This is all about bringing a powerful woman down.

[bermudat]

All this bullshit about her lying to the government is a smokescreen. The bush cabal lies to the government all the time. If Martha had broken down crying, begging for the government's mercy, humiliating herself, she would have gotten off. But because she is a strong woman, who is arrogant (I don't necessarily believe arrogance is a failing) and a supporter of democratic causes, she had to be brought low. I expected all the Y chromosomes to bay with delight with her being sentenced, but it is disappointing for all the XX's to share in the pleasure of seeing this woman go to jail. Cable news is going crazy over what? Don't feel sorry for Martha, she can take care of herself. Just stop all the sanctimonious 'she lied and deserves to do time' crap. It's like giving someone time for jaywalking.

[NMDemDist2]

1. make that a powerful Democratic woman

she are one of us

[liberalhistorian]

4. Hell, no, she ain't!

She can call herself a Dem all she wants, but walking into a restaurant and calling yourself a hamburger doesn't make you one. She's one of the most selfish, greedy, arrogant, rich bitches in the country today. She's never ever given one single dime to any charity whatsoever and uses her gazillions for her own selfish purposes while whining that she never seems to have enough money when she already has more millions than 99% of Americans will ever see. She has never ever contributed to making life better for anyone else but herself. She's an arrogant, nasty bitch who treats her workers and aides like shit. She neglected her husband and daughter for her career and remains estranged from her daughter to this day. She doesn't give a shit about anyone and anything except herself and her money and how to get and keep more and more money. So, no, she ain't no Democratic and she ain't one of us, that's for sure.

That being said, what she did was totally insignificant compared to the repukes like Lay and company, who appear to be getting off far easier than her when their crimes were far worse and they did hundreds of times more damage. She was basically prosecuted for being a bitch and because no one could stand her, and that's plain wrong.

[Sparkly]

5. Bitches can be Democrats, too

For what it's worth:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030606Baker.html

[bermudat]

7. Why the venom?

'She's an arrogant, nasty bitch who treats her workers and aides like shit' Like other CEO's don't? I had a friend who worked for IBM who said when Lou Gersner ever left his ivory tower and got on an elevator, all underlings had to get off. There are probably many stories like this about arrogant, nasty sons of bitches who treat their workers and aides like shit, but because they are men, they are powerful and masterly. Every female CEO isn't going to be like Oprah and be your girlfriend.

[liberalhistorian]

9. We're not talking about any and every other

CEO. We're talking specifically about Martha Stewart, who ain't no Dem in my book and I will never consider her as such. Why is it okay for her to act like a repuke CEO as long as she's a Dem? We don't put up with that shit from repuke CEO's, so we sure as hell shouldn't excuse her just because she claims to be a Dem. You certainly don't have to be like Oprah to be a CEO, but you don't have to be a nasty, heartless, arrogant, bitch either.

[MoonRiver]

18. So, exactly WHAT constitutes a Democrat in your book?

She has been a financial contributor to the Dem party. I think she's done activist work also. Right now, she's trying to save her company and its employees jobs. That's a good thing, in my book. So exactly what more would you have her do?

[NMDemDist2]

8. whoa, I sit corrected

i never could stand the witch myself, but heard she supported liberal causes

I gotta get tougher and quit giving everyone the benefit of the doubt

edit to add did you see TexasBushWacker's list there?

[Syncronaut Seven]

11. Hundreds of times?

Missed that by several orders of magnitude. Hi L.H.:hi: Yes, Ken got the goldmine but well, we know what Martha got.

[seabeyond]

13. she gave donation to dems? and daughter standing with and up

for her. so that is two things in your tirade that isnt correct.

i am not fond of martha, more a giggle she is to me, since i am as far on the other end of her talent, i tease my husband is the martha in the family, and i have heard the horror stories of the woman.

none of that is mine, tis the woman. but that was some bashing

i saw an interview of the daughter and she was absolutely with her mom and supporting her. marthas mother was too. it is her brother she doesnt talk to from what i understand. and not a clue why divorced. so wont make assumptions

but...........what they charged her for and how they went after her, not right in my book. for me was another go after the woman, get the woman.

[MoonRiver]

19. Re: Martha's divorce, her husband had an affair with MS's young assistant.

Martha was DUMPED for a younger woman, who incidentally betrayed her friend and employer. But I guess 'some' will say Martha had it coming. :eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

26. Well, if I were married to MS,

I'd sure as hell want to have an affair, too, especially considering that he tried for a long time to tell her her job was taking over her life and he never saw her at all anymore, but she didn't listen. And if I had to put up with what she's like every day, I wouldn't want to be married to her either.

[Arianrhod]

16. "She was basically prosecuted for being a bitch "

Albert Camus' The Stranger, in which a man arrested for murder is actually tried for not loving his mother enough.

[RetroLounge]

20. Wow! Such venom and anger.

I can only guess why, but I'll keep it to myself...

RL

[MoonRiver]

22. I think we're on the same wavelength here.

[liberalhistorian]

25. Okay, then, if you're such

a mind reader, out with it, what's your guess?

[Cleita]

2. Trouble is that I didn't see other powerful Democratic women

standing by her in solidarity. I don't want to mention names because of lurkers but...there were some who were brought before investigative committees for "deals" that turned out to be witch hunts as well?...hmmm?

[Lorien]

12. Rosie O'Donnell among others

have stood by her all along. She along with Bill Cosby and other Dem celebrities attended Stewart's trial to add their moral support.

Stewart DOES contribute a lot to charities. She also talks about energy conservation, protection of wild spaces, organic produce, programs for the underprivileged and disabled, and many other traditionally "Dem" causes on her program. She grew up poor, and she hasn't forgotten that. It's her personality and success that pisses people off; had she been born male, she would be greatly admired by both genders.

[Cleita]

17. I was thinking more of politicians than celebrities.

But that's good that she at least had that support.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. I'll form my opinion on her sentence when I see Ken Lay's (n/t)

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. A powerful woman DEMOCRAT .....

who's very generous with her contributions to the Democratic Party and candidates.

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

Did Bushco want her dollars and influence out of way for 2004? The SEC was inquiring about her ImClone trade less than 2 weeks after she made it. Coincidence?

[FloridaPat]

10. She's guilty for lying to the gov and the gov witness lied on the

stand! And Bush lies all over the place. At least she got the minimum. I think they did it because she was a Democrat. Make the people think they're actually doing something and getting all th republicans off.

[AP]

14. It's all about the 100 mil she made today 'cause her sentence wasn't long

[Warren DeMontague]

15. It's the classic bait and switch, folks...

Check it out:



This was the topic of my rant of the day on my blog, too.

None of which is to say Martha didn't break the law. She broke the law. Just like Junior broke the law when he dumped almost a mil of overvalued Harken stock. I think it's relevant to ask why Martha, a prominent figure with name recognition, is being hung out to dry as a "response" to widespread corporate crony criminality.

[ChocolateSaltyBalls]

21. I feel sorry for Martha because of the question....

you asked, that is, with all of the nastiness that goes on in corporate America these days why pick on her?

The answer is (in my opinion) that she's an easy target, she's a woman that people love to hate for a variety of reasons and she's well known enough that the powers that be can say "see, we care about putting a stop to corporate corruption....now go on back to sleep".

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Right, like

Saddam for Osama, or (probably more apt) John Walker Lindh for Mullah Omar...

[SoCalDem]

23. The "justice system" does not work well for anyone , these days

I wrote this a long time ago, but it's held up :)


SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-21-04 01:28 AM
Original message
"A jury of your peers"

Edited on Wed Jan-21-04 01:31 AM by SoCalDem

After watching a piece about Martha Stewart today, this phrase kept going through my head.. I fear that there is no such thing anymore.. Martha Stewart is (was?) a billionaire. A jury of HER peers would be something to behold..

I am sure that when the justice system was set up , a jury of YOUR peers was a good thing, considering how a common man would have a hard time getting justice by the higher classes, so the "peer thing" was good.. A common man on trial for robbery or assault would have a fairer chance of justice if people "just like him" were to judge him..

Most trials took place as an everyday event. There were surely the "notorious criminals" in every era, but for the most part, probably the only people who went to court to watch trials were the victims, families of the victims, local townspeople who just happened to be curious, or in need of shelter from bad weather.. Most people probably did not even know about the trials, nor did they care.

To be fair, the "crime of the century" trials have always occurred from time to time, but the radio and press coverage of them satisfied most people. Probably the juries in each of them were actually peers , anyway.

With the advent of the televised coverage of trials and the hoopla during the lead ins to the trials, I seriously doubt that a "fair" trial is even possible anymore. The jury of peers is probably impossible as well.

If you are a poor minority defendant, you will never get a jury of your peers, any more than the billionaire will get one of his peers. Poor people will always be judged by people who are "above" them in status. Rich people will always be judged by people who are way "below" them in status.

The big difference though, is that with the rich defendant, the media will have had months and months to air anything and everything they can find about the "rich criminal". The combination of jealousy, envy and scorn that is aimed at the one soon to be tried in court cannot be quantified. Finding a jury that is truly not aware of the facts of the case is impossible these days.

Martha Stewart may have done something wrong, but more wrong has been done TO her than BY her. During the time she was preparing for court, there has been a movie that portrayed her as an evil , spiteful,greedy woman. Maybe she IS all of those things, but the non-stop coverage of her life could not help but find its way into the minds of the very people who will be asked to judge her.

Poor people who often have lousy lawyers, who only want to "clear their cases", do not get a fair shake either. They may not have the wall-to-wall television coverage, but they suffer too, due to the nature of the jury selection.

The jury selection for the most reprehensible of crimes (Scott Peterson, OJ,people who murder their kids,sexual molestation, etc) is difficult too.. The media is all over these like white on rice. There is no avoiding the "facts" that ooze from our TVs , no matter which channel we tune to. When in any other era have the various lawyers and pundits elbowed each other to get to the cameras, so they can argue their cases to the public, before the trial? How can this be justice? The cases get so much pre-trial attention, that after millions of dollars, and thousands of hours, some cannot even be tried in the communities where the crimes occurred..Changes of venue , to try and find an untainted jury pool, is ridiculous with all the mass media. The only change of venue that would work, is to a different planet..

Our courts have turned into entertainment....just like everything else.. And it's a very BAD thing.

[genius]

24. It's about bringing down a Democrat down to distract from Bush and Cheney

and their insider trading.