The Real Crimes of Martha Stewart

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, January 23, 2004 | MEGHAN COX GURDON

[presidio9]

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, we are here today in the Court of Public Opinion to hear of heinous crimes committed by Martha Stewart, the Dictator of Domesticity. I ask you to set aside any old-fashioned prejudices you may have in favor of self-improvement, and forget any qualms you have about blaming a complete stranger for your own feelings of inferiority.

[presidio9]

And have forgotten anything you may have known, when you were, or never knew enough to be a " good " one, since you don't know about the law which reuires WRITTEN " sell orders ", for an advance hit. :-)

That is simplty not true. Were you ever in the businsess? Do you have a broker today? I know I give mine verbal stop orders all the time.

[presidio9]

The case against Stewart hinges on the credibility of the ass't to her broker, who claims he told her that the Waksal family was dumping Imclone stock, and then she told him to dump her Imclone stocks as well. You've got to ask yourself, why would this guy le about that? I don't see any reason for him to do so.

Insider selling is always a matter of public information. It is not inside information.

Stewart deserves only a slap on the wrist for the crime. No jail time. She should be free to continue to build her magnigficent business and rehabilitate her reputation. But she should not get off scot free, IMHO.

I never said anything different. I think we agree on all points.

[presidio9]

That said, obstruction of justice is a serious charge, and if they can prove it, she'll go away for a year or so. If one of us commoners had done that, we'd already be dressed in orange.

I can promise you that it went on all the time when I was in the business. You learn from a very early point that the regulators are not here to help.

[mercy]

Martha's gonna shove it up their arses and break it off.

I can't stand the woman but I hate the bastards that are prosecuting her a whole lot more.

Sickem Martha!

[mercy]

You remind me of my wife. She KNOWS Scott Peterson killed his wife. No clues? No proof? No knowledge of how the victim died? Who needs facts. He's guilty.

If they had the proof that Martha was guilty of insider trading they would have charged her with it. Obviously the law does not mean a warm bucket of spit to you. "Lynch the bitch."

This is why our legal system does not work. Folks like you.

[presidio9]

But of course, if she said "no comment, I am taking the Fifth," that's like putting up a big "guilty" sign, isn't it? So, being the perfectionist she is, she thought that lying would be smarter. It's not. At least, that's my understanding of the law.

You need to work on your understanding. Statements made to reporters are not made under oath.

[presidio9]

Good grief! I'm not "wishing it" on her.

By the way, I love it when Stewart-haters spend hours on a thread clammoring for her trial and then try to claim that they are not "emotionally involved." Why can't you just admit that you don't like her? I have. It's very liberating.

[cyncooper]

It is not personal for me, as it is with you. I even have her stuff in my guest room...Martha Stewart sheets, quilt and shams.

:)

[cyncooper]

By the way, I love it when Stewart-haters spend hours on a thread

Hmmmmmm, a quick check shows my posts comprised just over an hour. Far from spending the whole hour here, I was nicely responding to your incessant pings, so I actually wasn't here for that whole hour! Ah, well, pesky facts.

After dinner I admit I did read a few responses posted from I'd left off reading, and thanked someone for a handy link they provided.

[Modernman]

Tell that to the sucker who sold too low or bought too high because someone had a secret about a publicly held stock.

That 'sucker" was looking to buy or sell that stock on the stock market at a certain price. Whether or not insider trading occurred, he still would have bought or sold his stock. The inside trader did not induce the person to buy or sell their stock.

It's like selling a car for it's full book value when you KNOW about a hidden problem that will make the car collapse after a few miles

Depending on what, if anything, the seller says about the shape of the car, this may be perfectly legal.

or selling a house at full market value when you KNOW there is going to be a hog farm on the adjacent lot next month

This is perfectly legal- you don't have a duty of candor to a buyer when it comes to neighboring property. Following your logic, if I know that your swampland sits on top of a gold deposit and I don't tell you about that, I'm committing fraud.

It's fraud.

Insider trading only commits fraud on the market- no person is actually defrauded.

[snooker]

I think the witch they found was a board member of the NYSE. If I were, I sure wouldn't trade stocks in other companies with insider information. She knew what she was doing.

Furthermore, as a CEO, you don't want to trade stocks in another company, period. Gets you every time.

[presidio9]

Hmmmmmm, a quick check shows my posts comprised just over an hour. Far from spending the whole hour here, I was nicely responding to your incessant pings, so I actually wasn't here for that whole hour! Ah, well, pesky facts.

LOL -- I am the one resonding to you. And you've been at it for a couple of days now, not hours. Apparently "denial" ain't just a river in Egypt for you...

[presidio9]

Only when molesters are shot will children be truely protected from this menace.

You'll get no argument from me there, but my point is that your child would be far more likely to be abused in a choir than by a priest, but somehow the liberal media has conditioned most Americans to think "pedophile" as soon as they hear the word "priest."

[cyncooper]

I've been "at it"?

I posted yesterday and was here under an hour, but returned when you pinged me. I then responded to your comments and mischaracterization of my position and emotion and set the record straight.

I only returned today when, AGAIN, you pinged me.

You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.

I have not. The facts speak for themselves to any cool observer.

[presidio9]

You'll get no argument from me there, but my point is that your child would be far more likely to be abused in a choir than by a priest, but somehow the liberal media has conditioned most Americans to think "pedophile" as soon as they hear the word "priest."

Oops. Wrong thread. I was responding to a post to me that had been removed by the moderator. Sorry for the confusion.

[Lauratealeaf]

Thanks for posting this article. It's great and I agree with it. What really bugs feminists is that Martha built her fortune on homemaking. She is really America's Home-Ec teacher. They can't have that. Home-Ec is only for resource kids nowadays.

[presidio9]

I posted yesterday and was here under an hour, but returned when you pinged me. I then responded to your comments and mischaracterization of my position and emotion and set the record straight.

I only returned today when, AGAIN, you pinged me.

I didn't "ping" you Einstein. I responded to your post to me. I just got back here myself. If you don't want to discuss this issue anymore, all you have to do is go away, or at least quit trying to make silly points to me. This is not a "game" that can be "won." This is about the truth. If you had ambivalent feelings about Martha Stewart, you wouldn't be on this thread in the first place, and you certainly would not be so anxious to see her go to trial over a made up charge.

[cyncooper]

The only one being rude and obnoxious is you.

You keep talking to me, and when you mischaracterize me outrageously and baselessly by calling me a "Martha-hater" (LOL), I will respond.

Why don't you carry your little torch for Martha and leave me alone? And that means not getting personal (Einstein) and so on.

You are so emotionally overwrought about this case I fear you've lost all perspective.

[cyncooper]

And notice you pinged me TWICE today, starting off this little exchange.

The first was in response to my query (posted just after an hour's time on this thread) if you were against all trials since you had attacked me yesterday as wishing a trial and prison on poor Martha.

Notice I did not respond to your answer that you posted today, and I would have been pleased to leave it at that.

But then you had to post yet another personal attack on me. As long as you lodge those attacks, I will respond.

[presidio9]

You are exasperating, so I will most likely give up trying to get through to you, but not before I make one final attempt to explain this to you:

(a) I started this thread yesterday.
(b) You made an incorrect assessment of the case to me.
(c) We went back and forth on this for a while.
(d)I went home.
(e) You continued to post to me.
(f) I returned today to find posts from you in my in box.
(g) I responded to you.

Is this getting through to you? Are you able to understand this?