1. Of course you do when you think you're innocent. 2. Of course you do when you think you're innocent. 3. Ultimately everything is personal, including business. I agree with the rest of your post. It was a very poor trade from a risk / reward standpoint (certainly not a 3:1)! There were many opportunities to get out of this trade losing a fingernail instead of an entire set of limbs. And I also agree with you that the people she paid to protect her failed miserably. Too bad we're not in Feudal Japan. But they will go on with their lives now, much like the scumbag prosecutors who knew the initial charges of "insider trading" were bogus (plus the add-on "fraud" charge that the judge last week tossed, in effect telling the prosecutors that they were unreasonable in their political ambitions to "win"). I hope Martha apportions a good part of her remaining hundreds of millions to destroy the careers of everyone who has touched this case. And their spouses. And their children. But unlike many who hate her, it's probably not something she'd even think to do.
For Martha Stewart to make the choices that she made given the incredible landscape of Corporate Greed and Fraud over the past several years was a severely ignorant decision on her part. How she thought that she was gonna be tried in a "vacuum" and not be subject to being made an example of by prosecutors is beyond comprehension. Amazingly stupid, given the business Empire that she was able to create.
Good post. It was wholly vindictive, which the judge even evidenced in tossing the "fraud" charge last week.
Now if we can just get some of the Congressmen, Senators and other politicians indited for lying to us. Not to mention the police and other authorities. (And former President Clinton) Did you see the story the other day about the guy who was told by the police that they had his finger prints and other evidence at a murder site and convinced him he did it? They even got a so-so confession out of the guy. Eventually DNA evidence proved that he was innocent! It is SOP for the police to use lies about evidence and fact when interogating suspects. All perfectly legal. I wonder if it was illegal for the Feds to lie to Martha about evidence and facts during their investigation. NOT!
Exactly. And they do more harm daily than a thousand Martha Stewarts ever do in her entire lifetime. These scumbag political whore prosecutors remind me of the old Soviet-style joke about committing three errors. The short version is simply this: "Comrade, as you know, The Directorate allows you three errors before imprisoning you in Siberia for the rest of your life. You were wrong about the Five Year projection for wheat. That was your first error. You failed to report that you were wrong. That was your second error. And you failed to report that you failed to report you were wrong. Dress warmly, Comrade." For we will now destroy your life, your reputation, kill off your business, wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth of people who thought you, of ALL people, had something of value to offer them. And some of us will even do it gleefully.
you seem slightly misguided bro... wonder what background you came from: so in your world we only enforce the rules if guys like you think someone is "harmed" by the conduct. Hmmmm.. what kind of world would it be (that's assuming a non-sociopath person would give a da*n about the world, and about being somewhat fair to their fellow humans in the first place; which isn't always the human condition anyway). Let's see.... you drive 100 mph and run a red light but didn't kill a family of four..... so rgelite says: "why prosecute him in traffic court since he didn't harm anyone"!!!!!! Or..... what about this in rgelite's world: "yeah sure bro, I cheated on many tests in college/high school etc. but I didn't get caught... prof didn't see me do it.. . so what if the other suckers in my grade/class took the test honestly..... that's their problemo... no HARM no FOUL... ain't that the ticket in the good olde US of A??!" Now take that scenario and multiply 100 thousand times and more... and what would we have in rgelite's world: ANARCHY ICe
Your strawmen are all off the mark. And you wrote them, not me. To be factual, "anarchy" would exist if the violation of other's individual rights were not prosecuted objectively. To use your example, anarchy would exist in a society that allows speeding 100 mph AND as a consequence killing someone or destroying someone else's property is NOT prosecuted. I would want someone who destroyed another's life or property through recklessness prosecuted, whether that's going 100 mph in a posted 55 zone OR if going 55 in that same posted zone when it's snowing. But I'd want something real to have occurred first that actually affected another member of society negatively. That and that alone is the moral and objective basis for the State to step in and use force against its citizens. See the difference? The action in itself should never be a crime if it does not violate anyone else's life or property, just because it offends someone else's sensibilities or sense of proportion. This goes from the extremes of non-crimes today of being a "monopoly" just because you're so successful that everyone wants your product and you've naturally developed market share, to the non-crime of medicating yourself as you see fit including smoking hemp if that turns you on or taking pain killers for your back that still leaves you capable of being the most successful radio talk show host in the world, to the non-crime of consentually contracting with another adult for whatever reasons both of you agree, to the non-crime of talking about whatever religion you were raised in a third grade essay contest in a public school, etc., etc., etc. But I understand that there are forces in this country that want to make it a crime to buy beer on Sunday. Or to just drink one in a parked automobile. Or acting in your own financial self-interest based on information you've either obtained or developed, selling shares in a stock in which your action will affect NO ONE. Along with a plethora of other so-called "crimes."
Papst: >The subject of an investigation has a right to lie, >stonewall, not self incriminate. I recognize that you were making a "you're world" statement there and thus my next statement isn't meant to educate you. "The subject of an investigation has a A. right to lie, (I don't agree and neither does the law) B. stonewall, (I agree to a point and so does the law) C. not self incriminate" (I agree and so does the law) JB
Martha Stewart said that she didn't remember her phone call with Sam Waksul. The Jury didn't believe her, nor did the Feds. Her crime was lying to the Feds. Not insider trading. There's a difference.