[AbsoluteJustice]

She is being charged with securities fraud and obstruction of justice. So tell me would she not be charged for securities fraud if she did not participate in insider trading?

[antaresequity]

She is being charged with securities fraud

No she is not...and this is the point I am trying to make. The fact is there isn't enough evidence to support the charge.

She is being charged with: False Statements, Obsctuction of Justice, Securites Fraud (relating to her comments and the price of her own stock, not ImClone) and Conspiracy

The state (SEC) had nothing in regards to the initial investigation, the charges stem out of her willingness, or lack thereof in cooperating with investigators.

I bet she is aquitted.

[job]

As I understand, the securities fraud charge stems from what she said to federal investigators, and her denial of wrongdoing, all in an effort to keep her own stock, Martha Inc., up. In other words, if she said oops, I screwed up, her Martha INc. stock couldhave crashed. But, feds say she deliberately lied in order to keep the stock up.

[weaponeer]

So tell me would she not be charged for securities fraud if she did not participate in insider trading?

Do a little research (I think it was in Wed or Thurs WSJ) and see what the prosecution's "legal theory" is for the fraud charge. It's not what you think. Even the presiding judge has called it "novel" but is going to hear it. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge throws out the cherge.

Essentially, the prosecution is charging her with fraud because she proclaimed her innocence. That's like the Feds arresting you for robbing a bank, and when they can't prove it, charge you with perjury and obstruction of justice for pleading innocent.