Posted on 06/26/2002 5:09:58 AM PDT by MindBender26
Martha Stewart Adopts Clinton Lying Tactics On National TV – Is Diane Sawyer Also Involved In Stock Swindle Scandal?
Mom’s-work maven Martha Stewart just demonstrated she received some benefit from the millions of dollars she contributed to Bill Clinton and the Democrats.
In an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, the normally perky and bright-eyed Stewart looked as if she hadn’t slept in days. The brown roots of her blonde-dyed hair were so long that looked like maps to Al-Queda tunnels under the Afghanistan mountains. Worst of all were her attempt to deflect questions about her neck-deep involvement in a massive stock swindle.
Stewart has been caught selling bio-technology stocks due to inside information that the company’s lead product was about to be rendered worthless by the FDC. According to ABC News, Stewart’s involvement in the scam is so deep she could even face federal obstruction of justice charges.
But despite all the legal problems facing her, Stewart tried to keep a brave face on as she whipped up a salad while deflecting a reporter’s questions. No, she couldn’t comment on it, because it was all in the hands of the lawyers. Yes, she was sure it would all be resolved very quickly, but since it was in the hands of the lawyers, she couldn’t comment. No, she had done nothing wrong, but just couldn’t comment….. Move the calendar back 4 years and was Bill and Hillary trying to tap dance their way out of the cold hard light of the truth. Stewart did everything but blame the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Perhaps it’s the VFFC, the Vast Fast Food Conspiracy, a secret group of high-profit greasy spoon restaurants that is trying to sink Miss Goody Goody Two Calories.
What Stewart doesn’t realize is that federal prosecutors are not little old ladies hanging on her words of homemaking wisdom. SEC investigators are all ruthless barracudas. When applying for a job, they take a personality test that measures their politeness, niceness, and ability to get along with others. If they fail the test, they are hired.
Stewart thinks the Clintonesque model of “innocent by reason of liberalism and fame” will work again. Sorry, Martha. Once bitten, twice shy. You are going down big time.
(ABC insiders are wondering if Stewart’s “best friend in the world,” Diane Sawyer is also involved. She has been mysteriously off GMA since this began.)
Excellent!
Why not? With the help of a compliant media, it has worked before. What do you think the headlines in the NY Times, Washington Post, et al would look like if, instead of Martha Stewart, the alleged perpetrator had been Kenneth Starr, Robert Bork, or Pat Robertson?
If she is guilty, it would be colossally stupid for her to risk her billion dollar empire for even a million dollar profit. I can believe she may have followed someone's advice and "looked the other way", but that doesn't constitute insider trading.
Stupid, yes. Unlikely, no.
Some celebrities believe they can get away with anything because of their fame. And, they are probably right.
Look at the junior senator from New York.
That technique only works if the liberal media is in your corner, as they were with Clinton.
A fortunate skill for Martha to have. Where she's going, salad-tossing is an art form.
(2) Aren't the inferences about Diane Sawyer an outright smear ?
Let's take it step by step. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not so much the law of the land as it is a description of how the law works. In law, there is either innocent or guilty, no in between, and unless you are guilty, you are innocent. If a jury thinks there is a 25 percent chance that you are guilty, you do not do two and a half years of a ten year old prison term.
In this case, all evidence points to overwhelming guilt.
Secondly, reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is all too often misconstrued as "just about any doubt." That is worng. To be found innocent, that doubt must be well-founded and far beyond just the wishes of a hopeful jury menber.
Finally, what evidence is there against her? Se was traveling on her private jet with the wife of the owner of the company when they made a stop in Dallas. The owner knew of the problems, having been tipped off to them. He is in jail now. She just happened to call her broker and order the sale of the shares. Her borker lied about it when questioned by his superiors, as proven by phone and trading logs. She then lied about it to SEC investigators and claimed a stop-loss order was in place before the trade, which it was not. Merryl Lynch confirms no such order was in place.
She didn't "look the other way." She took specific actions she knew were illegal. As the head of a large, publically trader company, sheis well aware of what's legal and what is not.
As far as doing something stupid, Clinton risked his beloved legacy for a BJ!
O...M...G! LOL!!!
That was surreal.
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.