry a stiff punishment.
I do wonder what would have happened had it not been Stewart in this situation, but, say, Oprah. I think there’s a hell of lot more goodwill that Oprah’s built up, whereas Stewart got this whole subtle (and not-so-subtle) arrogance thing going on that I doubt helped her with the jury.
Saddam is not an Arab.
Poor Martha – she shoulda been a hunting buddy of Dick Cheney.
So has anyone seen the first obvious Photoshop of “Martha Stewart Prison Living”?
I think the prosecutors thought she was guilty of insider trading, and from what I saw of the evidence, she probably was (tronnc’s argument that she can’t be convicted because she’s not an insider is mistaken; you can be liable even as a “tipee” if the person who tipped you off violated his own duty and you knew it). But I think they thought that would be a lot harder to prove. The evidence for obstruction, conspiracy and lying was all much more solid. So they went for that. Did they pick on her because she’s famous? Probably, although people do get prosecuted for this stuff all the time.
As for tronnc’s other arguments, I just can’t agree at all. The “victimless crime” argument just holds no weight; the point of SEC regulations is that the stock market is good but it only works if everyone is playing with basically the same information. It’s a “victimless crime” the same way that corporate espionage is a victimless crime (“Hey, it’s not like we took anything from you, we just copied it!”).
Similarly, this bizarre argument that the government should only prosecute crimes if the cost of the trial is less than the amount of the loss just totally baffles me. So if some guy steals your car, the government shouldn’t arrest him unless your car was a super-luxury vehicle whose cost would exceed the cost of a trial? I mean, it just makes no sense at all. What on earth made you come up with that idea?
I just thought of a better analogy that might help tronnc (and others who share his opinion) understand the problem with tipper/tippee liability: stolen property. Let’s say I break into your house and steal your computer, your TV, cash, etc. I think everybody agrees that I should be prosecuted as a burglar. But I take that computer and TV and whatnot down to a local pawnshop. I tell the guy at the pawnshop “Hey, I just stole all this stuff from tronnc down the street. I’ll sell it to you for half-price, since I got it for free.” Wouldn’t you agree that the pawnshop owner should also be guilty of something, if he accepts the deal? I mean, he knows the stuff was just wrongfully stolen from somebody. He shouldn’t be able to take advantage of that, should he? Shouldn’t he have to tell the guy “Jesus, I’m not buying something you just stole from someone.”
If you agree, you have a problem with your insider trading argument. Because there’s no “victim” in the burglar-pawnshop transaction; your stuff has already been stolen, and it doesn’t make any difference to you whether I still have it or someone else does. But the law recognizes that people should be discouraged from helping other people commit crimes. Another example: accessory after the fact. I come over to your house and say “Hey, tronnc, I just robbed a bank. Do me a favor and hide this gun and ski mask in your house, okay? Because I think the cops might come search my place. I’ll give you $1,000 to hold the stuff.” Again, no victim, right? The bank’s money is already gone. But still, it’s a crime if you agree to hold the gun and ski mask for me, because it’s helping me commit a crime (or, in that case, escape prosecution for a crime).
Insider trading tippee liability is the same sort of idea. The insider is in a position of trust; the shareholders of the company trust him to treat them all equally. He isn’t allowed to tell some of them the stock is about to tank, but not others. Because that’s just not fair; he’s agreed to act in the best interests of all of the stockholders. So if the CEO tells Martha the stock is about to tank, he’s guilty. And she’s guilty if she trades on that information, because she knows it’s “tainted” information, that it comes as a result of the CEO fucking over the rest of the shareholders and showing favor to Martha. She’s like the pawnshop owner, given an opportunity to profit from another person’s illegal acts.
Now, in this case, they’re one step removed: the CEO tells his broker to sell (which is clearly illegal), and the broker passes the tip on to Martha. To get a conviction, the USAO would have to show that the CEO was using inside information when the talked to the broker; that the broker, knowing he had tainted inside information, then passed that tainted inside info to Martha; and Martha knew the info was tainted when she decided to sell. I think all those things are almost certainly true. But I can see the USAO deciding it’s just too complicated, and they’d rather go for the easy obstruction / conspiracy / lying stuff. But that’s why Martha’s actions are also probably insider trading, and why the law is right (IMO) to treat what she did as a crime.
I was going to make a post kind of like Rywill’s, but not as good. I’ll just say “What he said” instead.
They really went after Martha because of her arrogance. I remember reading a year or so back that the DOJ not only couldn’t get a straight story from her when the controversy first kicked up, they couldn’t get her to come in and talk to them at all. They kept requesting an interview, she kept stalling. And then she spoke to Vanity Fair or Larry King or somebody about the whole situation and that set the DOJ right off. That’s when the obstruction charges were first considered. If the arrogant twit had only displayed some sort of humility at some point, admitted some wrongdoing, she would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Even a $10 million fine would have been a good result. Now, her name’s been destroyed and the brand is, according to most financial experts, dead. They expect more than a third of advertisers and sponsors like K-Mart to disappear thanks to the convictions.
Still, it’s hard to feel bad for someone so pompous. And of course she’s still gonna come out of prison worth hundreds of millions.
No, Scalia. That’s where the appeal might end up. Cheney can only help her if he convinces Bush to pardon her.
Cheney can only help her if he convinces Bush to pardon her.
Well crap, maybe I should have bet on this with Rywill instead.
I’m wondering if she’s going to do time. I would expect she could do more good via community service.
I also wonder if her legal team is going to get much business after this.
I haven’t checked the guidelines, but I’m almost certain that an obstruction conviction includes mandatory time (even with no criminal history). There are rules about where you have to serve your setence, and it’s really easy in the federal system to find yourself in the “Must do at least half of your sentence in prison” or “Must do whole sentence in prison” part of the rules.
I am not sure why more people aren’t bugged about this.
Martha was convicted pretty much entirely on the testimony of a person that was asked to change their testimony in order to have charges dropped against them.
I am not entirely convinced she broke any laws. I also don’t believe the government proved their case.
I am entirely convinced this was a Juror Lynching. They wanted to see the Big Bad Lady drop, and they did. The statements some of the jurors have been giving out belay an extreme ignorance as to how the stock market works. I find it almost unfathomable that they were not given at least the basics in that court room.
I am quite irritated by all of this. There are so many more important people that should be in jail. People that have actually caused harm (Hint: Martha didn’t hurt a single person on this entire planet, how’s that for a good law?) and are still walking around free.