Posted on 01/25/2003 8:17:43 AM PST by mountaineer
Her lawyer behind the scenes is Ken Starr. N'uff said?
Deal?!? What Deal? There was no deal. Remember? This was all just a Vast Right Wing conspiracy poking into her private sex life, and she would be clearly shown to be innocent of any wrong doing. Remember?
I'm of the opinion that these celebs and pols that degrade others reputations in effort to hide their own rapidly revealing lack of integrity should be forced to eat their words when they later admit guilt and beg for mercy.
So we should be happy and relieved to be broke, but honest citizens who are actually lucky to file the Short Tax Form.
I think they miscalculated on this one. Leona Helmsly was a pig. Stewart, though imperial, has a blue-colar upbringing and worked for and earned every cent she made. And did it on her own after her husband ran off with her assistant.
Women I've talked to about this think she's getting railroaded because:
1. she's a woman;
2. she's not a blue-blooded woman;
3. she's an easy target;
4. she's involved in "women's work."
Do any of you honestly think every single mover and shaker doesn't get those calls DAILY by friends to buy or sell?
The government is going to quietly drop this case because the men going after her have wives and mothers who stand in line at the grocery store and buy her magazines and watch her shows and appreciate her making "women's work" more enjoyable.
People are quick to react, forgetting it's all gamed.
Pammy Harriman was stepford. The Mitford sisters. The Stillman trio.
Stepfords don't get prosecuted; they get married.
That makes sense.
Perhaps she was mucking up the votes in her billion-dollar board room.
When the money's that big, the real control is bigger.
It's possible that Stewart is being made an example by prosecutors, a la Leona Helmsley, but there's no way I, as a woman, will believe it is because she bakes cookies and makes lovely centerpieces. While her buddy Waksal is the real scoundrel who passed on inside info to a select bunch of friends, it's possible that Martha acted on that info by dumping her stock (although it's also possible, as she claims, she already had a "sell" order in with broker).
Martha already has a reputation as a prickley, imperious person who thinks she's above the law (ask her neighbors), and that doesn't help.
Unless another agenda is at play. Then any excuse works.
But if she ever does go to jail, it sure as heck won't be because she's Suzie Homemaker to many American women, either.
I can see why you'd think that, but consider how many women watch and read and listen to her.
Enough to take her first book and turn it into a billion-dollar business.
My point is there are more Susie-homemakers out there than we're told (by people like Hillary, etc.) who take their lives and families as seriously as those men in boardrooms take their Saville Row suits.
And that's a good thing.
Possibly, but they would be the more foolish ones. Most of the people that I know who have real money, have their estates and/or affairs under some form of professional management. When the odd solicitation call does sometimes get through to them the normal response is "Talk to so-and-so at such-and-such about it, he handles my affairs."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.