Posted on 01/23/2004 12:33:04 PM PST by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"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.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Not a better poster than she. Sheesh!
Duh? Which means, like, that's why she's not charged with perjury?
And, let me see if I can follow your reasoning here. First you argued that the charges against her had nothing to do with selling the ImClone stock.
A number of people pointed out that this was like Clinton arguing that he wasn't charged with adultery (which he wasn't) but lying about it. ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman!")
Now, you say, well, she wasn't under oath.
So, where you practiced stockbroking, lying isn't a crime unless you're under oath. If, say, the President, CEO, CFO, or other high-up official of a publicly traded corporation lies about the company in order to boost the stock price, that's not illegal because it wasn't under oath.
Interesting argument. But I think you're probably wrong. Unlike politicians, who can lie with apparent impunity, and stockbrokers, who apparently are held to a very low standard of veracity, CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded corporations are not allowed to lie in order to puff up their stock prices. Now, I suppose you could say that "everybody does it," but that's not much of a defense.
No, the tough part here is going to be proving that she lied in order to puff up her stock price. But the timing is the beauty part. Leak one day, stock tanking the next day, and she immediately starts singing her heart out.
Martha's court date is this week...maybe, but she's been playing to the public, outside of court, for over two yrears now.
And FYI...Martha's going down, she isn't going to get out of this one unscathed.
Though she isn't being tried for it, she has " looted " her own company. You just don't know the facts.
"Class envy "? Yes, that's exactly what Martha had for me and others for years.I assure you that I have NEVER " envied " Martha at all. LOL
How did you " feel " about Michael Milken? Was he guilty of anything ? What about the wee scam Red Bone pulled for Hillary and others you don't know about ?
I linked the indictments several times upstream, but will do so again.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/mstewart/usmspb60403ind.pdf
OK, now here's what you have to do in order to know what Martha did. You have to click on the link, and you have to read the document. Admittedly, it's 41 pages long, but the type is largish.
Your first reply to me today at #259 was fine and that would have been the end of it.
Then you followed up with a personal attack at #267 that started this exchange.
You owe me an apology.
I'm still trying to figure out what it is that you find so difficult about the prospect of me responding to multiple posts from you. Since I do not sit by my computer 24 hours a day seven days a week, not all responses will be forthcoming. I address your posts to me when I log on. This is not "pinging you in." I owe you no apology, and there was no personal attack. I made a very defensible observation. And trying to enlist friends as supporters 250 posts into a tread is transparently poor form.
huh?
Figure it out on your own. In my experience, people do not read 250-post threads without saying anything and then suddenly decide to offer their services as character witness for the persecuted.
Note: I also and again not "pinging you into" this thread today. Assuming you are an adult, you are free to come and go as you please.
This is all.
I went and looked at replies posted since last I was here and see someone said something in support of me. I don't know them and did not seek their input. You can go through my postings and never see me talking to this freeper.
You replied to my one post the other day twice, the second comprising a personal attack, so knock off your mischaracterizations that you were responding to "multiple posts", and this bad form garbage about pinging help when I did no such thing.
In my book the pinnacle of bad form is taking an asinine stance and then getting defensive and moralistic when people don't simply give in and agree with you.
Another way of saying "I know you are, but what am I." Since you have been unable to grasp the concept of a prosecution needs to show that a defendant is lying before it argues that this lie had illegal intentions, and your understanding of time sequences is severly handicapped, I shouldn't have expected you to understand the point I was making. You just have a cumplsive need to get the last word. Good luck with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.