How many subscribed to "Martha Stewart Living" after her conviction?

[MoonRiver]

I for one have. It's not that I think she's completely innocent in this matter, I just think it has been vastly overblown. When one compares it to bu*h's sweetheart insider trading deal with Harken it is grossly apparent how unfair Martha's conviction was. * was so deep in Harken shit he stank like a latrine. But of course being a * he has escaped all responsibility and was even handed his stolen presidency on a silver platter.

I hope Martha comes out of this a hopping mad Democratic activist. I think she will. Meanwhile I'm supporting her in the only way I can.

[against all enemies]

1. Cheney and Bush made Millions on insider trading.

What is the difference in what they did vs what she did?

[MoonRiver]

2. They made a lot more money, were directly involved with manipulating

the stocks, and got off scott free.

[AP]

4. Martha's insider trading made her less than 100 thou. Lying about it was

to protect her 1 billion -- in her own stock, MSLO.

[IronLionZion]

17. exactly, she only saved $50,000

but lost hundreds of millions once this scandal became public.

The irony is that if she had held on to the stock she would have made $80,000 by now.

[AP]

33. This crime was always primarily about the value of the MS trademark

which probably makes up 90% of the value of her corporation.

MSLO is not about quality or design. It's about Martha Stewart first and foremost, which is why she lied.

She's lucky she's being convicted in proportion to the lie about ImClone and not in proportion to the money she was trying to save.

She traded ImClone on insider info because she could and because she thought she'd never get caught. But she lied about it to protect the 100s of millions of dollars of MSLO stock she owns.

[AP]

3. I think you have to be such a sucker to do this. You know she made

100,000,000 bucks yesterday when her MSLO stock went up because her sentence was light.

Money is the whole reason she lied about that stock sale -- and it wasn't the money from the stock sale. She did that because she could do it. But she lied to the Feds because she knew that if she was perceived as a liar her 900-1000 million bucks in MSLO stock was going to go down. If she didn't have a company built entirely around her image and her character, she would have told the truth and would have made a deal with prosectuors.

Now, her stock is shooting up, and she tries to convert sympathy on the courthouse steps to even MORE money to pad her immense wealth by telling people, "if you're angry CONSUME! -- CONSUME in a way that makes me wealthier!"...well, it was a nice little free advertisment that made her 100 million dollars.

Damn. Who here wouldn't go to jail for 5 months for 100 million dollars?

[RodneyCK2]

5. That my friend...

is what we like to call a smart business person. It was unbelievable to me (yes I chuckled), that this woman was going to prison and she managed in only a few words to raise her companies stock and earn herself 9 million dollars in one day. Hate her or love her, she is very smart.

I believe she got a fair sentence. If you weigh in her personality, her lifestyle at the top, maids, and fancy meals, this woman is going to have a hard time in prison, even if it is only for a few months.

The real problem I have with her is that she, like Bush, will not confess that she did something wrong. Last night, in an interview with Barbara Walters, she stated several times that "I hurt no one in this whole ordeal." This is a lie and she knows it, especially being a stock broker. She hurt the shareholders (someone has to lose money for her gains), the company and herself to name a few.

BTW, I think she is a big Democrat, surprisingly.

[AP]

9. My point is "being a smart business person" is why she lied in the 1st...

...place. It was a financial crime not primarily about her imclone shares, but about her MSLO shares.

And I thought we frowned on committing crimes in order to increase wealth?

It just shocks me that people here reward that kind of behavior by going out and buying her magazine.

I mean, if you think that people should be entiteld to lie to protect their wealth, I don't know why we spend time at DU for criticizing Republicans for organizing their party around that theme.

[IronLionZion]

19. she's a major Democrat

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

She's donated tons of money to Dems and Dem groups. Even wild-eyed lefties like Gore and Hillary

[juajen]

49. This woman started with nothing but a quick brain and a talent for cooking

and decorating. Skills that scores of women have. She raised awareness of women's inherent talents and gave a lot of us a sense of self-worth and the confidence to build our own businesses. She is not afraid of hard work, and I, personally, think she would do just fine in prison; though, I don't believe she belongs there.

Everyone seems to admit that she is super intelligent, but have no problem believing that she lied for a measly sum of money. Frankly, I don't believe she did. I think she was suckered. Imclone's drug was supposedly a shoo-in; yet it was suddenly not approved; then a few weeks later, it was. The FDA is in neo-con hands. I don't trust a damn thing they do. Additionally, she IS a democratic activist; she was planning a huge fundraiser that had to be canceled a few days after her indictment. She gives and gives to democratic causes, I understand, and I'm sure will continue to do so. The CEO of Imclone is also a democrat.

Excuse me if I don't jump on any bandwagon criticizing a woman who used her hands and brains to build a mega corporation in a man's world, and got indicted and convicted over a supposed infraction of rules that men in the everyday world ignore on an every-day basis. Believe me, I know. Having worked for attorneys for over 25 years, I have seen insider trading ad nauseum.

[MoonRiver]

6. Well, I don't believe she knew what her sentence would be,

or that her stock would go up following her conviction. And I for one wouldn't spend 5 months in jail for any amount of money. :eyes:

[RodneyCK2]

8. Oh I believe she knew...

that her words would raise her stock and her fortune. She repeated the add-like speech in the Walter's interview that very night, much like a campaign slogan. Savvy, that one.

[MoonRiver]

11. Of course she wanted her stocks to rise.

Her life is on the line, and she's deperately trying to salvage what she can of it. Meanwhile, nobody has addressed the issue of how unfair Martha's conviction was compared to the white washing of junior's Harken insider trading crime.

[AP]

10. No. She was protecting the value of her stock when she lied.

Her company --uniquely-- trades on her image and character. There's no other company in America that is so big and so dependent on Americans thinking that a single person is good.

That's why companies build images around fictional people, like Aunt Jemima. The Pillsbury Dough Boy is never going to get indicted for rape, so there's no risk in building an entire corporate image around him.

But, MS -- well, you got to keep her appearances up. She has to be moral, or she and her company could lose 100s of millions of dollars.

THAT'S why she lied. Anybody else would have told the truth.

Now, do we say as a country that different rules apply to her because she's so rich and because of this peculiar business situation?

I guess a lot of Democrats do beleive there should be different rules for the super-wealthy.

[MoonRiver]

12. I would say this situation represents our different justice systems

for Democrats versus Republicans.

[AP]

14. I think you're a little confused.

MSLO subjected herself to prosecution to protect 100s of millions in wealth. She got a light sentence and MADE 100 mil yesterday.

There's a difference in our justice system, and the difference is between how we treat rich people and poor people.

[MoonRiver]

16. I am not conviced you are correct

that she "subjected herself to prosecution to protect 100s of millions in wealth". Do you have any documentation of this?

[AP]

20. No links, but Toobin wrote an article in the New Yorker which set

out the timeline in detail. The Feds wanted to do a deal with her, but she wouldn't. She felt that an acquittal was the only way to protect her image and her MSLO equity value.

There was no question that she lied to the feds -- which is a crime. And all along she did it because, for the sake of MSLO, she knew that being perceived as a greedy liar would jeopardize the value of her corporation.

She has been more interested in being perceived as falsely prosecuted, than she has been in serving time. (In fact, after the conviction but before the sentencing, she issued a press release saying she was innocent, which she then removed from her web site at the urging of her lawyer -- he told her that it could increase her sentence because they consider whether you're unrepetent about what you've done).

[RodneyCK2]

18. I don't know if...

people think that different rules should apply because she is rich, AP. I think people just have a fondness for her. Like in the point you made about MS vs images such as the Pillsbury Dough Boy, like them, she is an animated, much endeared spokesperson. I think because of this, people judge her less harshly. I think she got a fair sentence and the court saw through her lie. I guess SOMETIMES the system works. :-)

[MoonRiver]

21. I wish the justice system also worked regarding rich Republican males,

such as george w. *. :mad:

[RodneyCK2]

22. True...

that is why I said SOMETIMES works, ;-).

[MoonRiver]

23. Interesting how it usually works against Dems, and for Repukes.

[RodneyCK2]

25. That is because...

Repb's are more organized and calculating. Look at the actions taken in the Clinton scandal for example.

[MoonRiver]

27. I agree. That's why I'm semi-outraged about Martha's conviction.

Clinton of course will forever be the poster child for victims of Repuke witch hunting.

[RodneyCK2]

29. Here is a good article...

that fits in well with this topic, a must read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56504-2004Jul16?language=printer

[MoonRiver]

31. Great article!! Thanks for the link!

It really puts what we're talking about into perspective!

[ellie]

7. I am already a subscriber

and am up for renewal in October and will renew. I love her magazine. GO Martha!

[AP]

13. If I worked for a Republican organization, or were a freeper, I'd answer 1

because this is exactly the kind of thing that gets to the core about what the modern Republican party is all about: it's about making you think that wealth concentration in the hands of the wealthy is beyond criticizm, and it's about making people think that consumption is a way to express yourself. It also puts people in a mood where they think consumption and further wealth creation is a way to subvert the law.

Man, would Republicans love a world where business people could brake laws with impunity and then, when they're caught, it's turned into a public resentment against white collar crimes being enforced, which is then turned into a sentiment that, to reverse any damage caused by a conviction, you can speak out by making the convicted white collar WEALTHIER by buying their wares.

To me, this is like if, say, Ken Lay got convicted, a bunch of Texas Republicans encourage you to protest by leaving all your lights on so that Enron can make millions more.

[MoonRiver]

15. Well,

"To me, this is like if, say, Ken Lay got convicted, a bunch of Texas Republicans encourage you to protest by leaving all your lights on so that Enron can make millions more.", does not represent a good analogy. Martha Stewart is actually offering a product for one's money. Leaving the lights on gives one nothing but a higher light bill.

[AP]

28. I'm going to guess that if you couldn't live without her magazine,

you would have had a subscription before yesterday, and I suspect that a lot of people probably won't get much out of it if they're just buying it to help her make another 10,000,000 bucks because they feel bad about her conviction.

So, don't forget to leave those lights on after the Enron convictions and the Duke Energy civil sanctions.

[IronLionZion]

24. They had to get Ken Lay out of the spotlight

And he's Republican so why not go after a Democrat like Martha Stewart?

I know she's guilty, but this was definitely political.

Both Democrats and Republicans cheat in the game, but when Republicans do it, they ruin people's lives.

[shimmergal]

26. As for lying to support MSLO's financial health,

that charge was dismissed. What she was convicted on was lying to investigators {and not even under oath.) This sets a dangerous precedent. As one legal pundit said, If you've ever been stopped by a cop for speeding, and he asks: "Did you know you were going 50 in a 35-mile zone?" and you say "No, I didn't know" when you subconsciously did, you've committed the same offense.

And sure, she used some of yesterday's face time with the press to try to bolster her company's sales. That's just being a good businessperson, trying to keep it afloat. Too bad Ken Lay et al. weren't as concerned for the genuine survival of their co.

[AP]

30. Nonetheless, that's what this whole thing is all about.

I believe that one charge was thrown out on a technicality (they never got to the merits). And I applaud to the prosecturs for trying to bring a charge that captured precisely what was going on in this trial.

[saracat]

32. Martha Stewart

was convicted of lying to a Fed about a crime that didn't exist. The judge threw out the trading charge.And the FBI agent has been prosecuted for perjury in the centerpiece evidence of her case.How wild is this?Why is this women going to jail? Can you imagine going to jail for "lying" about a crime you didn't commit?

[AP]

34. The SEC is still considering going after her for insider trading.

And the fact is, the lies didn't depend on the insider trading. They are independent crimes.

The 5th Amendment allows you to NOT talk to law enforcement officers, but it doesn't permit you to lie to them when you do talk.

Think about it this way: before an indictiment, you could simply be a witness. Maybe she was never going to be charged. Maybe they just wanted her as witness to the crimes for which the ML brokers were going to be indicted.

Well, witnesses can't lie to the government either.

It doesn't matter if you're going to be charged with insider trading or not. You simply cannot lie to law enforcement officials who are trying to investigate a crime, whether that crime is ever prosecuted or not.

And, incidentally, the ML broker was indicted to, and his assistant might have been had he not taken a deal. So she did lie about a crime which she witnessed.

[saracat]

35. I doubt the SEC CAN

go after her since the Judge dismissed the charges.That would be double jeopardy.And many laywers have made the case that you cannot obstruct justice to a crime that did not exist.And the goverment cannot lie, as evidenced by the perjury of the agent, in the prosecution of its case.

[AP]

36. Such firmly held opinions. So little basis in reality. The SEC

has insider charges pending. The SEC has separate claims unrelated to the criminal charges with which she was charged (that result in civil sancitions, including a fine, and being barred from serving on boards of publicly traded corps, IIRC).

She wasn't charged criminally with insider trading. And since she wasn't charged, those charges weren't dismissed. In fact, she could still be charged with criminal insider trading.

And the rest of your paragraph makes no legal sense. The crimes for which she was convicted are crimes for which a witness to someone else's crime could be convicted. You could not even be threatened with being charged with anything prior to giving evidence, but if you lie to the feds, you can be charged with a crime. Duh.

The 5th Amendement gives you a right NOT to be compelled to give evidence against yourself, but it doesn't give you a right to lie.

[MoonRiver]

37. What do you think the SEC should have/should do regarding * and Harken?

And while you're at it please explain why * got a friendly pat on the arse for his totally corrupt insider trading scam, while Stewart is skewered.

[AP]

41. So, Stewart shouldn't do time for her crime just because W hasn't...

...doesn't time for his?

[MoonRiver]

42. No, but the difference between * & MS is hypocritical and corrupt

to the core. It stinks. Don't you think so?

[AP]

44. No shit. But it's not an excuse for letting Stewart off.

And Bush's Harken stock was worth less than 1 million bucks.


Interestingly, Stewart's MSLO shares -- which is what she was trying to protect -- worth worth 1000 times more than that, even though the money she stole from the public marketplace on her inside trade was something like 30-50K.

[MoonRiver]

60. Why should she if he doesn't?

Is this system supposed to be fair or biased in favor of rich, white rightwing guys?

[AP]

62. I rest my case.

The hollowness of that argument is my best argument.

[saracat]

38. Exactly HOW was she a "witness" to a crime? What crime?

And whose "crime" Bogdonovitch's? The FBI Agents?
I notice you don't even mention the agent charged with perjury, upon whose evidence the entire case was based, but that doesn't fit into your scenario.It is questionable whether you can in fact be ,charged with lying about a crime that didn't exist.By your definition if you told the government that you didn't rob a bank that was never robbed you should go to jail!

[AP]

40. Insider trading by Wachtel. Psst. Remember? He WAS convicted and is

spending time in jail right now for those crimes.

As for that perjury, it had nothing to do with the credibility of the evidence. He lied about when he saw the evidence. It didn't mean the evidence wasn't what it was.

Your analogy is totally misguided too.

An appropriate analogy: you hacked into the bank's computer system, wired someone else's money into your account, all of which could have been proved by looking at your computer and producing phone records of where you were and when you were there, and you destroyed your computer and records and lied about where you were and when you were there.

[saracat]

50. Your hatred of Martha Stewart or anyone you perceive of being

"rich" seems to completely warp your interpretation of the facts. The charges against Ms.Stewart were dismissed.

"But in her 23-page opinion explaining the dismissal, the judge wrote, in part: "The evidence and inferences the government presents are simply too weak to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal intent" regarding the securities fraud charge"

And the Secret Service Agent Is being charged with eight counts of perjury regarding his testimony concerning the ink and the alleged altered leger in this case.These charges are being brought by the government against one of its own.
This is a very serious matter.Bogdanovitch has already been cleared regarding this issue.That alone would lead a prudent individual to question why the prosecution felt it necessary to pad this case.
You insult the DU Democrats who have been defending Martha.You are the one that ought to be slammed. We should be grateful to the wealthy Dems who have stuck with the Party and not defected.We need both them and their contributions. It is Dems like you who have no loyalty that splinter our Party and cause us to lose.The Repugs would be circling their wagons and protecting one of their own.We could learn from that.
Fortunately, most Dems don't agree with you.
You probably think we should throw Scoros and Theresa Heinz Kerry to the wolves as well.
I hope you are prepared with a plan to replace Martha's contributions with your own while continuing this self righteous rant on the morality of the punishment of wealthy.

[AP]

53. Martha has a strange hold on people's imagination.

She was so clearly guilty. It's just so strange to feel that she has be persecuted.

[nomatrix]

74. Agreed, well said saracat

Sometimes I forget not to take the bait. There is nothing more I can add to what you have already said. Please read the link I posted from CATO. (I am fully aware of who they are, which makes it even more suspect on the outing GOP congressmen.) Maybe that will be the road out of this mess.

Why Martha?

At first I thought it was because the drug worked, and frankly people die because of the FDA endless studies. See the pharmacutical lobby for a working cancer treatment. {You can measure their compassion with the NEW medicare plan.}

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe11.html

"ImClone Corporation is a young company which has been developing the drug Erbitux (Cetuximab) for several years. Erbitux is a relatively new chemotherapeutic agent which works according to a radically new paradigm. Old chemotherapy agents function by indiscriminately killing rapidly dividing cells…both tumor cells and healthy cells (hence the well known side-effects of most traditional chemotherapy drugs).

Erbitux, on the other hand, is a monoclonal antibody targeting a protein (EGFR) found in increased concentrations on the surface of many cancer cells. This means that the drug binds specifically to these cells and not to other cells which do not bear this protein…meaning that the drug’s action is much more specific for cancer cells. This increases its effectiveness and tends to minimize side effects.

The drug has been in clinical trials for some time, and has shown significant promise. It has been most thoroughly studied in patients with metastatic colon cancer. These patients generally have a grim prognosis with few options available. Erbitux shrinks the tumors in a significant percentage of cases and can extend the lives of these patients for months to years.

Physicians have been clamoring for the drug for some time and have enthusiastically awaited its release."

Then I thought Martha was a canary in the Ken Lay mine. Talking points pitched have been she got a "fair sentence", the "lowest possible". (I waited for liberal/activist/unelected/judges-a Hatch favorite!)
When Kenny gets his pardon they can chime "look at how fair justice was to Martha."

I think MSL has always been a "class" subscription. She earned that reputation.

[DemBones DemBones]

39. I've been considering it. I subscribed for a year once

but didn't renew -- too much advertising in the magazine. I think she was treated unfairly in this case and I'm also sick of women I socialize with trashing her with comments like "You know she has tons of help doing all those things." DUH! I don't care how much help she has or whether she's a nice person (obviously opinion is very divided about that!) All that interests me is whether she presents good information about cooking, homemaking, gardening, etc., and, in general, she does. Her website used to be very good, too, but I haven't visited in a long time.

I think we women should be more supportive of her because she's a highly successful woman who grew up with limited means, made herself a modeling career as a teenager, later became a stockbroker (very untraditional for a woman at the time), then a caterer, and ultimately created Martha Stewart OmniMedia. That's a lot of achievements for one woman.

[genius]

43. How do I subscribe. I'll do so immediately. Her crime: being a Democrat

[AP]

45. Capitalist Tool.

I just don't get whe democrats are so willing to reward bad behaviour by very rich people.

[MoonRiver]

47. I don't think you understand that insulting people for their views

does little to enhance your own. In fact someone who employs this debating tact tends to look ill informed.

[AP]

48. My dismay has sent me so far beyond caring about feelings of the misguided

People here need to come to their senses.

Martha broke the law and violated a core principle of liberalism: she was trying to concentrate wealth and power at the very top of the economic ladder. She was hurting people farther down to make herself better off, and she acts like she didn't do anything wrong.

She stands for the perogatives and privilege of wealth, and people here think the response should be to make her more wealthy and powerful, and that she shouldn't have been convicted.

Seriously. She stole 30,000 bucks from the public markets. If it were all from one person, that could have been the difference between a comfortable retirement and eating catfood for the rest of your short life. And she did that because she thought she was entitled to do that. And then she lied about it because she didn't want her 1 billion dollar holding in MSLO to decrease to 500 million (and she's willing to go to jail for 5 months to keep protecting that money).

It's hard to have sympathy for her. And it's harder to have sympathy to Democrats who think the appropriate response to this is to help her pad her immense wealth.

[saracat]

51. Perhaps you prefer another Party?

One that doesn't "allow" people to acquire"immense wealth"?

[AP]

54. Actually, I'm all for people accumulating weatlh FAIRLY. Martha stole

wealth from people playing by the rules because she felt a privilege of wealth is not having to take risks.

I have sympathy for the capitalists to whom she sold ImClone stocks, who didn't know the inside information.

I also have a ton of sympathy to alll those other housewhare designers other than Stewart who are out there trying to compete fairly on the marketplace who, unlike Stewart, aren't able to use their immense wealth and power to guarnatee their wealth without having to work for it.

I find what Stewart did to maintain her economic power profoundly anti-capitalistic and un-democratic, which is why I'm a Democrat and not an ologopolist or Republican.

[saracat]

56. I don't think you sound like a Democrat.

But thats just MHO.Stole is a pretty ridiculous word when applied to Martha.It was a ridiculously small amount of money for someone of her status to "steal" This makes as much sense as Whitewater.
I am no big Martha Stewart fan. I don't watch her show or read her magazine.I consider her projects time wasters.But I find it offensive that you would class her as one who doesn't want "to work for it"sic, her money.
Martha has worked very hard and continues to work hard for whatever she has.She started out with nothing.That is more than can be said for most entrepreneurs.She is renowned for her work ethics.Her bitterest enemies admit that.And for you to state that she committed this stupid crime to prevent herself from working to achieve success is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Martha Stewart is the American dream.She is a "rags to riches" story. Martha is what is possible in America.Martha is a Democrat.She is far more of a Democrat than you are.She has never forgotten her roots and has contributed more to this society than most people ever will.

[AP]

57. And your post doesn't sound very democratic, IMHO. We put people in jail

every day for stealing much much less than Martha stole, and people who stole for much better reasons.

I praise Martha for reaching the top. I'm not impressed with what she did once she got there.

[nomatrix]

68. AP read the real story from CATO

Here's someone you might believe. CATO the right wing think tank.
The Insider Trading Accusation Came from a Cowardly Press Leak
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040309.html

"The only time Martha Stewart was accused of insider trading was June 6, 2002 -- one year before she was indicted for a new crime called "lying." The insider trading accusation was made in a cowardly press leak from the powerful House Energy and Commerce committee, chaired by Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin, with Pennsylvania Congressman Jim Greenwood chairing the subcommittee heading the ImClone investigation.

The federal indictment of Martha Stewart alluded to an Associated Press story about that year-old leak but carefully concealed its congressional origin. What AP reporter Theresa Agovino wrote on June 7, 2002, was, "There are allegations that certain people profited handsomely, although illegally, from ImClone stock. Waksal's relatives sold a total of $400,000 in company stock before the news of the rejection emerged, a source close to the investigation said, on condition of anonymity ... legal documents given to the committee show that domestic doyenne Martha Stewart also shed 3,000 ImClone shares. Stewart and Waksal have been romantically linked in the past."

This sensational, yet anonymous, congressional leak publicly accused Stewart of acting on inside information from Sam Waksal, ImClone's CEO. That sneak attack was totally false. Yet it sunk the stock price of Martha Stewart Omnimedia from $19.01 on June 6, 2002, to $11.47 on June 28.

Instead of blaming the bogus leak for slashing the wealth of Martha Stewart and her shareholders by 40%, the Department of Justice opted to blame Stewart herself for making "false and misleading statements" to minimize such damage. This was the fanciful basis of the government's fraudulent charge that Stewart was guilty of fraud. Once the judge tossed out that charge, there was no longer any pretense that Stewart's stock sale cost anyone a cent. She was merely one among hundreds of thousands of investors who sold ImClone as the stock fell from over $75 to $58 by the time Stewart joined the exodus."

Get over it!

[AP]

69. People are aggressively swallowing the stupid pills over this story.

Why are you attacking me with this CATO story when it supports the argument of people who are disagreeing with me. Anyone who finds support for their arguments from the CATO Institute needs to do a gut check on their politics.

Your interpretation of how this article fits into what I've been saying is woefully uniformed, but I'm too tired to wallk through this again.

[nomatrix]

71. Duh

Read your first sentence again. I don't think it would be smart to attack you with something that AGREES you.

If you bothered to read the article you would see it was a reprint and CATO was not the source. Your talking points clearly point to your politics. Maybe you should listen to them.

You are accusing Martha Stewart of stealing, even her trial didn't do that. You're slandering her. Her stocks lost money from this slander. You seem to think it fits. Maybe she's just a feminazi, right rush?

[AP]

72. What are you talking about?

- this article thinks that lying isn't a crime. It is. Stewart was convicted of it. The 5thA says you don't have to give evidence against yourself if you don't want to. It doesn't allow you to volunteer lies. In a court of law, under oath, it's called perjury, and you don't even have to be charged with any other underlying crime to be convicted of it. You can be giving evidence as a prosecution or defense witness in someone else's trial, and you can perjur yourself. People don't question the legal sense of making lying a crime in that context. Why do they think it's OK that people can lie to federal investigators who are trying to figure out if crimes have been committed. Also, falsifying and destroying evidence is a crime. You don't even have to be under oath or charged with any other underlying crime to get convicted of those crimes.

Clearly whomever wrote this article doesn't appreciate that -- or they do appreciate that, but their agenda is to make the public think that powerful people rigging the markets should be above the law.

- your second paragraph makes no sense. Do you mean to say that my "talking points" make me sound like I agree with the CATO institute? If so, it truly displays a massive failure on your part to understand both what I'm arguing and what the CATO Inst stands for. Trust me. They aren't the same thing.

- Martha's stock lost value because 90% of it's value is its TM -- Martha Stewart. If she were percieved as a lying, greedy bitch who would ride on the back of Sam W's insider trading (for which he was convicted) it was going to cost the company a big chunk of its value. So, she decided that she was going to have cast herself as innocent at all costs -- which included lying to the investigators, and continuing to protest her innocence at every stage. That's what got her in trouble.

[saracat]

52. you are absolutely right.

See my response to Ap.It is #50.

[MoonRiver]

58. Thanks. Just read your excellent, and unassailable, reply.

I believe we really have to question the motives of some posters here.

[AP]

64. You can question them, but that doesn't mean the questions are smart

or that they say anything interesting, or even close to being sensible.

[MoonRiver]

46. Here's the link

http://www.marthastewart.com/page.jhtml?type=learn-cat&id=cat10341&rsc=sc79738

[in_cog_ni_to]

66. subscribe here....

http://www.marthastewart.com ....look for "magazine subscriptions" under "Our Magazines."

[Piperay]

55. Just took out a subscription

yesterday, doing my part to help a Democratic owned company. :-)

[MoonRiver]

59. Good! I'm curiously awaiting my first magazine.

Wonder if she will start delving into politics and/or the criminal justice system. Even if she doesn't the magazine is beautiful and has numerous interesting ideas.

[Jane Austin]

61. No, but I bought some of her stuff.

I don't have time for another magazine, but I found a K-Mart when in Colorado on a trip and bought some of her kitchen and bedroom products.

Very nice stuff.

[Walt Starr]

63. I subscribed as soon as the sentence was handed down

I'll buy some furniture soon, too.

Not to mention paint. Love her paint.

[in_cog_ni_to]

65. I did

and ran over to K-Mart and picked up a few Martha Stewart items. :bounce:

[CaTeacher]

67. I didn't actually subscribe, but I did consider it!

I also plan to buy her stuff whenever I can. I appreciate the fact that she makes high quality stuff for common people.

I must be weird--I thought it was GREAT that she spoke on behalf of her company. A good leader (in this case of a company) wants to make sure that the company is not hurt. She reminded us of the good people, good products, and that they should be supported no matter what happened to her. I thought it was fantastic of her!

[MoonRiver]

75. I'll have to check out her stuff!

Go Martha! :kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

70. I wanted to see how she'll fix up Kenny Boy's cell in solitary........

confinement!(zee hole)

Now what Dimbo has is a failure to communicate!

I think the GOPers sent Martha ahead to fix the bighouse up, in case they all land there in January! If they can get Martha to work for $.12 an hour, they won't need to outsource the job! It's a Win, Win, Win situatation for the GOPer budget plan, because things like saving the taxpayers a little money, might free up some cash for another Bush tax cut, in case the polls are down in September!

[MrPrax]

73. Only 5 months???

What a sham debate...

Hey there ARE folks/children being raped by Americans returning home...as well as people who worked their entire lives NOW losing their homes, families and other tastefully decorative 'accents' to any home...to name a few

Why are Democrats© so obsessed with F°911. Martha and the Media...

Hey Fox is on...complain about injustice there