That isn't what Martha Stewart was guilty of at all. She was found guilty of lying to investigators. This article is spin, and not very good spin at that.
Neither Stewart nor Libby had to say anything at all to investigators or the GJ. Once they did, they had a legal duty to tell the truth. The prosecutors in both instances had evidence that statements that were made were not true. We get upset about the fact that Clinton and his accomplices lied and were not charged; we should uphold the standard that those who lie should pay the price. I personally hope that Libby is found not guilty. But with what is alleged in the idictment, I don't blame the prosecutor for bringing the charges.
That was the charge but in the exit interviews with the jurors, they thought she was insider trading - what she said she was innocent of - and what she was not charged with.
Martha was too cheap to take a piddling stock loss and too cheap to hire a top defense attorney
NEW YORK — In an embarrassing development for the government, federal prosecutors on Friday charged one of their witnesses in the Martha Stewart trial with perjury, based on testimony he gave on two days in February.
Prosecutors accused Larry Stewart, director of the U.S. Secret Service's laboratory and no relation to Martha Stewart, of giving false testimony under oath.
Will history repeat itself in the Fitz case? Government telling more lies than Libby?