Martha provokes outrage while government corruption gets yawns

OS Register ^ | 3/14/04 | Steven Greenhut

[NormsRevenge]

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and other Democratic leaders are cruising toward November by exploiting public antipathy toward so-called corporate miscreants, such as the guys at Enron, WorldCom and now home-decorating diva Martha Stewart.

I'm no defender of corporate wrongdoing, although I still can't quite figure out what Stewart did that warrants time in jail. Lying to investigators about a non-crime apparently is all it takes to get one locked up these days. Investigators frequently lie to those they are interrogating, and they are not punished for that.

[NormsRevenge]

.

[international american]

It is even worse than what you said. The guards "shake down" the guys for money, clothes, etc. My friend who is a criminal lawyer has told me stuff that would shock you.

[jaz.357]

What causes this distorted thinking?

Democrat Voters!

[Mr. K]

The crime here is that the CEO of IMCLONE released insider info to the stock broker.

Another crime was when the stockbroker used the info to tell Martha to sell her stock.

A third crime was when Martha acted on this info.

The stockbroker and Martha should have reported it to the FTC. Martha was a stockbroker- she knows what insider information is.

Calling this a 'non-crime' is wrong- when she sold her stock, some unfortunate perosn bought the stock, not knowing it would tank the next day. They lost money as surely as if it was stolen from them.

That said, I think Martha should not spend very long in jail, she should be given communty service because the people who own stock in her company will suffer. They may sue her for losses and she will go from being the billion-dollar babe to bankrupt.

[BIGZ]

Bill lied under oath, perjury, Hillary made $100,000 on cattle futures, insider trading?

These guys did not and will not go to jail.

Martha will go to jail Bill and hillary will not, Toro Kaka.

[Major_Risktaker]

The crime here is that the CEO of IMCLONE released insider info to the stock broker.

Another crime was when the stockbroker used the info to tell Martha to sell her stock.

A third crime was when Martha acted on this info.

_______________________

The crime is the FDA Government official that released the cancer drug approval or dis approval information to the CEO of IMCLONE before the public release date.

Where are the charges against this bureaucrat rat and jail time for this crime.

Martha acted on a rumor from her stock broker. Wall Street work on rumors everyday.

[Balding_Eagle]

I didn't follow the case very closely, but I think the charges for the three crimes you mentioned were either never brought, or were dropped.

I think she was found guilty of lying about them (the three charges you mentioned), which seems odd.

[bandleader]

Martha Stewart was found guilty(among other things)of knowingly making false statements to The FBI while not under oath.BeelzeBubba was found by Susan Weber Wright to have made"Deliberately False And Misleading Statements To A Federal Grand Jury While Under Oath"!!What ever happened to him,anyway?????

[Dan Evans]

Calling this a 'non-crime' is wrong- when she sold her stock, some unfortunate perosn bought the stock, not knowing it would tank the next day. They lost money as surely as if it was stolen from them.

Actually, the stock eventually went back up. She lost money on the deal. No one can be certain that their "inside information" will make a profit.

[Dan Evans]

The government workers who planted the lynx hairs in that phony study didn't go to jail -- the were transferred and promoted. This happens a lot. I remember a case where an a federal employee was purchasing personal property with his government credit card. He was transferred to another agency.

[Dan Evans]

The crime here is that the CEO of IMCLONE released insider info to the stock broker.

Why should that be a crime? That should be protected free speech.

[Mr. K]

"Why should that be a crime? That should be protected free speech.

Because he released the info only to a select few people, NOT publicly- thereby allowing them to trade stocks they knew would be dropping in price- whioch then caused some unsuspecting individual(s) to lose money.

[Mr. K]

but whoever bought the stock the same day she sold it lost money- not having the same access to the information she had.

[Dan Evans]

but whoever bought the stock the same day she sold it lost money- not having the same access to the information she had.

No, only if the buyer sold it before it went up again. If they had held it, they would have made a profit.

[Dan Evans]

Because he released the info only to a select few people, NOT publicly- thereby allowing them to trade stocks they knew would be dropping in price- whioch then caused some unsuspecting individual(s) to lose money.

The Constitution says we have a right of free speech. It doesn't say that right is void if someone makes a profit from it.

[Mr. K]

If you think about this it is just like stealing

try hard...

[Mr. K]

you keep focusing on freedom of speech and someone making a profit, but keep ignoring the fact that someone also suffered a loss, that person not being privy to the same 'insider' information that Martha had... are you unable to understand this?

[Dan Evans]

If you think about this it is just like stealing

Selling something that you know has no value would be like stealing. Telling somebody that a thing has no value is free speech.

Information is essential to the operation of a free market. If the government makes that information worthless then the market fails.

[Mr. K]

Are you just not understanding this? Martha got information, some unsuspecting buyer did not.

How would you like to be the one who bought Martha's stock only to see them tank the next day- and then later learn that Martha knew it was going to happen when she sold them to you?