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.

[Modernman]

I bet an audit of every company in the stock market would reveal many such instances.

You don't have to audit the companies- all stock trades are publicly listed, so you can easily find out whether insiders are selling/buying stock.

Most companies have rules that state when insiders can buy/sell their stocks. Usually, it's only on specific dates, so it is very difficult for a corporate insider to actually engage in insider trading.

Plus, the SEC and the various stock exchanges have highly advanced software programs that look for suspicious trading patterns (say, a person who has never bought a stock before suddenly buys a large number of stocks the day before that stock increases dramatically in value).

[presidio9]

So what do you consider the poor schmucks who buy that stock at an inflated price, not having the insider knowledge that it is about to crash and burn?

Imclone is at $43 a share, up from the low of around $6.50 when this story broke.

[Rodney King]

OK Perry Mason, how exactly can you "prove" that I lied when I said I was innocent of insider treading when you can't prove I am guilty of insider trading?

You can prove that someone denies a whole host of factual circumstances - such as having received a phone call from a broker just prior to your shares being sold. That is quite easy. Martha tried to obstruct justice. In the face of an investigation, she beleived that she did something wrong and she lied to try to cover it up.

[Rodney King]

She is also being charged with (securities fraud)publicly denying the the charges (ostensibly misleading investors)... If you can't see whats wrong with that picture I would be surprised.

The securities fraud charge is totally wrong, I would agree with that.

[tubebender]

What I see as the crime is the hatchet job the Liberal Press is doing to one of their own. If I didn't know better I would think she was a right wing conservative...

[Modernman]

So what do you consider the poor schmucks who buy that stock at an inflated price, not having the insider knowledge that it is about to crash and burn?

Those people were in the market looking to buy the stock anyway. If they hadn't bought the stock from an insider, they would have bought it from somebody else who was looking to sell that particular stock. Unless the insiders engaged in some type of stock manipulation, nobody is actually harmed by their sale of the stock.

[Revolting cat!]

Oh, it's hard to disagree with most of the pro-Martha comments here.

[presidio9]

You can prove that someone denies a whole host of factual circumstances - such as having received a phone call from a broker just prior to your shares being sold. That is quite easy. Martha tried to obstruct justice. In the face of an investigation, she beleived that she did something wrong and she lied to try to cover it up.

The charge that she could go to jail for is "securities fraud," not "obstruction of justice." Prove securities fraud or you have no case. The cover up is irrelevant. That's why we have a legal system. What part of "presumed innocence" are you having trouble with?

[AbsoluteJustice]

Again I will say I am envioud of NO person on this earth, so no no nerve was hit, you can trust me on this one.

And about not being concerned about a person lying, that is no comforting to hear this, you being a former Marine such as myslef, there is something called integrity.

Furthermore it should concern you, what if this were your stock you were losing? I bet you would care then.

Plus about the lying bit and not mattering, make that case to Bill Clinton he seems to agree with you.

[presidio9]

Oh, it's hard to disagree with most of the pro-Martha comments here.

What amazes me is how many people here ignore the face of reason and openly confess that they want her in jail because they don't like her.

[Sans-Culotte]

Martha claimed she had a standing order with the broker to sell the stock when it had tanked to a certain point. If I recall correcty, ImClone had been tanking pretty steadily when she sold it. That would be textbook example of when to dump a stock-something a former stockbroker (and her current broker) would know to do without any insider info.

[cyncooper]

Are you at this very minute quietly and gleefully rubbing your palms together at the prospect of Little Miss Perfect having to eat Jailhouse Jambalaya for the next 30 years? I expect you are.

I expect this Meghan is an idiot.

I suspect the only one jealous of Martha is Meghan, and she's trying to buddy up with this insipid piece.

[MoralSense]

Even this kind of slam doesn't make much sense. Martha Stewart's in the same game as Bob Vila and the guys on This Old House and the fellow on Yankee Workshop. She's just done it for a bigger audience.

[cyncooper]

The author is absolutely right on. Liberals on the coasts loathe her (especially feminists) because she is traditional.

Then the author is more stupid than I thought. Martha is a liberal darling and fundraiser to the democratic stars. Or she was...

[cyncooper]

Me, too. Love her quilts and sheets.

[presidio9]

Martha claimed she had a standing order with the broker to sell the stock when it had tanked to a certain point. If I recall correcty, ImClone had been tanking pretty steadily when she sold it. That would be textbook example of when to dump a stock-something a former stockbroker (and her current broker) would know to do without any insider info.

Right. I don't presume to know what was going on in Martha's head (though, as I point out, I don't like her and am inclined to be suspicious of her). Unless you can prove that she acted on insider information, she didn't. That's the way our criminal justice system works, and why she hasn't been charged with insider trading, as a lot of people here seem to think she has.

[cyncooper]

The fact is there isn't enough evidence to support the charge.

Uh, you haven't seen all of the evidence.

[cyncooper]

A few fiscal (but not moral) conservatives got a taste of what they've been handing to their employees who are men. Now they want to depose her.

What are you talking about?

[presidio9]

Uh, you haven't seen all of the evidence.

Then why hasn't she been charged?