CNN Breaking...Martha Stewart gets 5 months

[maddezmom]

in prison, 5 months home confinement and 2 yrs probation. Perhaps the judge will stay the sentence based on her appeal.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=530&ncid=530&e=1&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_bi_ge/martha_stewart

( only link I could find...hopefully it'll be updated)

Another link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040716/bs_nm/crime_marthastewart_dc

[mstrsplinter326]

1. Sham.... Scapegoat for all white collar crime

Picked cause she's a woman

[MaineDem]

3. I honestly hadn't seen your post...

We used the same words! :)

[mstrsplinter326]

10. weird

:)

[lovedems]

4. A woman who donates big to the democrats.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=CT&last=Stewart&first=Martha

[goddess40]

61. If she only had a penis and gave to republicans

she wouldn't have been bothered.

[dArKeR]

103. "I'm doing my time, when will Bush do his Harken time?" Martha said!

Why don't Democrats have common sense? Or do they say these things but the Corporate Media Whore don't air it on the public airwaves?


"I'm doing my time, when will Noelle Bush do her drug dealing/using time?"

[Jack from Charlotte]

139. That congressman who "Laura Bushed" the guy on the motorcycle

got how much time? 6 months but with good behavior it'll only be 3 months.

So Stewart get's 5 months for lying to a......lawyer...... while that congressman get's 3 months for killing someone.

OK

[MaineDem]

2. Kenny Boy better get more when he's convicted!

I think Martha is a scapegoat. I don't like the woman but it's a sham.

[Redhead488]

8. She committed a crime

A jury found her gulity. Why is this a sham?

[mstrsplinter326]

13. because the tyco lawyer got off

as have hundreds before them. Men, all of 'em, and their crimes are much more haneous and hurtful to america than martha selling stock when it was going to crash

[MaineDem]

20. I don't think the issue was selling the stock

It was obstruction for hindering the investigation, if I remember correctly.

[Redhead488]

23. They should have gone to jail as well

That doesn't mean Martha she be let off.

[chelsea0011]

18. There isn't. she was quilty of a crime

I don't get it. The list of corporate trials and convictions is huge and growing. Martha is just one of them. I don't understand why being a woman has any bearing in this. Her co-conspirator was convicted and last I looked he seemed to be male. I bet he gets longer jail time, also.

[mstrsplinter326]

21. Sham: Tyco, Halliburton,etc. n/t

[Redhead488]

26. And that has WHAT to do with what Martha did?

[mstrsplinter326]

45. Does she belong in jail YES!

Do the ceo's of most major corporations belong in jail yes.

HENCE: SHE IS A SCAPEGOAT, A DISTRACTOR.

These people belong in jail:
Ken Lay
Dick Cheney
Phil Knight
Michael Eisner
Rupert Murdoch
Robert B. Shapiro
Bernard Ebbers
Bill Green
John Harris
James Baker III
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.

[Redhead488]

47. No, she'd be a scapegoat

only if she were innocent...she's not.

So far, none of those others have been convicted of, or in most cases indicted for, anything.

Seems to me you think ALL CEOs are criminals. I pity your way of thinking.

[mstrsplinter326]

58. She distracts the commoner from the facts at hand

And no I don't think all ceo's are criminals or that list would have gone on for a day or two.

Check those names and the companies they work for: Arthur Anderson, Pharmicia (Monsanto), Nike, Carlyle, WorldCom.

When a CEO commits human rights violations, sometimes willfully allowing the death and torture of workers (Phil Knight) that's when I think they are criminals.

You seem to think that somehow justice can now be counted because Martha went to jail. I'd say justice is served when Cheney and Lay are convicted, as their crimes are much more haneous. I pity your way of thinking.

[Redhead488]

68. Justice was served in Martha's case

Now, we need to see the smae done for other criminals. And I don't think Phil Knight is a criminal.

[mstrsplinter326]

72. You should hear him speak, you might change your mind

He actively works against human rights organizations that try to help alleviate the conditions of nike factory workers just because he can. Phil Knight is open about his evilness too, he's done interviews where he admits openly to profiting on the back of near-slave labor.

I agree, and have said from the begining that yes, Martha belongs in jail, but Martha is not even a drop in the pond of evil that plauges the white-collar community.

[Redhead488]

75. Well, I agree with the second part of your post!

[mstrsplinter326]

141. and disagree with the first half??

How? it's just fact...

[Toucano]

80. Sorry, but your're wrong.

A scapegoat "bears the blame of others".

One needn't be innocent to be a scapegoat. One simply takes blame that belongs to somebody else.

I pity your way of not thinking. ;)

[Redhead488]

89. So someone ELSE was to blame for Martha's insider trading

and subsequent offenses? Who?

[Toucano]

101. What "insider trading"?

Had there been insider trading, wouldn't she have been charged with insider trading?

[Redhead488]

105. They couldn't prove it.

And technically she didn't do it, I guess. Since she was not an insider. Too bad she didn't figure that out before lying to the feds.

[Vinni100]

135. Lying to the feds

First of all she didn't lie to the feds. Second, if anything she was coerced by prosecutors without her counsel present. If she made a false statement, it was made under duress. If a false statement was made, for what crime? More importantly, what alleged crime? There wasn't one?

This was a dog and pony show plain and simple.

What worries me most is that most people feel like you do until they are met with the same circumstances.

No crime was committed. The jury was biased and at least one member of that jury committed perjury to get on the jury.

People in our society literally hate successful people. The media decides FOR us, who is guilty and who is not guilty. This country of ours is slowly eroding into the idiot box abyss. The television feeds us our daily dose of what they feel we need to know or not know and we buy it!

If you don't like Martha Stewart (never really knew she was that big until this case), then say I don't like Martha Stewart because she's rich and I'm not. All rich people should go to jail......yeesh.

12 jurors found her guilty? Give me a break!

[One_Life_To_Give]

128. Scapegoat or Lead Story

Martha gets alot of Ink. But I am not sure she is a scapegoat except maybe in the popular press.

Martha's stock broker is to be sentenced today
Fastow's wife is to report to prison today.
Paula (don't remember last name) charged/convicted of Insider trading this week.
Watson indicted
and the continuing saga of Waxel and Global Crossing

Maybe somebody has a complete list of all those charged/convicted/sentenced resulting from SEC investigation in the past 12 months. Could be a pattern there but the press seems more interested in selling papers than getting to the truth.

[Lindacooks]

102. Yeah, right

Convicted of lying about a crime she wasn't charged with, that's some crime. And don't forget a key government's witness in that trial has been charged with perjury:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/21/news/midcaps/martha/

[Kool Kitty]

152. No, not all CEOs. Only the ones that commit crimes.

[Ilsa]

76. You forgot W for selling off his Harken stock

based on insider information. He's a bum and he got away with it.

[LTR]

111. You missed one

George W. Bush.

He made a killing on the sale of Harken stock, due to inside information. Martha saved $50k.

I'm not a Martha Stewart fan, but this smells of witch hunt.

[IronLionZion]

142. If she had hung on to it

she would have made $80,000 by now. It wasn't insider trading.

Her crime was lying to federal investigators about it.

[soothsayer]

24. Was that proven? The gov't witness admitted he LIED! Judge did nothing

[Redhead488]

29. Yeah, you see, once the JURY returns a guilty verdict

she becomes a proven criminal. That's the way it works. The prosecution PROVED to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martha was guilty. They weren't there to try TYCO or ENRON or anyone else; only Martha.

[mstrsplinter326]

74. Ok, so if you were convicted of crime you didn't commit

Are you guilty (Not defending martha, this is strictly a law/ethics question)

Free Lenard Peltier!

[Redhead488]

77. By the rule of law?

Yes.

[NJCher]

31. you and redhead

should go read up on the case. There are intricacies that make a big difference in whether you can say, "She lied, she's guilty."

I can't recall the details enough to summarize them here now but I recall after I read them awhile back, I realized what a farce the government's case is. As numerous posters have made the case on this thread, they basically are using her as a scapegoat and a means of diverting attention from other, more serious crimes that are going on.

In addition, the fact that she is a powerful woman and donates to Dems must have made her the perfect foil.


Cher

on edit: speaking live now, she characterizes it as a small personal matter that was blown way out of proportion. Says they went after her with venom.

[Redhead488]

42. Simple question for you...

Did a jury of 12 find her innocent or guilty?

[Puglover]

55. Simple question for you...

why so down on Martha and so defensive of the other CEOs?

[Redhead488]

70. I'm not defending other CEO's

If they commit a crime, they need to be punished.

Martha committed a crime, now she has to do the time. What's wrong with that?

[patcox2]

59. I presume you supported the impeachment, as well, redhead?

All about the rule of law, right? After all, Bill Clinton did indeed lie, so it doesn't matter that it was a set up and a politically motivated investigation and that he was held to a standard that never would have been imposed on anyone else, right?

I think thats what people here are saying when they say its a sham. I have been a lawyer for 15 years with some criminal defense experience (as a public defender) and I think this prosecution was a sham. When a prosecutor can't even prove that you did what they they are investigating you for (they never proved insider trading, never even went to trial on it)and can only prove that you lied to them during the investigation, thats a sign that the prosecution had a real hard on for you. And the charge that she was acquitted of, manipulating her own stock by maintaining her innocense, that charge was an outrage in and of itself.

[Redhead488]

71. As to the facts

Bill Clinton did commit a crime; HOWEVER, I do not think it rose to the level of impeachment.

The bottom line was that a JURY found Martha guilty. Not a prosecuter, not the judge. The JURY. That's the way the system works.

She committed a CRIME. She got what she deserved. Plus, the greedy woman was stupid about the whole thing.

[Toucano]

73. Are you serious? You're just defending the justice system, and

the justice system sucks.

Surely you've heard or read about the people being released from prison because new DNA evidence proves they're innocent. Juries convicted innocent people, usually minorities.

Once upon a time in Salem they convicted women for being witches. Does that mean they were witches?

Martha is a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

In a just system, a lying juror and a lying prosecution witness cannot convict a person of lying to investigators about a crime that no one is charged with committing. They couldn't prove she was guilty of the crime they were investigating, and they had to use liars to convict her of lying to investigators. God Bless America!

[Redhead488]

78. Yeah, the justice system totally sucks

Let's just do away with it.

[Toucano]

81. Don't think I used the word "totally".

Nice way to avoid defending your pathetic argument. ;)

[Redhead488]

88. What patethic arguement?

She was found guilty. Many legal pundits say she SHOULD have been found guilty based on the merits of the case. You don't agree? Fine, that's your opinion and the opinion of many other legal pundits. Mine is: the system worked. She did the crime, now she has to do the time.

[Toucano]

108. Your pathetic argument

which you quickly dropped was expressed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=689730&mesg_id=689822&page=


Now you offer this gem of wisdom:

"Mine is: the system worked. She did the crime, now she has to do the time."

You defend a system that uses 2 liars to convict someone of lying.

That's just obscene. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[NJCher]

133. you seem to like "simple"

That's what republicans count on--people who like to see things in black and white. I think the posts above show this is not a black and white situation, although the government would dearly like it to be.


Cher

[Vinni100]

136. petty argument

I sure hope nothing ever happens to you. You seem like a person of powerful conviction :)

[AndyTiedye]

118. Convicted on Perjured Testimony

There was a small matter of perjury by a government witness, which
may have tainted the case against her.

I'm just not sure she's actually guilty.

I AM sure that it was a case of selective prosecution.

[gatlingforme]

145. That did not seem to bother the judge too much, a motion to

have case retried because of this "tainted" testimony was dismissed. The guy allegedly lied about him doing the actual test, so it really had nothing to do with the actual evidence. She is going to jail because of her own stupidity IMHO .

[Ganja Ninja]

22. Martha will be out of jail before Kennyboy is pardoned in January.

That's the real sham. If your rich you can steal and get a slap on the wrist. If your poor and have a darker complexion you get reamed.

[Snoggera]

91. Martha

is rich and got 5 months in prison. I don't remember seeing any pictures of her with a dark complexion.

[bushisanidiot]

5. Good! Compared to ENRON she did absolutely NOTHING wrong

this was the repuke justice department going after a prominent female democrat.. just because they could, and for NO other reason!

[The Magistrate]

6. As Near To Justice, Ma'am

As the law, and the foolishness of this jury, would allow the judge.

This prosecution was a sham, trumped up for no other reasons than to distract from the shenannigans of persons closely connected to the criminals of the '00 Coup, and to disable a woman of wealth who contributed to the Democratic Party.

There was no real crime done here; certainly no real crime was ever proved in court.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[tishaLA]

9. The magistrate speaks the truth

as always, sir.

[AngryAmish]

46. "Foolishness of the jury"

I happen to beleive in the jury system. If I recall correctly, she was convicted for false statments to gov't agency about her trades, not the trades herself. She foolishly spoke with the investigators, because she felt she had to clear everything up fast to protect her stock price.

Was the gov't wrong to prosecute her? Probably, just because of the sums involved. However, if the word gets around that anyone can get away with lying to investigators it is a problem.

She was picked because of her fame and to set an example. Other people have stolen much larger and got away with it. But she could be made an example and she is an example.

[The Magistrate]

86. In My View, Sir

The jury ought to have voted an acquittal, for it does not seem to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt there were actionably false statements made. The jury system certainly enjoys my own affection, as well, but this does not require me to agree that in all instances it results in a correct or wise outcome: in many instances, and for many reasons, it does not.

[AngryAmish]

100. Not to flame you, but I must disagree

Even in well publicized cases, the reporting of legal matters tends to be deep as a puddle. I was not at the trial and I do not know what evidence was presented. I cannot judge the credibility of the witnesses because I can't see their expression on their faces while they testify. (That is why appellate courts are so loathe to judge credibility of witnesses.)

I have not read the jury instructions and do not know whether the jury was properly charged. However, Ms. Stewart had many competent attorney who were there to protect her rights. In fact, the judge tossed the insider trading charge.

No matter what attorneys do, juries have an ability of looking through BS. They overwhelmingly come up with the right result.

I also do not think the trial was rigged. The decision to prosecute, maybe. But I don't think anyone said the judge was crooked.

[The Magistrate]

106. No Need To Worry About That, Sir

You may have heard the old saw about wrestling with a pig: you will both get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it?

Nothing you say is untrue, and certainly there is no allegation that the judge was corrupt. But my abiding conviction of the imperfection of all human institutions militates against unquestioning acceptance of any action issuing from same, where that seems to me to be warranted....

[AngryAmish]

109. God point about imperfect human institutions

I am the only perfect one.

[The Magistrate]

115. Clearly, Sir

We continue in disagreement about at least one minor point....

[Snoggera]

92. Obviously a real crime was proved in court

or the jury wouldn't have found her guilty.

This was a case of obsessive prosecution, but the jury did find her guilty of a crime.

[The Magistrate]

94. Juries, Sir, Have Been Known To Err

In my view this one did. It makes no difference, of course, and under the law certainly conviction means a crime was proved, tautology though that be....

[Snoggera]

98. This was a simple conclusion to reach

No, she wasn't convicted on the numerous other charges that she faced, but the jury found that she had lied.

Is it permissible now to lie to investigators? If not, then she is guilty of a crime. If it is, then the whole house of cards can just fall down now.

[The Magistrate]

107. It Certainly Ought To Be, Sir

Particularly where the question amounts to "Did you do it?" You might as well then just try for perjury any defendant who has raised a defense, and been convicted nonetheless. The weakening of the Fifth Amendment is one of the most alarming features of modern jurisprudence: it the duty of investigators to make their case without the slightest reference to words of the suspect concerning the matter. Enquiries ought not be in truth mere fishing expeditions to create a crime through the incidents of the interrogation.

[Snoggera]

110. Enquiries ought not be in truth mere fishing expeditions

Perhaps, but every investigation is just that. Beginning with a certain number of facts and evidence, and proceeding based upon what is discovered during the "fishing expedition." There are any number of cases being investigated where the prosecution does not have complete knowledge of the crime. That is why there is an investigation. If a witness lies to investigators during this process, then that is considered a crime.

Am I mistaken in my belief that it is a crime to lie to investigators?

After all, she could have invoked the 5th amendment and said nothing at all. Instead, she chose to lie.

[The Magistrate]

116. A Vexed Ground, Sir

Persons are often wary of invoking their right to absolute silence, feeling it suggests they know they have committed a crime. A person may well not think, for various reasons, they have committed any crime, and their denial they have done so can be raised against them as a seperate crime. It is indeed, under current law, a crime to speak falsehood to a fedderal investigator: it damned well ought not to be. It is a thing that is frequently misused.

[Snoggera]

117. What is the reasoning behind

stating that it should not be a crime to lie to an investigator?

Innocent?
remain quiet and seek the advice of counsel.
proclaim your innocence, and offer evidence regarding why.

Guilty?
remain quiet and seek the advice of counsel.
proclaim your innocence, and lie to protect yourself.

Did I miss something here?

[The Magistrate]

122. At The Risk Of Repetition, Sir

The right against self-incrimination ought to be most broadly construed. The investigator ought to make the case without any assistance from the object of the investigation. No statement not made under oath ought to place anyone under criminal jeopardy.

Clearly, in some cases of dark and private deeds, interrogation to the point of confession may be necessary to make the case, so the above is an ideal statement. But in most cases, and particularly in cases of this sort, the case is made from abundant records, and testimony of witnesses. The interrogation becomes an exercise in entrapment, and is knowingly used as that by the investigators. These are, after all, free to lie as much as they please....

[Snoggera]

124. Your argument does not address the simple question

and this needs, apparently to be repeated:

Should it not be a crime to lie to investigators who are trying to solve a crime?

A simple yes or no will suffice. Excessive verbiage is unwarranted.

Thank you.

[The Magistrate]

127. It Addresses The Question, Sir

Only in a manner not much to your liking, apparently.

Statements by the object of the investigation to the investigators ought not subject that person to criminal jeopardy. That makes the manufacture of offenses far too easy for the interrogators.

Actions to obstruct justice, such as destruction of evidence, or collusion with others to present a web of falsehood in some matter, are properly criminal, and the laws against same ought to be sufficient to any competent investigator's or prosecutor's purposes.

[Snoggera]

131. I, again, see it differently

Lying to an investigator of a crime is, in my view, an action that obstructs justice, and should be viewed in the same light as destruction of evidence. An individual does have the right to remain silent, and thereby not incriminate himself/herself. If that individual chooses to speak, and to lie, then they are taking action, and are by that action obstructing the pursuit of justice.



Take care.

[The Magistrate]

132. And Yourself As Well, Sir

A pleasure to cross words with you!

"When constabulary duty's to be done, a policeman's lot is not a happy one."

[Snoggera]

120. So, you believe it should not be a crime to lie to investigators

trying to solve a crime.

That, sir, is ridiculous.

[The Magistrate]

123. You Will Need On Occassion, Sir

To make allowance for persons with balky machines, and several wrangles on at once. Patience is a virtue.

Lies told policemen by the object of their investigations bother me not at all, Sir: laws against the practice seem downright un-American....

[Snoggera]

125. We will have to simply disagree on this.

I see no incentive for telling the truth in your belief, and that is troubling.

Have a good day.

[The Magistrate]

126. The Leading Incentive For Telling The Truth, Sir

Is that it is easier to remember....

[patcox2]

150. Finally, a kindred spirit, at least on this issue.

I do believe that it is wrong to prosecute the subject of an investigation for lying to the police. I may be crazy, but I also think it unamerican to prosecute a person for lying to the police. If the police cannot prove the underlying crime and are left to prosecute for lying during the investigation, it seems to me a form of entrapment; there would have been no crime but for the police instigating the lie by asking the question.

There is a surprising authoritarian strain amongst these progressives that troubles me.

Let me posit a question or two to those who think it is immoral and rightly illegal to lie to the police: Are you aware that it is lawful and indeed standard practice for the police to lie to you when they are questioning you? There is no questioning this statement, lying to the suspect is the standard operating procedure when questioning; they will tell you that someone saw you commit the crime, they will tell you that your accomplice already implicated you, they will make false promises of leniency if you talk. All of these practices have been specifically approved by the courts. Is it fair to make it illegal for a suspect to lie to the police, yet allow the police to baldly and flagrantly lie to the suspect at the same time?

[The Magistrate]

151. That Is About The Size Of It, Sir

The thing ought at least to be kept sporting....

"The police are not the opponents but the supervisors of the criminal element in society."

[Vinni100]

137. lies to investigators

The prosecution is a win all or known game. Prosecutors win cases and are rewarded with appointments and some become elected officials. Most prosecutors do not care if you are innocent or guilty. They are in court to win a case.

The moment a person like Martha Stewart is approached by the prosecution team, she has two choices: the first is to remain silent and tell the prosecutors she prefers to consult her council before meeting with them and/or would like her attorney present. Downside? She's got something to hide.

The second: fully cooperate. Downside? Statements taken out of context. Coercion of facts. Tactics meaningful to any ambitious prosecutor like intimidation or trick questioning. After all, the system is more on their side than not!

[The Magistrate]

144. Excvellent Points, Mr. Vinnie

Welcome to the Forum, Sir!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[SoCalDem]

7. Kerry should pardon her, so she could once again run her company

I think that because of the conviction, she is forever barred form running her own company.. The guys who "got her" wanted to RUIN her forever.. They were not interested in "justice"..they were after HER..

[Caution]

14. she can run her company

she just can't do it until her sentence is complete (5 months...the probation doesnt matter). The question is really whether or not it would be a good thing PR wise for her company if she took the helm again.

[Snellius]

11. I feel much safer that she's off the streets

Five months is better than nothing. My god, if someone didn't stop her the whole of America would have been painted in pastels and eating Brie. We all know she's French and actively promotes the liberal, elitist, gay agenda.

[Caution]

12. with a 5 month sentence she is elegible for Home Confinement

Best possible outcome for her. She's better off not asking for a stay, just get it over with.

[soothsayer]

19. Really? That would be great.

[Caution]

32. well it would be great if the reporters had a friggin clue

she got a 10 month sentence...5 in prison, 5 on home confinement. god they suck.

[russian33]

Witch-hunt if there ever was one

with a juror who had a conviction, and a witness who lied, and the defendant who gave to the dems...she got a conviction, come on!

FREE MARTHA!

[cal04]

15. Martha gets five months

Martha Stewart Sentenced to 10 Months for Obstructing Justice

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison, five months of home detention and a $30,000 fine for lying to federal authorities investigating her sale of stock in a friend's company.

The sentence, which was the minimum recommended, caps the downfall of Stewart, who built a suburban catering business into a billion-dollar media and housewares company. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., was worth $2.52 billion on Oct. 19, 1999, the day its shares first traded publicly. Stewart's stake was valued at $1.77 billion, more than quadruple the entire company's worth today.

Stewart, a former model who won Emmy awards as a television host, faced up to 16 months in jail for lying to investigators probing her Dec. 27, 2001, sale of nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone Systems Inc. stock.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, 74, rejected Stewart's bid to avoid prison at a hearing today in New York. Stewart sought to serve her sentence in community service helping underprivileged women launch their own businesses.

Stewart, 62, and her former Merrill Lynch & Co. broker, Peter Bacanovic, 42, were convicted March 5 of obstructing justice. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Bacanovic, who will be sentenced this afternoon, also faces between 10 and 16 months in prison.

The Martha Stewart case is U.S. v. Stewart, 03CR717, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum allowed Stewart to remain free pending her appeal. The sentence, which was the minimum recommended, caps the downfall of Stewart, who built a suburban catering business into a billion-dollar media and housewares company.


http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a8R7EWoTerS4&refer=home

[soothsayer]

16. How long does she really have to serve?

Bastards. I'm wearing my Free Martha tee shirt today.

[underpants]

17. That is one month per $7,600 of profit

Gee wonder what they spent on the prosecution?

[Texasgal]

25. Sorry... but.....

Martha Stewart makes ALL women look bad. You cannot lie to feds and get away with it. I think her sentence is appropriate.

[soothsayer]

27. The gov't witness LIED in court, and ADMITTED he lied

So why is THAT ok?????

[cal04]

36. Clinton-Era Solicitor General to Make Case

It's always ok for this gov't to lie.)


One-time Clinton White House legal adviser Walter Dellinger will take on the appeal for Martha Stewart after her sentencing Friday morning, and ABC News has learned the details of Dellinger's argument for a stay in her sentence pending appeal.
ABC News has learned Dellinger intends to focus on an overall pattern of unfairness. Points Dellinger is prepared to raise include:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Business/US/martha_stewart_appeal_040715-1.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Bulhockey....

If Martha were male and Republican no charges would have been brought

[RetroLounge]

37. Bullshit

and welcome to DU, if you stay...

RL

[Texasgal]

140. Hey RL

Thank you for such a WARM welcome.... not to worry, this one has VERY thick skin.

[cybildisobedience]

53. so I assume the ENTIRE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives --- I mean, if lying is the real problem here.

[Bridget Burke]

57. If you're a slovenly housewife who's not too bright....

I suppose Martha makes you look pretty bad. If you've figured out that she's a smart woman with good taste & a lot of assistants, her work can be amusing & occasionally useful.

A fine & community service would be appropriate. However, she's going to appeal.

[Puglover]

60. Oh good God...

explain in detail exactly HOW Martha makes "all women look bad".

[Raster]

62. 'scuse me.... one of the prosecutor's lead witnesses now admits ...

...he lied!!! He perjured himself!!!

[Cha]

148. Sorry, that statement is so wrong on so many

levels. But, hey, keep up with those broad generalizations, why don't ya?

[Kool Kitty]

153. That's funny, I just looked at myself and thought,

not bad. Cannot lie to feds and get away with it? Have you been reading the papers much? Half of this goddamn administration lies to feds and us and anyone that will listen. Sure doesn't seem to be doing them any harm.

[Zech Marquis]

30. 5 months?!

compared to what Kenny Boy pulled of, this is an outrage! While I'm not a fan of Martha Steward, the fact that hse's been dragged in the mud like this makes me :puke: while the REAL crooks are laughng at us from the WH :grr:

...until November 2nd :evilgrin:

[MadHound]

33. Sorry friends, but I think this is more than lenient

The woman basically stole $35,000 using inside information. If you or I had stolen that much, we would be doing hard time, 10-20 years. Hell, convictions for victimless crimes bring usually involve years of jail time, especially if you are black. Martha is getting off easy, and I really have no sympathy for her, she did the crime, she can do the time.

On the other hand, I also think that Lay, Skillings and these other white collar criminals should get busted hard, and do longer time since they looted more money. We will have to see if the justice system follows through.

But to say that Martha doesn't deserve this is ludicrous. In fact, she is really getting off rather easy. Five months in a country club jail, then house arrest and probation. Just gotta love white collar crime, the take is larger and the time is shorter:eyes:

[MaineDem]

35. I agree it could have been worse but...

This is an obstruction case, not stock manipulation.

But I am glad she wasn't given a stiffer sentence.

[Texasgal]

38. I absolutely agree with you madhound!

I have no idea why people are getting all riled up about this. She is a criminal! REPEAT: You cannot lie to the feds and get away with it...PERIOD!

[Puglover]

64. Gee whiz Texasgal

I do hope you're right. If you are then it should only be a matter of time before our unelected fraud of a president and Toilet mouth are behind bars. I do hope they get more time however.

[Caution]

41. wrong

she was not convicted of this crime because they never charged her with it due to lack of evidence. Instead they charged her with obstruction of justice, saying that she tried to cover things up. and then it turned out the main witness lied and admitted to lying on the stand and is now facing perjury charges.

She got the sentence that she was legislated to get (10 months, not 5) in the federal sentencing guidelines. If you, I or ken lay were charged with the same thing, we would have gotten the same sentence.

She is most certainly not getting off easy, considering that they didnt have solid evidence against her in the first place and went after he on a bullshit charge similar to all the poor fools in prison today on conspiracy charges.

[MadHound]

49. Excuse me, I really haven't been keeping up on the Martha sideshow

I have better things to do. Last I heard, it looked like there was a pretty serious case against her for insider trading. Still and all, she did the crime, she can do the time. From what I understand, she is getting a minimal sentencing, that she could have gotten sixteen months max. Instead, she is getting a slap on the wrist for lying about insider trading. I'm still convinced that she deserves this. Cush jail time, house arrest and probation. Gee, with all of her money, I think that this will be an easy stint for her. Unlike people who do victimless crimes, and get tossed in the pokey for seven years on the pocession of 1 joint.

Sorry friend, no sympathy here.

[cleofus1]

54. where do you get your information ?

The twilight zone?

[MadHound]

65. No friend, I read broadly and deeply

But I really haven't kept up with the Martha sideshow. I refuse to have my attention distracted by the "po' widdle rich girl" sideshow that this trial has turned out to be. She was charged and convicted with conspiracy and obstruction. From what I've seen and heard, she deserves the conviction. I don't believe in giving people passes because of their political affiliations, size of their wallet, or how recognizable their name is. She ripped people off, so she should do the time.

What, you think she should walk away because she's a good Dem, or because she does fantastic handicrafts:eyes:

[cleofus1]

66. then you would know

she was never charged with insider trading...if they had such a great insider trading case why was she never charged? Answer me that mister "deep reader"!!!ANSWER ME! ANSWER ME!

[MadHound]

85. Excuse me friend,

But do you always stomp your feet and scream at people? I'm sorry, but I'm not beholden to you, or anyone else on this board, I'm here becasue I want to be. If you are going to act like a spoiled little brat and throw a temper tantrum over a simple disagreement, then fuck off.

Good day!

[cleofus1]

96. WAH WAH WAH

Don't be such a baby and answer my question...madhound...why is it people on this board love to bash democratic supporter using republican talking points?

[Raster]

63. no, there was ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGES BROUGHT FOR...

...INSIDER TRADING. NONE.

[soothsayer]

87. Right. It was for LYING! So how come the lying gov't witness isn't in

jail? Or * and Cheney!!!

[Redhead488]

97. Becasue, like Martha.

he gets to have a TRIAL first.

[birdbrain]

119. Really? When?

Selective enforcement = harassment.

Period. Case closed.

[RedEarth]

50. I agree ......

Way too lenient.....white collar criminals should be sentenced the same as any other type criminal. Just because they don't use a gun, doesn't mean they don't deserve strict punishment.

[jeanmarc]

52. Yep, the news was reporting 10 to 16 months....

and some article was condemning her for having a good time before being thrown in jail. Said that it might affect the ruling. Well, that theory was smashed. 5 months is half of what they thought she would get.

Not fun, but not exactly hell either. 5 months is fair if you are convicted. Especially in the prision she's going to. Now bring on Kenny Boy!

The worst thing is the bums never got Boy Bush. What he got away with was far worse.

[patcox2]

67. That is not what she was convicted of.

She was not even tried on a charge of insider trading. Don't throw that bullshit around. If you are such a stickler about the law you would know that despite your opinion that she engaged in insider trading, she was not convicted of that crime and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Thats the typical rationale used by corrupt cops and prosecutors when they convict someone by lying or falsifying evidence, they say, "so what if I lied to convict him on this charge, I know he is guilty of something." Here you are saying the same thing, "so what if the charge she was convictetd of is horseshit, I know she is guilty of that other charge she was not convicted of."

[NJCher]

34. Martha speaking live now

Apologizing and thanking those who stood by her.


Cher

[fryguy]

40. and stumping for her company....

I guess any press is good press for business?

[Sporadicus]

39. I Still Claim She Was Set Up

and I refuse to don a tinfoil hat to make the assertion that she was set up by the * administration.

The drug that was declined approval by the FDA was later approved by the same agency - after the SEC launched their investigation into possible insider trading re Imclone and indictments had been handed down. I think her trial was in progress when the FDA switched position on the drug.

[NJCher]

43. Walter Dillinger impressive

He will be handling the appeal.


Cher

[DelawareValleyDem]

44. 5 months

Seems like a lot when Bill Janklow, who never met a speed limit that could hold him, ran a stop sign and drove a motorcyclist into the pavement and only got three months after being convicted of manslaughter

[Raster]

56. remember, run-'em-down bill was a repuke.....

...different rules for the repukes. They don't observe the laws, they just make 'em and break 'em!

[lovedems]

69. Yep. And what have Kenny's Boys republican donations bought him?

At least 3 years of freedom. I will be interested to see what kind of case they bring against him. I suspect "it will be hard to prove" and he will spend the rest of his years in one of his many mansions rather then behind bars.

[thecrow]

48. Does anybody see this as precedent setting

for Kenny-Boys trial?

[Raster]

51. Martha's being railroaded because she's a big DEM supporter...

...and because the repukes in power needed something or someone to deflect the heat off of them and their NUMEROUS misdeeds. Contrast this to supporters of gee-dubya. Kenny-boy is just now entering the legal process. And you just know, as gee-dubya's largest single contributor, he ain't gonna see one day of prison. I also believe she was singled out because she was a strong business WOMAN. The financial industry in this country is still very much conservative, right-wing and white male. I know. I work in the financial industry.

Heard on Wall Street the day Martha's indictments were announced: "That's what happens when you give to only one party, and it's the wrong party."

[tlcandie]

79. My opinion... do the crime pay the time.

I don't mind that Martha spends time in jail if she was truthfully found guilty...along with any conspirators.

What I do mind is that TRUE criminals of the heinious(?) degree go unchecked and walk around like they have done nothing because they are connected. Maybe that was Martha's true downfall...she was connected!

I don't particularly care for Martha, especially after it was found how horrible she treated those around her...called her lessers.

What I do find irritating is that everyone is so gungho on her paying while others get off scot-free!

When we can quit throwing innocents into jail over trumphed up charges and start putting the rich man/woman into jail then I will be impressed. Until then it's hypocrisy IMO.

And yes, I know that Martha has $$$$, but she isn't among those of whom I am talking about...you know who they are! They are,

"The have and have mores. Some call them the elites, others call them their base!"

[Cassandra]

82. How much time did Mrs. Fastow get?

She was a real insider setting up off shore partnerships.

[Walt Starr]

83. My wife and I will have to decide on the colors for our living room

and buy MARTHA STEWART paint this weekend.

Of course it will have to match the MARTHA STEWART furniture we buy, too.

[freemarketer]

84. She gets five months at Club Fed (Danbury), five months making

cookies at home, and 2 years of a meaningless probation. Plus, she's appealing WITHOUT HAVING TO SERVE PENDING APPEAL--a sure sign of her appeal going through. Next trial she walks. Amerika, Amerika God shed his grace on Martha and George...but the people? Phuck them.

[thebigidea]

99. you try 5 months in one of those places and see how much you smile

Anyway, they haven't picked Danbury yet.

[freemarketer]

112. If it's Danbury, it's a country club. It's a cliche "Go to Danbury and get

a nice rest..." If you have money there, you can be waited on hand and foot. I was hoping Martha would get 16 months at a real prison, so she would know her chit stinks like everyone else. But I'm prejudice: I hate the woman only a little less than President Piece of Chit.

Ta Ta

[thebigidea]

114. I think your information on "country club" facilities might be dated

They don't really have that any more outside of bad movies.

And yeah, I can see why you would hate Martha Stewart only a little less than Bush, what with all the thousands of people she's sent to their deaths and all.

[Bridget Burke]

130. According to this article, Danbury is not a country club....

The millionaire is expected to spend 10 to 16 months sharing a toilet and working for about 12 cents an hour at the minimum-security women's prison, where the walls are drab concrete and the 1,300 inmates wear starched khaki jumpsuits.

"There's nothing soft or colorful or pleasant in the whole environment," said Caryl Hartjes, 68, a Roman Catholic nun who served three months at Danbury for trespassing during a protest against the U.S. military.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001877291_martha12.html

Feel free to correct me if you've actually done time there.

[LTR]

113. I heard she was going into general pop

Nothing about a 'Club Fed'.

[Chicago Democrat]

90. It makes me sad.... I want my World Comm investment back

and it is sad when anyone has to go to jail. I think she was targeted becasue she was a a powerful woman. I'm glad its only 5 mos.

[Comicstripper]

93. Stewie Says:

"Say, I've got an idea. Let's all make comments about her decorating her jail cell elaborately. Yes, that....that hasn't been done, has it?"

[Snoggera]

95. Is it against the law to lie to investigators

during the investigation of a crime?

If you think it isn't, or shouldn't be, then by all means, scream from the rooftops that Martha should go free.

If you believe that it is, and still think she should go free, then I suppose it would then be acceptable for anyone being investigated for a crime to lie.

Selective justice isn't what this system is based on. Sure, she has been convicted while we are still waiting for other criminals to be convicted of even greater crimes, but she still, according to the laws of this country, committed a crime. That is why she was found guilty.

[Bo]

104. 200 people lost jobs?

Wow. Whats up with that?

[jobycom]

121. Forget Lay, why didn't W Bush get the same sentence in 1990?

Bush did the same thing when he sold his Harken stocks. The SEC investigated and concluded he was guilty, but refused to recommend charges. Helps to have a daddy who's president.

Or to be best friends with a Bush, or to sleep with him, or whatever.

[okiedemocrat]

129. but what does Bush get for doing the same thing, only worse!!

And you think Martha Stewart is bad?
Bush’s Insider Connections: Preceded Huge Profit On Stock Deal

It has been widely reported that Texas Gov. George W. Bush made money over the years with a little help from his friends. But new details show that he served on an energy corporation’s board and was able to realize a huge profit by selling his stock in the corporation because an accounting sleight-of-hand concealed it was losing large sums of money. Shortly after he sold, the stock price plummeted. That profit helped make him a multimillionaire.


By Knut Royce
The Center for Public Integrity

(Washington, 4 April) The year 1986 was very good for George W. Bush.

After a decade of striking Texas brown dust instead of oil, his luck finally turned that year when go-for-broke Harken Energy Corp. bought his failing oil exploration firm for stock. Four years later the company concealed large losses just before the GOP presidential hopeful unloaded those securities for a nice profit. That, in turn, helped finance his stake in the Texas Rangers baseball club and catapult him into the ranks of multimillionaires.

And it was in 1986, too, that Harken’s CEO introduced Bush, the company’s new director and consultant—as well as son of then-Vice President George Bush--to a little startup health-care company. He put in a modest investment, and a few years later walked away with a six-figure windfall.

There also was a little benefit on the side. In 1994, when Bush was running for Texas governor, and scrambling for campaign cash, insiders in that health-care company, now known as Advance Paradigm, contributed $23,700.

Bush’s sale of the Harken stock in 1990 attracted the attention of regulators and the national media because he was tardy in filing the required public disclosure, and because the trade came shortly before the company reported for the first time that it was incurring huge losses.


Hemorrhaging Concealed

But The Public i has found that Harken was bleeding profusely even before Bush unloaded his stock. Harken effectively concealed the hemorrhaging by selling a retail subsidiary through a seller-financed loan but recording the transaction in its 1989 balance sheet as a cash sale. Securities and Exchange Commission records suggest that Bush, a company director who sat on Harken’s audit committee and was a paid consultant to the firm, may nonetheless have been unaware of the sleight-of-hand accounting or, for that matter, other significant company actions Nevertheless, SEC accountants cried foul when it discovered Harken had recorded the 1989 sale as a capital gain.

But it was months after Bush’s June 1990 sale of the stock at $4 a share, for a total of $848,560, that the SEC directed Harken to recast its 1989 annual report and to publicly disclose the extent of its losses that year, according to records reviewed by The Public i.

It is unclear how a timely acknowledgement of the true losses would have affected the value of the stock when Bush sold. But most investors look at a company’s balance sheet, among other indicators of corporate well-being, before parting with their money.

Two months after Bush’s sale, Harken reported for the first time in a quarterly report that it was losing a lot of money, and the stock dropped to $2.37 a share. By the end of the year, it was trading at about $1.

Harken masked its 1989 losses when in mid-year it sold 80 percent of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership of Harken insiders called International Marketing & Resources for $12 million, $11 million of which was through a note held by Harken. By Jan. 1, 1990, IMR, in turn, sold its stake in Aloha to a privately held company called Advance Petroleum Marketing, and the Harken loan was effectively transferred to Advance, though garanteed by IMR.


‘George and I Became Friends’

Advance Petroleum was headed by a Texas entrepreneur, David Halbert, who had been a friend and business partner of Harken’s CEO, Mikel Faulkner. In 1986, Faulkner had introduced Harken’s newest director, Bush, to Halbert. Harken, in a stock swap, had just acquired the ailing Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., where Bush had been CEO and a significant shareholder.

“George and I became friends,’’ recalled Halbert in a telephone interview with The Public i. Halbert said that at the time Faulkner introduced Bush to him he had just formed a little home-health-care firm, Allied Home Pharmacy, and was in the process of raising $250,000 in seed money.

“Mikel said (to Bush), ‘Hey, you might want to invest in this,’” Halbert recalled. “I said fine. I don’t remember how many people we brought in, but it wasn’t that many. Maybe 25 or 30 . . . It was sort of friends and family, and George invested.’’ So did Faulkner. Halbert said Bush also put in a little more money in an offering to existing shareholders in 1991.

Halbert said he did not recall how much Bush invested in the company.

Allied Home Pharmacy became known as Advance Paradigm, one of the nation’s leading pharmacy benefits management companies, when it went public in 1996. Two years later, Bush’s trust sold his stock in the firm.

Public records give no precise amount of how much he earned on the Advance stock sale, but Bush’s financial disclosure form made public last year shows that he realized a capital gain, or profit, of as much as $1 million on the sale. Asked how much the Texas governor paid for the stock and how much he profited from the sale, spokesman Scott McClellan referred all questions to the manager of Bush’s blind trust, Robert McCleskey. McCleskey declined to discuss his client’s investment in the Advance stock. He said that under the terms of the Texas blind trust—a legal requirement for the governor but less rigorous than the blind trust that applies to federal executive branch officers—he cannot tell even Bush how much profit he made on the sale.


SEC Probe Was Limited

The SEC’s division of enforcement launched a probe of Bush’s sale of his Harken stock the day after the Wall Street Journal on April 4, 1991, reported that he had been eight months late in filing the required insider-trading form with the regulators. This investigation was separate from the earlier division of corporation finance probe that resulted in Harken’s recasting its 1989 balance sheet.

SEC enforcement investigators focused on whether Bush dumped his stock on June 22, 1990, because he knew that the company’s second-quarter report, announced on Aug. 20, would show a $23.2 million loss and depress the stock. Part of that loss was $7.2 million that Harken wrote off because it was being pressed by a nervous bank and renegotiated the Aloha sale to generate quick cash. Aloha’s buyer, Advance Petroleum, was a clear winner in the renegotiated deal.

The SEC probe was limited to whether Bush had inside knowledge of the red ink that would be reported in the August filing and concluded that he did not.

It is unclear whether Bush, who holds a master’s degree from the Harvard Business School, knew that the company, after five straight years of profits, began to bleed profusely in 1989, its first year of being traded on the New York Stock Exchange, though in its annual report for that year it had declared a net loss of only $3,300,000.

Even that small loss would have surprised readers of the January 1990 issue of National Petroleum News, a trade publication. Interviewed some time during the fourth quarter of 1989 for a lengthy and glowing article on Harken, company president Faulkner said that based on the strong earnings during the first three quarters, he expected that year to be the most profitable yet. “We made $6 million last year (1988) . . .We’ll certainly be ahead of last year.’’

Alas, a year later, in an amended 1989 annual report filed on Feb. 5, 1991, the company reported that after “discussions” with the SEC, which insisted that Harken use the traditional “cost recovery’’ method of accounting, it was revising its declared 1989 net loss of $3,300,000 fourfold--to $12,566,000. Harken also filed an amendment to its third quarter report for 1989 revealing that over the first nine months of that year it had lost nearly $4 million, rather than the $4.6 million profit it had declared.

Faulkner, now Harken’s chairman, did not return repeated calls from The Public i seeking comment on the Aloha sale and the subsequent public filings.


Company Directed to Correct Reports

The SEC can prosecute company officers for willfully filing fraudulent reports. But in the Harken case, as in most similarly questionable filings, the investigation was conducted by the agency’s accounting staff, which did not believe there was intent to defraud and therefore did not refer the matter to the SEC’s enforcement division. Instead, the agency directed the company to publicly correct its reports, according to a retired SEC official familiar with aspects of the case.

It is also clear that Harken did not draft the misleading 1989 annual report, filed with the SEC on April 16, 1990, merely to buttress the value of Bush’s stock. The filing date was two months before the company reported it became aware that Bush wanted to sell.

In its 1989 annual report, Harken recognized a profit of $8 million on the sale, which allowed it to limit its declared losses to only $3,300,000 for the year. But the SECobjected, saying that the income can be recognized only as the principal of the loan is reduced—that is, when real cash comes in.

A corporate accountant interviewed by The Public i agreed with the SEC’s claim, saying he found it “unusual’’ for a company to declare an earning on the sale when it is contingent on a loan. The accountant, who asked to not be further identified, said he knew of no other instance when a company declared full gain on a sale based on a loan.

Why Harken initially sold to IMR is unclear. But a senior tax lawyer who works for a leading auditing firm told The Public i after reviewing portions of the SEC filings that he believes Harken wanted to show a cash infusion to mitigate the 1989 losses.

“It looks like the sale was done (to IMR) in order to show a book gain of $7 or $8 million,’’ said the attorney, who also asked not to be further identified. “That would have eliminated a good part of their loss during that time. Given the fact that the sale was to a related entity, I would guess they were just trying to show a better financial statement at that time.’’

Advance’s Halbert said that he believes IMR bought, and then quickly sold, Aloha because of a sudden change of heart. “I think it had something to do with IMR wanting to own it but there was some concern about the affiliate relationship ,’’ he said.

The SEC, too, was curious about the transaction, according to agency records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Six weeks before Harken publicly announced in January 1991 that it was revising its 1989 losses upward, the SEC asked the company to explain “whether the sale of Aloha to Advance was contemplated at the time IMR purchased Aloha from Harken.’’ In a letter, it also asked Harken to explain why the company and its independent accountants concluded it could declare a capital gain on the sale.

The SEC declined to provide Harken’s responses to The Public i.


Conflicting Accounts Offered

In its public filings to the SEC, Harken gave conflicting accounts of who sold Aloha, who bought it, and even when the sale occurred.

In its 1989 annual report, for example, it declared that it sold Aloha to IMR on June 30. In one passage of the report, it says that IMR then sold Aloha to Advance on Jan. 1, 1990; in another it says IMR sold on March 30.

But in its 1990 report, Harken declared that it was its subsidiary E-Z Serve Holding Co. that sold Aloha to IMR.

Adding to the confusion, E-Z Serve, which shortly after the transaction was spun off as a separate publicly traded company, claimed in its 1991 annual report that it had sold Aloha to Advance Petroleum—not IMR—in 1989.

Harken was notorious during that period for filing confusing reports. In 1991, Harken founder Phil Kendrick told Time magazine that the company’s annual reports “get me totally befuddled.’’Quoted in the same article, Faulkner had this advice to those trying to figure out the company’s financial statements: “Good luck. They’re a mess.’’

The corporate fog did not, however, obscure the fact that by the time the SEC directed Harken to recast its 1989 report, Bush already had already sold his stock in the company.

The bulk of the $848,560 went to pay off a bank loan he had taken out in 1989 to buy a partnership interest in the Texas Rangers for $600,000. He received nearly $16 million for his stake when the team was sold two years ago.

Bush’s run of financial good luck starting in 1986 is in stark contrast to the woeful performance of his previous oil ventures, which he had launched in 1977. Though he had little difficulty in rounding up investors for his Arbusto, Bush and Spectrum 7 oil exploration firms, they were all money losers.

Even as Harken in late 1989 and early 1990 appeared to be trying to minimize its losses, its bankers were clamping down because the company was having trouble meeting its loan payments.That led to a renegotiated loan agreement in May 1990, which required Harken to come up with fresh cash, raised the interest rate, required new guarantees from major shareholders and featured stricter terms overall.

“After closure (on the sale of Aloha) Harken discovered they had trading losses on gasoline purchases and they came back to us and said, ‘We really need some cash,’” Halbert recalled.
Cash Raised in Nick of Time

Halbert said he was able to raise the cash in the nick of time—just three days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, setting in motion huge gasoline-price increases that drove numerous small distributors out of business.

Under the original contract, Harken had given Advance an option to purchase the remaining 20 percent of Aloha, or 60,000 shares, for $50 each, or a total of $3 million.

By the time the contract was renegotiated in August, Advance agreed to pay off the $10 million note by the following year, which it did, instead of in March 1993 as stipulated in the original contract.It also relieved Harken from picking up the cost of fixing leaking underground tanks to meet environmental standards.

In turn, Advance got the $3 million of Aloha stock for $1. Harken also forgave $5 million in loans it had made to Aloha and about $1 million in interest payments.

The renegotiated contract reduced Harken’s bottom line, and the SEC clearly believed the write-off might have helped depress the stock. During its investigation of whether Bush benefited from insider information when he sold his stock, the SEC on July 25, 1991, asked both Bush and Harken to disclose when the company’s officers and directors “first became aware . . . that the Advance note . . . was going to be renegotiated; and that Harken intended to write down its investment in Aloha.’’


Unaware of Magnitude

After the SEC ended its investigation, according to one of its memos, the regulators concluded that Harken and Bush were unaware of the magnitude of the write- downs until at least mid-July, or after Bush’s stock sale.

While the renegotiated contract clearly hurt Harken’s bottom line, Halbert admits it clearly was beneficial for Advance Petroleum.

Meanwhile, Bush was generating admirers among Advance Paradigm’s insiders, the limited number of shareholders.

In 1994, when the company was known as Advance Health Care and Bush was making his first run for Texas governor, those insiders gave him $23,700 for his first gubernatorial run, including $14,500 from Halbert, his brother, Jon, their father and their wives. Virtually all the money came on the same day, July 22.

“That was his first time around, and he was trying to raise money any way he could,’’ recalled Halbert.

And, as has been the case throughout Bush’s career, a long-time friend of the family came to his aid.

This time it was Benno C. Schmidt, the pioneering venture capitalist and partner in J. H. Whitney & Co. in New York. Schmidt, who died last October at age 86, had been a director of Advance Health Care, and J. H. Whitney had provided the firm with much needed capital in 1993.

“Benno was an old friend of the Bush family. He called me one day and said, ‘David, I think we ought to do something for young George,’” Halbert recalled. “He said, ‘I think we ought to have a fund-raiser.’”

So after a board meeting on July 22, Bush spoke at a private little dinner attended by the directors and their wives and walked away that night with $20,750.

Timeline

1986
George W. Bush and partners sell their failing Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. to Harken Energy Corp. Bush receives more than 200,000 shares of Harken stock and is made director and consultant to the company.
Harken’s CEO, Mikel Faulkner, introduces Bush to an old business associate, David Halbert, who is raising seed money to start up Allied Home Pharmacy. Bush becomes one of 30 initial investors who put up a total of $250,000.
1989
Harken sells a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to International Marketing & Resources, a partnership of Harken insiders, through a seller-financed loan, but declares the profit in its annual report as a cash gain. This effectively masks big losses by the company that year.
1990
At the beginning of the year, International Marketing & Resources in turn, sells Aloha to Halbert’s Advance Petroleum Marketing for no profit. Advance now must pay the Harken-financed loan.
On June 22, Bush sells his Harken stock at $4 a share, for a total of $848,560. He uses most of the proceeds to pay off a loan he had taken out the previous year to buy a partnership interest in the Texas Rangers for $600,000.
On Aug. 22, Harken files a second quarter report disclosing for the first time that it is hemorrhaging. Total losses for that quarter are $23.2 million. Stock plunges to $2.37 a share.
That fall the Securities and Exchange Commission discovers that Harken had effectively concealed earlier losses in its 1989 annual report, before Bush sold his stock, by claiming a capital gain on the Aloha sale even though it was financed through a loan. It directs Harken to recast its balance sheet for 1989.
1990
On Feb. 5, Harken files an amended 1989 report, asserting that after “discussions” with the SEC about its method of accounting, it was recasting its losses for that year from a modest $3,300,000 to a whopping $12,566,000. But by then Bush had already sold.
1994
On July 22, insiders of Halbert’s Allied Home Pharmacy, now called Advance Health Care, hold a fund-raiser for gubernatorial candidate Bush, chipping in $20,750. Other contributions from those insiders that year bring the total to $23,700.
1996
Advance Health Care becomes a publicly traded company called Advance Paradigm.
1998
Bush’s trust sells his Advance stock. In his financial disclosure statement last year, he declares a capital gain of up to $1 million on the sale. It also sells his $600,000 stake in the Texas Rangers for about $16 million.
Knut Royce is a senior fellow at the Center for Public Integrity.

[SemperEadem]

134. Free Martha Stewart!!!!

I have a dinner party to plan!!!!

Out of this whole ordeal, the one thing I'm impressed with is that HGTV did not cancel her program (while Viacom did). She may rub some folks the wrong way, but her recipe for cranberry/apple crumble is the bomb, s0n! I like her mainly because she provides a wealth of information on "gracious living".

If living well is the best revenge, then I need Martha to help me decorate.

[Bridget Burke]

138. HGTV had a Martha Stewart Living marathon on July 4th

I've always viewed her stuff as "extreme housekeeping". She's obviously got a lot of assistants--no "housewife" could measure up. But it's good entertainment with a few hints even I find useful.

However, I want Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen as my decorator.

[liberalmuse]

143. BU-SH*T!

I'm glad the real criminals like Martha Stewart are off the street. I feel SOOOOOOO much safer now. I'm sure Ken Lay won't get 1/4 of her sentence.

[Mace]

146. She got off light

I think she deserves more. She cheated the little guys out of money...

[Cha]

149. Booo-ushit!

Martha didn't cheat anyone out of money...get your facts straight before you post such nonsense.

[Piperay]

147. Martha shouldn't have to serve any time

but I am glad it was only five months, hopefully with good behavior it will only be a couple of months and if not than President Kerry should pardon her.