Skip to comments.
Courtroom Tales of Martha's Lies . . . [NYT Editorial supports jury's conviction of Martha]
The NYT ^
| March 6, 2004
| NYT Editorial Board
Posted on 03/06/2004 11:25:49 AM PST by summer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: summer
I want to know just who she pissed off so much, that she was actually tried on these charges. Too many people have walked or been slapped on the wrists for much more serious charges.
41
posted on
03/06/2004 1:39:50 PM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
(Until Kofi Annan rides the Jerusalem RTD....nothing will change.)
To: Regulator
Bullseye, Regulator. It was a show trial. I admit that I didn't follow this trial, so some of my observations on the lesser trivial bits might be off. But the big picture comes down to prosecuting someone for lying, while the liars in government skate home free.
42
posted on
03/06/2004 1:41:09 PM PST
by
sergeantdave
(Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
To: sergeantdave; Regulator
What if an "insider trader" charge had also been prosecuted? Would you feel the same way? BTW, I still don't understand why that charge was not added.
43
posted on
03/06/2004 1:46:37 PM PST
by
summer
To: summer
It's not apparent that I'm not convinced, it's obvious. An oath is an oath. If politicians violate their oath, should not they be brought up on charges? And if found guilty, should they not be imprisoned?
44
posted on
03/06/2004 1:50:06 PM PST
by
sergeantdave
(Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
To: sergeantdave
Yes, I think all people SHOULD be held to the same standard.
45
posted on
03/06/2004 1:56:40 PM PST
by
summer
To: sergeantdave
And, yes, you are right - it was "obvious," not merely apparent.
46
posted on
03/06/2004 1:57:17 PM PST
by
summer
To: Regulator
"Where's the guy in the FDA who leaked the info to Waksal?"I've been wondering about that too. I think the feds want him (her?) but may only get him if Waksal or one of his agents deals. That's why a very stiff mandatory sentence is a good idea in these conspiracy cases. It motivates the customer.
To: sergeantdave
I think what you and Regulator are getting at in your comments is one reason why 50% of all eligible voters in this country do not bother to vote - some people probably feel a liar is a liar, and everyone lies in politics, so, why care which party is in power? And, I must admit, I too have felt that way at times, though I also think Clinton did far more damage to the Dem Party than most people realize. But, as Dems continue to lose elections, and he continues to play a major role in that party, some people may eventually pick up on the actual amount of damage.
48
posted on
03/06/2004 2:00:46 PM PST
by
summer
To: Bonaparte
Well, Waksal is currently serving a 7-year prison sentence, so it seems "deal" time is over with him.
49
posted on
03/06/2004 2:01:32 PM PST
by
summer
To: summer
Summer, it's not about insider trading. She was convicted of lying to a fed investigator. The matter to consider is equal treatment under law. Stewart was convicted for lying under oath.
Here's the question: If a citizen can be convicted and thrown in prison for lying under oath, should not a politician or bureaucrat who does not obey his oath also be tried, convicted and thrown in prison for violating his oath?
It's about lady justice standing with a scale and blindfold, telling everyone that all shall be treated equally under the law, without regard to social standing, connections or money.
50
posted on
03/06/2004 2:05:21 PM PST
by
sergeantdave
(Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
To: summer
Martha's lawyer bills her company, not Martha personally. It's all in the fine print of the original contract when she started the firm. So in effect, her stockholders are paying her bills, plus losing their shirts.
51
posted on
03/06/2004 2:08:31 PM PST
by
hershey
To: elbucko; summer
And saved herself $9 million in attorney fees,...
That amount is obscene. It's legal, it's a free market and Martha agreed to the fees. I wonder what the price tag on the good defence was?
52
posted on
03/06/2004 2:12:16 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(Despise not the jester. Often he is the only one telling the truth)
To: summer
One of the lawyer-business expert talking heads on TV last night said he hoped Martha's daughter wasn't dragged in to prop up the company as its spokesperson, because it wouldn't work. What's needed is a new title, with no reference to Martha's name or persona. They could get one or several chef types in to cook and bake and host the show, if any. They were trying desperately to figure out a way to save all those jobs. Martha assembled a terrific workforce, great designers, creative people. She's up for I think eight Emmys next week, all well deserved.
53
posted on
03/06/2004 2:12:16 PM PST
by
hershey
To: summer
Good. I'd like to see her businesses survive. Those people who worked for her need their jobs, and they're really wonderful at what they do. Hopefully, they can figure out a way to transform the show, magazine, product line, and not only survive, but prosper. I wonder if they'll put Martha on a suicide watch when she dons the orange jump suit...at least for a time. It's bound to be hard when you're accustomed to absolute control. Leona Helmsly comes to mind. She survived jail. (Same personality problems, same bad press.) I wonder if she contemplated suicide and was watched closely.
54
posted on
03/06/2004 2:16:17 PM PST
by
hershey
To: summer
Not really. When all parties are agreed, early release can be (and often is) arranged. There is early release for good behavior and then there is early release for
great behavior. It's really up to Waksal.
And there are other factors at play in his case. For example, he solicited his own daughters to enter into a criminal conspiracy, didn't he? Accordingly, they are subject to prosecution as well. I doubt he wants to see that happen.
Milken was sentenced to 10. He wound up serving only 2. Upon release, he promptly violated terms of parole by involving himself in investments again. And yet he didn't serve more time. Deals are cut all the time, pre- and post-sentencing. We'll just have to wait and see...
To: Oztrich Boy
"I wonder what the price tag on the good defence was?"There was no good defense, because Martha refused to deal. The arrogant little fool actually believed she was above the law and entitled to rob others. Given her posture, there was little that even a superb lawyer like Morvillo could do. The government had a very strong case, as proven by the short duration of both the trial and jury deliberation.
Believe it or not, she still has some wiggle room even though she's been convicted. I doubt her ego will let her take advantage of it, but her lengendary vindictiveness may trump all that. If another bad actor in this matter deals at her expense, she just might "reconsider her position."
To: sergeantdave
Summer, it's not about insider trading. She was convicted of lying to a fed investigator. The matter to consider is equal treatment under law. Stewart was convicted for lying under oath.
Yes, I do realize that; but, it seems to me the seed for all these falsehoods was indeed insider trading, so, I still can't fathom why that was not one of the charges.
Here's the question: If a citizen can be convicted and thrown in prison for lying under oath, should not a politician or bureaucrat who does not obey his oath also be tried, convicted and thrown in prison for violating his oath?
Yes, again, I think all should be treated the same under the law. I do not disagree with you on that.
57
posted on
03/06/2004 2:34:08 PM PST
by
summer
To: hershey
Martha's lawyer bills her company, not Martha personally. ... So in effect, her stockholders are paying her bills, plus losing their shirts.
I don't know about that - I think you may be wrong there since it was not a company matter. I think Martha has to pay her own legal bills here. But, who knows, you may be right.
58
posted on
03/06/2004 2:36:25 PM PST
by
summer
To: Oztrich Boy
Re your post #52 - LOL....well, they all say this lawyer was so great, but really - I mean, how did he expect a jury of lay people to see this case as perhaps he himself, a lawyer, sees it? Lay people see things the way they are: 6 weeks of damaging testimony, and - uh - what's on the other side for them to consider? Not much. And, I am not implying she should have testified. The jurors did not expect that either, but uh, the defense didn't give them an alternative version of events. On on the one count against the stockbroker where there was not enough evidence to convict, this jury acquitted. I thought they were fair.
59
posted on
03/06/2004 2:39:19 PM PST
by
summer
To: summer
I heard Greta Van Suffering had a meltdown over this...I suppose her buddy Larry Kudlow did too....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-103 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson