Free Martha

[Somme]

Clinton is just an easy target for almost anyone. His screw ups were so blatant that people always point to him when discussing this sort of thing.

I don't.

 

[shereads]

I don't.

That's because you make a distinction between lying about who took the last brownie, and lying about where you hid the murder weapon.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Good God. There are two basic Republican responses for news of injustice: "Look what Clinton did!" or "It's necessary because of the War on Terror." It doesn't bother you that you elected a president who did exactly waht Ken Lay did at Enron and got away with it - with help from an SEC chairman who'd been appointed by Bush I? And who assigned an investigator to GWB's case who had assisted GWB with his purchase of the Texas Rangers? A purchase he made with his profits from the unreported sale of his Harken stock? After he sat on a 3-man committee who directed the company as it deceived new investors by cooking its books?

If telling conflicting stories about a stock sale was enough to convict the Dominatrix of Domesticity, and the president has three different explanations on record for his failure to report the Harken sail to the SEC, what train of thought leads you to Bill Clinton? And why not Hillary too?

I presume you are referring to me as a Republican, which I am not. I am a registered voter but I am registered independent. In the last election, I voted against Bush by voting for Gore, who did carry California. I am reluctant to say I voted FOR anybody because my vote was more against one candidate than for his opponent. I don't know anything about Martha Stewart's party affiliation but she is probably not a Democrat. What I am pointing out is the same thing that you are pointing out - how the law comes down hard on some people for minor infractions but lets others get away with felonies.

Although I hadn't mentioned Hillary, you did. She probably got by with various felonies also, probably including obstruction of justice and insider trading, which was what Martha was accused of. Remember the billing records that disappeared and suddenly reappeared in plain sight the day after the statutes of limitations expired and the way she ran a few hundred dollar into over $100,000?

 

[kellycummings]

That's because you make a distinction between lying about who took the last brownie, and lying about where you hid the murder weapon.

I like that. Good one. I think it fits the Martha thing too. Her stockbroker and the Imclone guy lied about bigger things and are getting bigger punishments. She lied about something a little smaller and will be punished accordingly.

 

[kellycummings]

Although I hadn't mentioned Hillary, you did. She probably got by with various felonies also, probably including obstruction of justice and insider trading, which was what Martha was accused of. Remember the billing records that disappeared and suddenly reappeared in plain sight the day after the statutes of limitations expired and the way she ran a few hundred dollar into over $100,000?

Martha was never accused of insider trading. And the Hillary thing was a real estate deal that was very, very questionable but wasn't a stock thing.

 

[shereads]

I presume you are referring to me as a Republican, which I am not. I am a registered voter but I am registered independent. In the last election, I voted against Bush by voting for Gore, who did carry California. I am reluctant to say I voted FOR anybody because my vote was more against one candidate than for his opponent. I don't know anything about Martha Stewart's party affiliation but she is probably not a Democrat. What I am pointing out is the same thing that you are pointing out - how the law comes down hard on some people for minor infractions but lets others get away with felonies.

Although I hadn't mentioned Hillary, you did. She probably got by with various felonies also, probably including obstruction of justice and insider trading, which was what Martha was accused of. Remember the billing records that disappeared and suddenly reappeared in plain sight the day after the statutes of limitations expired and the way she ran a few hundred dollar into over $100,000?

If Ken Starr couldn't find anything on Hillary after 6 years and $60 million and jail time for friends who refused to tell him what he wanted to hear about her, I doubt there was anything there.

There was a felony committed and never investigated: grand jury leaks from Ken Starr's office. There was a controlled flow of those, and they seemed to hit the newspapers whenever the administration had good news to report on the economy or other fronts. Ken Starr was appalled, as I recall. Repeatedly. And swore to hunt down the perpetrator in his office; never really followed up on it, though.

I make a moral distinction between lies calculated to do harm and lies that happen in the heat of the moment, when someone has been targeted for embarrassment or worse. Martha Stewart panicked when she learned that she was one of the stock holders whose sales would be investigated. She should have told the truth, and I shouldn't have sped up to beat the yellow light on my way home from work tonight.

But how is lying about something she was no longer accused of doing the same thing as "obstruction of justice?"

 

[kellycummings]

If Ken Starr couldn't find anything on Hillary after 6 years and $60 million and jail time for friends who refused to tell him what he wanted to hear about her, I doubt there was anything there.

There was a felony committed and never investigated: grand jury leaks from Ken Starr's office. There was a controlled flow of those, and they seemed to hit the newspapers whenever the administration had good news to report on the economy or other fronts. Ken Starr was appalled, as I recall. Repeatedly. And swore to hunt down the perpetrator in his office; never really followed up on it, though.

I make a moral distinction between lies calculated to do harm and lies that happen in the heat of the moment, when someone has been targeted for embarrassment or worse. Martha Stewart panicked when she learned that she was one of the stock holders whose sales would be investigated. She should have told the truth, and I shouldn't have sped up to beat the yellow light on my way home from work tonight.

But how is lying about something she was no longer accused of doing the same thing as "obstruction of justice?"

The obstruction of justice and lying charges are seperate. She probably did commit securities fraud but they didn't have enough on her. She was covering her ass and got caught. Happens all the time, we just don't hear about it.

 

[Somme]

That's because you make a distinction between lying about who took the last brownie, and lying about where you hid the murder weapon.

Aye, but were the butler, missus, I swears it!

 

[shereads]

Oh my god. Right now she's doing Japanese flower arrangements with an adorable old man on late-night reruns of Martha Stewart Living.

It's giving me the creeps.

If a person can go to jail just for lying, that means...that means...that some of YOU people could go to jail! And I'd be so lonely here in an empty forum.

 

[Guest]

... She probably did commit securities fraud but they didn't have enough on her.

Wow, Kell. Can you reveal your sources, or is it that fine tuned psyche of yours that knows all.

Perdita

p.s. That was a rhetorical question/statement. I'm feeling rude and arrogant tonight (brought on by the lack of use of reason on the AH).

 

[Couture]

Lying is not the same thing as perjury or obstruction. I can lie all day and not have a problem. However, if I try to do so in an affadavit or while I'm on the stand...and I get caught, then I have a problem.

I have mixed feelings about the whole Martha Stewart thing. Most people who trade stocks are aware that there is insider trading. However, there are laws against it, and every once and a while they make an example out of someone to keep the rest more honest. This keeps faith in the system, which is necessary or people wouldn't invest in stocks. And faith is necessary because with the dividends stocks are paying, why people consider them good investments is beyond me.

But, back to Martha. I guess if she's guilty as the jury has found her, then she has to suffer the consequences of her actions.

The problem I have is that the Martha thing is for $51,000. Now, if you or I had stolen $51,000, we would also probably be looking at jail time.

The one reason, and the ONLY reason I feel sorry for her, is that much bigger criminals are walking around scott free. For instance, Ken Lay is responsible for stealing billions of dollars from Americans. His actions liquidated retirement accounts for thousands in months. And his company overcharged Californians billions for electricity. This was happening back in 2001. When will he be called to account?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't see how nailing MS to the wall keeps faith in the system. All charges of impropriety in securites exchange were dropped for lack of evidence. This is a case where prosecutors made gran pronouncements of insider trading and securities fraud, couldn't provide a lick of proof either existed and prosecuted anyway on a host of lesser chares so they didn't look like twerps.

With the numberof convictions they have among Enron, World Com, AA, etc. This is the equivlent of the 7th cav attackind and destroying a village of women and children and calling it a victory while Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Paint's his shirt red are all out raiding at will and making them look totally incompetent.

An even better analogy would be a Stalin show trial, where some poor schmuck is grabbed off the streets and tried for corruption in a big public show of how the government is looking out ofr the people when the real criminals are all members of that same government.

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

Wow, Kell. Can you reveal your sources, or is it that fine tuned psyche of yours that knows all.

Perdita

p.s. That was a rhetorical question/statement. I'm feeling rude and arrogant tonight (brought on by the lack of use of reason on the AH).

It only stands to reason that if she lied about the trade then there must be something wrong with it. If it was totally legit, then why lie?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It only stands to reason that if she lied about the trade then there must be something wrong with it. If it was totally legit, then why lie?

You can't assume that. You have no idea who questioned her or how. I am not given to lying out of hand, but if two guys in black suits with sunglasses knock on the door and start asking me questions I am likely to be at the least careful with what I say.

If,in being careful of what I say, I fail to mention something and that something turns out to be important to an investigation and if they decide I intentionally omitted it, then I could find myself facing an obstruction charge, Just as MS did.

Not of lying, but for simply not being as forthright as they think I should have been. I might be able to beat that in court, I am a super shy person and could probably produce three or four experts who would testify I was in a mentally unbalanced state since I have such high social anxiety. MS dosen't have that luxury.

In fact, if you are ever questioned you can take the fifth. The USSC has upehld the idea that since no person can fully know all the intricasies of the law you may take the fifth at any time, invoking your right to protection from self incrimination. The expression of that right is pretty narrow, but if you invoke it and they persist in questioning you, anything you admit that could be self-incriminating is inadmissible in a court of law.

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

You can't assume that. You have no idea who questioned her or how. I am not given to lying out of hand, but if two guys in black suits with sunglasses knock on the door and start asking me questions I am likely to be at the least careful with what I say.

If,in being careful of what I say, I fail to mention something and that something turns out to be important to an investigation and if they decide I intentionally omitted it, then I could find myself facing an obstruction charge, Just as MS did.

Not of lying, but for simply not being as forthright as they think I should have been. I might be able to beat that in court, I am a super shy person and could probably produce three or four experts who would testify I was in a mentally unbalanced state since I have such high social anxiety. MS dosen't have that luxury.

In fact, if you are ever questioned you can take the fifth. The USSC has upehld the idea that since no person can fully know all the intricasies of the law you may take the fifth at any time, invoking your right to protection from self incrimination. The expression of that right is pretty narrow, but if you invoke it and they persist in questioning you, anything you admit that could be self-incriminating is inadmissible in a court of law.

-Colly

Martha used to be a stockbroker so she has no excuse. The average person, yes, might be intimidated and lie without really meaning to. But she should have known better which can only lead one to assume that she was hiding something. Maybe she wasn't but it sure doesn't look good.

I should also add that she wasn't convicted of securities fraud anyway so it doesn't matter.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Martha used to be a stockbroker so she has no excuse. The average person, yes, might be intimidated and lie without really meaning to. But she should have known better which can only lead one to assume that she was hiding something. Maybe she wasn't but it sure doesn't look good.

I should also add that she wasn't convicted of securities fraud anyway so it doesn't matter.

I don't know MS from eve. Have never seen her show, read her magazine or ordered any of her products. I do know she has a reputation for being a shark in the bussiness world.

My real problem with this is that she was originally charged with some very serious offenses. Insider trading and securities fraud. There wasn't enough evidence to even get an inditment for either, in fact they were droped entierly. With no evidence of any wrogn doing in the matter they began their investigation on, they actually ended up charging her with crimes she might have commited DURING their investigation.

How is it obstruction of justice if they can't prove you did anything wrong on the original count in the first place? It seems to me to be very close to charging someone with murder so you can go digging into their personal life, then dropping the murder charge and prosecuting them for something unrelated, say tax evasion or wire fraud which you turned up during the murder investigation. It just seems to me that charging someone with obstruction when you don't even prosecute the original charge for lack of any credible evidence is a bit to police stateish for me.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Just taking this opportunity to state how fucking intelligent Colly is. Some people don't even recognize sarcasm, let alone logic and common sense.

Colly:

P.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Just taking this opportunity to state how fucking intelligent Colly is. Some people don't even recognize sarcasm, let alone logic and common sense.

Colly:

P.

I'm sorry to be so lazy, but all I can do is second that motion, P.

~lucky

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry to be so lazy, but all I can do is second that motion, P.

Laaaazzzzzzzzzy can be good, L.

 

[kellycummings]

I don't know MS from eve. Have never seen her show, read her magazine or ordered any of her products. I do know she has a reputation for being a shark in the bussiness world.

My real problem with this is that she was originally charged with some very serious offenses. Insider trading and securities fraud. There wasn't enough evidence to even get an inditment for either, in fact they were droped entierly. With no evidence of any wrogn doing in the matter they began their investigation on, they actually ended up charging her with crimes she might have commited DURING their investigation.

How is it obstruction of justice if they can't prove you did anything wrong on the original count in the first place? It seems to me to be very close to charging someone with murder so you can go digging into their personal life, then dropping the murder charge and prosecuting them for something unrelated, say tax evasion or wire fraud which you turned up during the murder investigation. It just seems to me that charging someone with obstruction when you don't even prosecute the original charge for lack of any credible evidence is a bit to police stateish for me.

-Colly

She was never accused of insider trading and the securities fraud was dropped by the judge near the end of the trial. Obstruction of justice comes from lying to protect other people who were in on the whole thing. It doesn't have anything to do with the securities fraud charge. The fraud charge was there because they think she was tipped and sold her stock. When asked she lied to cover herself and her broker and the company owner. That's where the obstruction comes in. The lying charge is for making false statements to federal officers or something like that. That is a real crime that I've seen many people charged and convicted of. They take it seriously.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The question I still ask is how do you prove obstruction of justice if you can't prove justice had a valid interest in the person?

If you are accused of murder and have no alibi and convince your best freind Jenny to say you were at her place and they put pressure on her and she crakcs and admits you asked her to lie to cover for you and then they catch the real killer on an unrelated charge and he admits the murder and they decide to try you for obstruction of justice then the question still remains, if justice had no valid interest in your personal life and could not prove that you were in any way connected with the crime why are you in court?

It seems to me if the prosecution couldn't even prove one of thier charges in relation to the original investigation then they have no foot to stand on in charging you with obstruction of justice. If there is no crime, then how can you logicaly say lying about there being no crime is a crime? It seems to me a very petty and mean spirited way to get back at someone who made you look foolish in the first place by not having comited the crime you accused them of.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

I'm with Colly on this one. It reminds me of those cases in which the sole charge against a person is 'resisting arrest'.

 

[kellycummings]

The question I still ask is how do you prove obstruction of justice if you can't prove justice had a valid interest in the person?

If you are accused of murder and have no alibi and convince your best freind Jenny to say you were at her place and they put pressure on her and she crakcs and admits you asked her to lie to cover for you and then they catch the real killer on an unrelated charge and he admits the murder and they decide to try you for obstruction of justice then the question still remains, if justice had no valid interest in your personal life and could not prove that you were in any way connected with the crime why are you in court?

It seems to me if the prosecution couldn't even prove one of thier charges in relation to the original investigation then they have no foot to stand on in charging you with obstruction of justice. If there is no crime, then how can you logicaly say lying about there being no crime is a crime? It seems to me a very petty and mean spirited way to get back at someone who made you look foolish in the first place by not having comited the crime you accused them of.

-Colly

They did it because others in the case were convicted of fraud and they were able to prove that she lied to them about it. The obstruction charges weren't about her involvment with fraud, but about others whom she knew and tried to cover for. Waksal was convicted of fraud for the Imclone thing. When they went after Martha she lied about being contacted by him and her broker then she changed her story later and they buster he on it. Hence, obstruction and lying to investigators.

 

[Guest]

I'm with Colly on this one. It reminds me of those cases in which the sole charge against a person is 'resisting arrest'.

What she said. Thanks for doing the thinking, Colly. P.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The question I still ask is how do you prove obstruction of justice if you can't prove justice had a valid interest in the person?



It seems to me if the prosecution couldn't even prove one of thier charges in relation to the original investigation then they have no foot to stand on in charging you with obstruction of justice. If there is no crime, then how can you logicaly say lying about there being no crime is a crime? It seems to me a very petty and mean spirited way to get back at someone who made you look foolish in the first place by not having comited the crime you accused them of.

-Colly

Well, Duh. That is the whole idea. Sometimes government agencies, if they have spent a lot of time on a case or whatever, will get petty and mean-spirited just so they don't look stupid. They shouldn't, but that's how government agencies are.

Edited to add: I retired from the Calif state civil service so I know that is the case with them, and I have also seen it other examples besides this one.