Class Envy Got Martha Stewart

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 3-9-04 | Rush Limbaugh

[ZULU]

"One reason why Martha Stewart didn't want to plead to a lesser charge was that it meant she would be guilty of a felony."

ANYTHING is better than doing time. As it is, she is facing a civil charge that will do just that anyway.

"I feel no special satisfaction at her fall from grace."

I'd feel just like you, if she wasn't such a liberal Democratic Clinton groupie. Look at it this way, its just a little less money that will be available to help get Kerry
elected President.

"Nor do I feel any satisfaction in Rush's fall from grace."

If you listened to FOX NEWS this week, it appears that Rush is being targetted and set up by the leftists. The guy was using drugs because he was in phsyical pain from back surgery. He wasn't snorting coke to get high. But Dems in that County have gotten away with far more.

Nobody "set up Stewart". She asn't the target of the initial investigation. SHE chose not to cooperate wiht the FBI because she was trying to protect her buddy Waxman, or through sheer arrogance. Had she initially come clean, she wouldn't even have faced a felony charge. That came later, AFTER her failure to cooperate and efforts to block a Federal Investigation of Waxman.

If I'm not clear on any of this, please enlighten me. There is a lot of information on this subject floating around everywhere on this subject.

Today, I heard her plan to exact clemency from the Judge on this is to threaten the loss of livelihood of the innocent people who work for her if she winds up in the clink. Hardly an attitude of contritition.

[evad]

Martha was/is a "big girl"....if she can form a billion-dollar co. she has the smarts to know right from wrong....if not, her lawyers could have told her that....in the end, I believe she made the call on going to trial -- NOT her lawyers....

I don't disagree with a thing you have said here. However, I don't see how it relates to my post which centered on the fact that I don't think it has been proven that she lied.

[OldFriend]

Martha cannot act contrite and sorry........she is appealing her verdict and insisting she did nothing wrong.

IOW......Hung by her own petard!

She is a young woman with a lot of talent and there is no doubt in my mind that she will rebuild her company after all the lawsuits are resolved, but she will be a lot poorer. This attempt to save thousands of dollars cost her millions upon millions.

[Tanniker Smith]

Dittos on that....BRAVO!!!!!

Glad you liked it. I was wondering how many would get the subliminal message.

[Dan Evans]

"How is someone supposed to know if information is public knowledge or not? Does it have to be published in the New York Times?"
No, just made public by the company.

But suppose it's the kind of information that never gets formally announced, in other words, most of the information that investors act on, like maybe the CFO is cooking the books. A lot of "insider information" goes directly to newsletters without being made public by the company. When did Enron announce that their management had gone insane?
This is a very vague law and it is a huge gray area.

[July 4th]

Martha should sue her stupid lawyer for never mentioning in the closing arguement that Martha can't be an insider.

The biggest mistake was not putting her on the stand. She has star power, and the jury sat there for weeks looking at this celebrity sitting in the court room. Talk about detached from reality - they never heard from her! She had the opportunity to connect with the jury, make them feel like they were part of the club, if only for a few minutes. And the legal team blew it.

[Moonman62]

The caller was absolutely correct. A stockbroker knows that insider trading is a violation of rule number one. And if she didn't know it was wrong, why did she lie to cover it up?

Probably because the federal government was on a massive hunt for scapegoats to blame the economy on during the 2002 midterm elections. It could be that Martha wanted to avoid the appearance of wrong doing, rather than trying to cover up a crime. Receiving a tip from a broker is a rumor, not insider information.

Martha got prosecuted and convicted because she's a rich bitch and the federal government has millions of our dollars to put on a show trial.

[q_an_a]

the crime of this story is that the lawyers get paid as win or lose and because they win some, they make more out a famous loss just as if they won.

You point about her taking the stand is well argued. Better than their arguements in my opinion.

[M-cubed]

The caller made excellent points and Rush didn't respond to it at all. He just inserted a red herring argument and piled hyperbole on top of it. Might make interesting radio talk, but it is far from nailing the debate."<---My thoughts exactly!

[KneelBeforeZod]

how do we interpret this? since Hilary did something that martha got busted for, martha got screwed?

He says martha is good for bringing nice things to people at a lower price point, then he says that its class envy because no affluent folks were on the jury?

whatever

[KneelBeforeZod]

if you count the numbers of times he HAS been right

I just wish he could compel himself to not talk about the times he was right over and over and over and over again. Unless he thinks the audience is stupid and needs to constantly reminded of it

[Hot Tabasco]

Might make interesting radio talk,

Not here, not 9 months later........

[Edit35]

how do we interpret this? since Hilary did something that martha got busted for, martha got screwed?

People seem to forget that Martha's secretary testified during the trial that Martha, after being confronted on the "illegal" stock sale, had ordered her (the secretary) to delete the computerized phone call ledger which logged the fact that Martha had spoken to the stock broker.

The secretary did as she was told, but Martha, upon reflection, and obviously realizing she would be committing double deceipt, told the secretary to undelete the initial deletion.

To me, this was a huge factor. It indicated that Martha was aware she was doing something wrong, and was going to cover it up.

Later, when questioned by the feds, Martha played dumb, like she didn't have a clue as to why they would think she traded her Imclone shares on insider information.

Don't forget, she's best friends with Waskal, the Imclone CEO, or whatever his name is.

Bottom line. You can't trade on illegal information, even if you are not the one who generated that illegal insider information.

For example, if you were walking down the street and a bank robber accidentally drops a bundle of cash at your feet, you are not allowed to keep it.

And if you did, you would/could be charged as an accessory to the crime for not coming foreward to tell the cops that the robber had dropped the cash as he fled.

[bvw]

A good reason to abolish the "Series 7" then. Foolish laws and regulations weaken the ones that are needed. Nor all the "series 7" and SEC gatekeeping keep the crash of 2000 from happening. They did not prevent the system from being pumped full of false hopes and greeds, only to rapidly deflate.

The directors are ELECTED, Stockholders BUY IN. The stockholder elect directors. Both are committed and accountable relationships. Fiduciary duty -- if we actually held to those old laws -- would be enough of a protection.

The regulators who write the regulations -- APPOINTED by non-involved parties. Un-accountable. Worse than unaccoutable -- they are actually protected from legal recourse by being part of the government. Can't sue 'em.

Martha was an offering to Moloch by the regulatory grifters.

Please don't join those extortionists -- even though they wear the robes of authority -- the system is perverted and rigged for extortion. Be free. Don;t condone and don;t support. If you get on a Jury -- use your Juror's discretion -- refuse to convict if the law or its application is perverse. And here it is.

[bvw]

"Illegal Information"

A tyrant's phrase that. You might also say guns are illegal, or books. Or anything else you fancy.

Amigo, only ACTIONS OF HUMANS are illegal, and one of the bulwarks of a free society is that information itself is never "illegal".

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

I just wish he could compel himself to not talk about the times he was right over and over and over and over again. Unless he thinks the audience is stupid and needs to constantly reminded of it

I do believe -- after having listened to Rush for the past 10+ years -- that Rush is being "tongue-in-cheek" when he mentions how many times he has been right about something or the other.... :-)