Replies

I myself am surprised here at all the defenders. That she was not under oath is a red herring--she lied (after engaging her lawyers) and participated in a conspiracy where the principal Waksal got serious time. I wonder if the Martha defenders would sing the same song if it was John Q. Public lying to the feds during a terrorism investigation and thwarting the timely finding of the facts. Martha made a choice: fess up and pay (much less) the piper or assume an arrogant in your face attitude. She made the wrong one.....

31 posted on 07/16/2004 8:36:00 AM PDT by eureka! (May karma come back to the presstitutes and Rats in a material way.....)

" I wonder if the Martha defenders would sing the same song if it was John Q. Public lying to the feds during a terrorism investigation and thwarting the timely finding of the facts."

How about this... suppose Martha's insider info was correct. Now assume that YOU bought her stock that she sold. (Someone had to buy it). And you ended up with nothing, as Imclone bottomed out. So, in essense, Martha steals how ever much the stock purchase was, ($100k?) from you. Now how do YOU feel about Martha lying?

79 posted on 07/16/2004 9:15:35 AM PDT by brownsfan (Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm the rest of his life.)