[MindFad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And here comes in the idiots that like to blame Bush for everything

At least there haven't been many idiots chiming in blaming Clinton for everything. Like, cough, and stuff.

Anyway, based on my opinions formed from my limited exposure to my television, I think she was innocent. But I still don't care what happens to the woman.

[Buckaroo]

How did she obstruct justice? She only lied to investigators? Did she lie under oath or commit perjury in court?


Heck didn't Clinton Lie to the US on national TV that he did not have sex with Monica, and didn't he commit perjury? Didn't he obstuct justice? Why isn't he in jail?

I don't have any dislike or like for Martha Stewart, and I believe she should be punished, but 20 years in jail? There are fellons committing much worse crimes that get out after only a few years. The career criminal (and email spammers) should be put away for life.

j/k on the career criminal, oops I meant spammer.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Heck didn't Clinton Lie to the US on national TV that he did not have sex with Monica, and didn't he commit perjury? Didn't he obstuct justice? Why isn't he in jail?

Good question.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by wdlove:
If we don't stand behind President Bush and vote for him in November, our taxes will be going up!

I never understood the correlation people make between low taxes and a supposedly successful government. Personally I don't mind paying taxes as long as I've got decent public health, education and services.

Things cost money.

[iWrite]

Meanwhile, Bush is holding a press conference with his "good ole buddy" Vincente Fox (president of Mexico) and has "announced" that Mexican immigrants should be "allowed to come and go in and out of the country for work and education purposes."

What a hypocrite.

On one hand, they want to institute retina scans for people coming in and out of the country, but apparently we're going to have a porous border along the Mexico/United States line?

He's also talking RIGHT NOW about "corporate scandals and corruption and what it is important is to hold people accountable when they betray the trust of the people."

So, it's VERY CLEAR to me that this IS a government that is pushing the "indict and convict the corporate white collar 'criminal'."

Anyway, sorry, got a bit carried away there...

I'm just saying that this government of ours is all about skewed priorities. Prosecuting Martha Stewart included.

[iWrite]

Talk about hypocrisy...

[wolfen]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I certainly don't have all of the information.

I agree with what Wolfen said, though, but Wolfen, remember that this was never "about" insider trading -- remember? She wasn't charged with insider trading.

This case was about prosecuting Martha Stewart for LYING and covering up evidence.

This case was about insider trading, but that's a very difficult charge to prosecute. They prosecuted what they could. That's the reality. Like charging a molestor with "indecency" because you can't prove other things... But it's hard to believe anyone would think it was NOT about insider trading.

[iWrite]

Oh, we all KNOW it WAS about insider trading.

But they didn't prosecute for that -- more hypocrisy.

I'm not a big fan of how the government, local, state, or federal, prosecutes for *other* crimes in lieu of the one that they really want to prosecute for -- which they will not or cannot.

But, they do what they've gotta do, I guess.

I find it interesting that the Tyco people that ripped people off almost half a BILLION dollars, when all is said and done, are facing about the same "maximum" prison term that Martha Stewart is -- for 47 THOUSAND.

[tie]

To those saying this wasn't worth prosecuting, $47,000 is quite a bit of money to me. Anyone who steals that kind of money should be prosecuted and sent to jail. A high-profile conviction could also dissuade other people from conducting illegal insider-trading, helping the little guys.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Lay investigation and case-building is still ongoing. The Enron affair was quite complex. Lay's not off the hook by any means. The Enron cases and charges are just starting to come to fruition.

Maybe. We'll see, won't we? In the meantime, Lay has defrauded shareholders of billions of dollars, stolen hundreds of millions of dollars, and is living well two and a half years later. Skilling was finally charged last month, and perhaps Lay will be next. I think he should have been shipped off to Guantanamo and kept there indefinitely without a lawyer or any way of contacting his family.

[iWrite]

GOOD point.

Yes, $47,000 IS a lot of money.

I agree.



Now, what do we all think will happen to Martha?

And her television show?

Which, by the way, was actually a good show. It was interesting.

[ghost_flash]

How much money has she lost already? I think that is enough, but not in comparison to how much the little guy is going to lose because they went after her.

[nobitacu]

At least after she gets locked up, we won't have to see her on T.V. for awhile.

Ming

[Buckaroo]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Oh, we all KNOW it WAS about insider trading.

But they didn't prosecute for that -- more hypocrisy.

I'm not a big fan of how the government, local, state, or federal, prosecutes for *other* crimes in lieu of the one that they really want to prosecute for -- which they will not or cannot.

But, they do what they've gotta do, I guess.

I find it interesting that the Tyco people that ripped people off almost half a BILLION dollars, when all is said and done, are facing about the same "maximum" prison term that Martha Stewart is -- for 47 THOUSAND.

You are WRONG. They did prosecute her for insider trading. It was the Judge that threw it out. He shouldn't have.

[Buckaroo]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I never understood the correlation people make between low taxes and a supposedly successful government. Personally I don't mind paying taxes as long as I've got decent public health, education and services.

Things cost money.

Yeah, you don't mind all the free things as long as you don't have to work for it and pay for it.

[dillerX]

Originally posted by nobitacu:
At least after she gets locked up, we won't have to see her on T.V. for awhile.

Ming

someone, somewhere, somehow will figure out a way.....

[iWrite]

This whole thing has to be SO humiliating to a woman who prided herself for being on the society short list for events and parties.

Besides, she's no spring chicken at 62.

I think the best punishment for her along with the best outcome for stockholders and employees is to just fine the heck out of her -- huge financial penalties -- and make her do a lot of public service work/community service with a long probation term.

That way she gets hit hard where it hurts and people still keep their jobs.

Though, thanks to Ashcroft apparently federal judges don't have very much leeway any longer with downward departures with sentencing guidelines.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Yeah, you don't mind all the free things as long as you don't have to work for it and pay for it.

Where did this outta-left-field comment come from ?? If you pay income taxes, then you are paying for it. Its not "free". And, if you're paying those taxes, then you are working for it as well (umm ... unless you're uber-wealthy and don't have to actually work for any of your income .. just collect dividends and capital gains). I agree with mastrap ... the absolute tax rate isn't as important as what you get for the tax rate your paying.

Right now, due to the huge deficit and mounting debt, literally 18% of our tax dollars go to ... nothing. Just paying interest on the debt. At the current rate of deficit spending, we'll be paying 20-30% for nothing in a few years. This is just asinine. You've GOT to tax enough to pay for what you spend. If you don't have the nutz to cut the spending, then you have to raise taxes accordingly. Spending like the current administration is doing and not collecting enough to pay for it qualifies as the "free things you don't have to pay for" that you are describing.

[/off topic]

[iWrite]

Krusty said
Right now, due to the huge deficit and mounting debt, literally 18% of our tax dollars go to ... nothing. Just paying interest on the debt.

RIGHT, but with the level of unemployment and the amount that health care is now costing people (it costs our family $14,000 a year -- LITERALLY -- through United Healthcare for our family), how can you expect people to PAY extra taxes?

Seriously?

WE CANNOT.

We cannot afford to pay more taxes, no. The rate of bankruptcies is skyrocketing and the other day the federal government released data that showed that never before has the American public been in so much credit card debt as we are now -- it is truly astounding. Greenspan is extremely concerned about the risk to this country due to the collective debt held by the middle class.

We've got serious problems and simply trying to tax the heck out of people even more is not going to "fix" it. People just do not have the money to pay more -- period.

[Krusty]

I would agree with you iWrite if it weren't for the fact that the tax rate/GDP ratio is less than it has been in 50 years. Meaning, on the whole, the government is collecting a smaller percentage of the total production in this country in taxes than they have in half a century. So, somebody got a big honking tax break to make this occur. Obviously, its not us .. working people (we got a nifty couple percent shift down in our tax brackets in 2001 while capital gains/corporate taxes were slashed from rates ranging between 20 - upper 30s percent to 15%). This is where the shortfall is coming from. During the 90's boom, corporate/capital gains rates roughly matched the rates paid by individuals ... now, unearned income is tax far less than money you and I get in our paychecks.

Also, if I wasn't 5 minutes from leaving to go to a Lucinda Williams concert, I'd love to get into the breakdown of tax revenues and expenditures in the US. You're right ... individuals and families really can't bear any big increases. Proportionally, individuals are bearing a much larger percentage of tax revenues than they (we) were 3 years ago.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by insha:
How come Ken Lay has not been sentenced for the Enron debacle; and Martha Stewart gets One million in fine and 20 year in prison, for a far smaller offense....Is this really Justice?

Because Marth'a wrongdoing was 1 trade made on 1 day. Lay's case building encompasses years of thousands upon thousands of transactions.

Yes, it is justice. Evidence needs to be gathered and analyzed to formulate charges and present a case before a jury. Martha's case involved only a handful of witnesses and some cell-phone records.

[spacefreak]

This has nothing to do with anything other than Martha Stewart screwing up, trying to cover it up, and outright lying about the whole ordeal. It has nothing to do with Ken Lay, Worldcom, or even Terry "Global Crossing" McAuliffe.

Martha is going to jail because she didn't want to ding her picture-perfect image, and because she was positive that no court of laymen would actually convict the fabulous Martha Stewart.

The fact is, she had numerous opportunities to make a deal:

But here's the depressing reality: Martha could have avoided this entire mess if she had simply fessed up to begin with, federal investigators say. Had she admitted wrongdoing in early 2002, she could have gotten off with a $200,000 fine and no jail time. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the Feds gave Martha another opportunity to avoid prison. Federal prosecutors offered Martha a deal last April to cop to one count of making a false statement, say several sources familiar with the offer. She would have received probation and continued working at her company, they say. But Martha refused to plead guilty to a felony, and a defense source says the Feds couldn't guarantee she'd stay out of jail.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This has nothing to do with anything other than Martha Stewart screwing up, trying to cover it up, and outright lying about the whole ordeal. It has nothing to do with Ken Lay, Worldcom, or even Terry "Global Crossing" McAuliffe.

Martha is going to jail because she didn't want to ding her picture-perfect image, and because she was positive that no court of laymen would actually convict the fabulous Martha Stewart.

The fact is, she had numerous opportunities to make a deal:

Your link does not work, but just looking at your quote I am dumbfounded that she didn't make a deal. My goodness, she is an idiot. Mark my words, she will write a book about this experience and make MILLIONS.

[boots]

Originally posted by iWrite:
We cannot afford to pay more taxes, no. The rate of bankruptcies is skyrocketing and the other day the federal government released data that showed that never before has the American public been in so much credit card debt as we are now -- it is truly astounding. Greenspan is extremely concerned about the risk to this country due to the collective debt held by the middle class.

We've got serious problems and simply trying to tax the heck out of people even more is not going to "fix" it. People just do not have the money to pay more -- period.

Sorta right. But two separate issues. Bankruptcies are linked to predatory lending and the fact that my dog can get a pre-approved credit card with a $5000 credit limit. People's spending habits don't dictate what tax rates should be. People, as a general observation, need to learn to live within their means.

[iWrite]

I agree with your assessment.

Also, you have to admit that the banks and finance companies are completely out of whack with their "qualifications" for credit. I mean, seriously.

This is the thing, though: What incentive is there for them to curb lending? They charge between 18% to 23% interest in over half of the accounts (yes, they have lower percentage rates but some of those rates are only to hook people in) and then if the person declares bankruptcy the company/lender then writes off the loss -- to the government. So, they haven't REALLY lost money, you know?

[saranwarp]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Your link does not work, but just looking at your quote I am dumbfounded that she didn't make a deal. My goodness, she is an idiot. Mark my words, she will write a book about this experience and make MILLIONS.

Well, the thing is that there was no case against her. They didn't even bother to prosecute her on charges of insider trading because there was no chance of getting a guilty verdict. The government got a conviction based not on what she did with ImClone stock but instead on what she told investigators once they started questioning her.

Basically, she faces twenty years in prison for inappropriately defending herself against crimes the government didn't even bother to prove she actually committed. Yes, what she did after the sale itself was probably criminal, but the only reason she was put in this position in the first place is because she is Martha Stewart. This is not the win for the little guy that the prosecutors make it out to be. If anything, this hurts the retirement savings of the average person who holds stock in Martha Stewart Living or Kmart.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by boots:
I'm just amused by the whole thing. It pisses me off that they go after her like they did, yet it's been how long since enron when under and we're still "looking into" some of those deals?

On the other hand, I can't help it: I intensely dislike Martha Stewart.

She wasn't found guilty of securities fraud, so you can't really blame George Bush for this one. This for obstruction.

[olePigeon]

By the way, Zimphire, the reason why Bush is being brought up is because of the similarities with Enron and Microsoft.

[boots]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
She wasn't found guilty of securities fraud, so you can't really blame George Bush for this one. This for obstruction.

Certainly not trying to pin that on Bush....it's the system, regardless of who's in power.

[iWrite]

If anything, this hurts the retirement savings of the average person who holds stock in Martha Stewart Living or Kmart.

BINGO!

Yes, that is absolutely the fair and square assessment.

[boots]

Originally posted by iWrite:
BINGO!

Yes, that is absolutely the fair and square assessment.

So we shouldn't prosecute people who break laws or obstruct investigations (also breaking a law) if it will be detrimental to someone's portfolio? That's kinda of twisted logic.

[gadster]

Shouldn't she get clemency for taking the heat off Bush?

[Joshua]

Originally posted by boots:
So we shouldn't prosecute people who break laws or obstruct investigations (also breaking a law) if it will be detrimental to someone's portfolio? That's kinda of twisted logic.

It doesn't have to be an absolute should-we or shouldn't-we; there's prosecutorial discretion for a reason. The prosecutor should have weighed ALL the factors involved in this case -- the seriousness of the alleged offense, the consequences of a trial, the merits of their case, etc. -- before deciding whether to file charges.

The prosecutors clearly had a weak case on the primary charge of securities fraud; that's why it was dismissed. They chose to pursue it, though, and as a result they ended up getting her on derivative charges that, while maybe proper technically, don't make much sense without the primary charge.

The consequences of this case are devastating. Martha herself will probably spend at least a year in jail, and her career may well be over; MSO shareholders have seen their investments plummet, and related companies (Kmart, for example) are suffering as well; and if MSO tanks, thousands of people are going to be out of work.

And why? Because the government chose to pursue a celebrity, merits be damned, because they thought it would send a "message." It's a shame.

[boots]

I'd hardly call it devastating in the big picture. To some share holders, sure. But that's not the issue. By saying "He won't prosecute because the stocks would go down" is simply granting free license to CEO's and boards to skim...so long as it isn't perceived as being more than what would be lost if they were prosecuted.

You may truly believe that the only reason they went after her is because she was a celebrity. I think that is the wrong way to look at it. I think they should go after MORE people, including celebrities. Not go after fewer because they are celebrities.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by iWrite:
GOOD point.

Yes, $47,000 IS a lot of money.

I agree.



Now, what do we all think will happen to Martha?

And her television show?

Which, by the way, was actually a good show. It was interesting.

I hope it gets pulled for gods sake. I hate it. Its all so flakey.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by boots:
I'd hardly call it devastating in the big picture. To some share holders, sure. But that's not the issue. By saying "He won't prosecute because the stocks would go down" is simply granting free license to CEO's and boards to skim...so long as it isn't perceived as being more than what would be lost if they were prosecuted.

You may truly believe that the only reason they went after her is because she was a celebrity. I think that is the wrong way to look at it. I think they should go after MORE people, including celebrities. Not go after fewer because they are celebrities.

I agree entirely that real securities fraud shouldn't be overlooked for the sake of maintaining stock prices, but that's not the point here at all: that count was bogus and was rightly thrown out. The prosecutors were over-zealous, and I think their irresponsibility is going to put a successful business under.

[boots]

Originally posted by Joshua:
I agree entirely that real securities fraud shouldn't be overlooked for the sake of maintaining stock prices, but that's not the point here at all: that count was bogus and was rightly thrown out. The prosecutors were over-zealous, and I think their irresponsibility is going to put a successful business under.

No, the count wasn't bogus...just hard to prove. It is like that with nearly all cases. So you get what you can.

Al Capone was taken in on tax evasion because they couldn't prove the other stuff. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, just that it was too hard to prove.

Don't read too much into the fact that the fraud charge got tossed. That part is pretty common.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by boots:
No, the count wasn't bogus...just hard to prove. It is like that with nearly all cases. So you get what you can.

Al Capone was taken in on tax evasion because they couldn't prove the other stuff. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, just that it was too hard to prove.

Don't read too much into the fact that the fraud charge got tossed. That part is pretty common.

The reason the charge would have been so difficult to prove was that it was a misapplication of the law. Securities fraud cases are generally cases in which an exec has made false statements about their company's performance to encourage/maintain shareholders. In bringing a securities fraud charge against Martha, the government would have had to prove that her allegedly false statements about her personal sale of stock in another company somehow defrauded MSO shareholders. That's problematic on one level because it's nearly impossible to prove, but it's more troubling because it would mean that the government could charge you with securities fraud just for proclaiming your innocence on another charge. Or more simply, it would mean that the government has the right to make public charges against you, but you can't make a public denial without facing additional charges.

That's why Cedarbaum was right to throw that charge out.

[ghost_flash]

Didn't Hillary Clinton make 100,000 on Cattle Futures? I wonder how she did that? Hmmmmm.....