Martha Stewart

[loseyourname]

It should be interesting to note that Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of perjury. It should also be interesting to note that the law firm she was being advised by when she lied under oath has a very close business relationship with the firm that defended her in the perjury case. Seems like a conflict of interest to be charged with the defense of a woman who could potentially ruin your business associates.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It should be interesting to note that Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of perjury. It should also be interesting to note that the law firm she was being advised by when she lied under oath has a very close business relationship with the firm that defended her in the perjury case. Seems like a conflict of interest to be charged with the defense of a woman who could potentially ruin your business associates.

This is what I've been saying. The charge was not insider trading but mere "lying". Welcome to the age of thought crime and the failure of the American "justice system". It's not even "insider trading" since she wasn't tipped off by someone from inside the company, but rather her own broker. This whole thing seems too fishy.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse This is what I've been saying. The charge was not insider trading but mere "lying". Welcome to the age of thought crime and the failure of the American "justice system". It's not even "insider trading" since she wasn't tipped off by someone from inside the company, but rather her own broker. This whole thing seems too fishy.

Bla bla bla bla bla Nothing fishy about it. Stewart and the CEO of that drug company were friends and had the same broker. They couldn't prove that one phone conversation between Stewart and the CEO occured so they had to get her on lesser charges. If anything she's lucky. The broker's assitant sang like a bird and told the gov't everything but there wasn't enough evidence to go with his testimony. The defence accused him of being a pothead. Which took away from his credibility. Stweart's broker gave her information she wasn't supposed to have because they were all friends. Doesn't get any more "inside" than that.

[Anonymouse]

That hasn't been proven thought Mr. Eggplant. In a court of law something must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the prosecution failed means it was never established as certainty, despite appealing to your emotions of what the case ought to be.

[Anonymouse]

Sorry, that is not a valid answer.

[Wise]

I like this picture !! LOL!!

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse This is what I've been saying. The charge was not insider trading but mere "lying". Welcome to the age of thought crime and the failure of the American "justice system". It's not even "insider trading" since she wasn't tipped off by someone from inside the company, but rather her own broker. This whole thing seems too fishy.

It's also interesting that Bill Clinton was guilty of exactly the same crime that she was convicted of. Why isn't he in prison?