Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case reveal double standard, Libertarians say

Libertarian Party news email ^ | 6 February 2003

[Vigilant1]

Some animals are more equal than others.

[w1andsodidwe]

I think that it is because she is a strong successful woman.

[jra]

If my memory is correct, Cheney sold his assets to avoid accusations of impropriety during the 2000 campaign, and Halliburton tanked shortly thereafter, through no fault of Cheney.

McAuliffe is now and always has been dirty, and WorldCom fleeced their shareholders while TMcA counted his millions...

VERY unfair comparison of these two, and neither is really a good comparison to Martha Stewart's case.

Nice try, Libertarians...sling enough slime, it's bound to stick to someone, right?

[ralph rotten]

Dick Cheney was force to sell his stock because he was elected VP--sometime you are lucky-great timing---But old TERRY McAuliffe --maybe

[wildandcrazyrussian]

All anyone has to do is instruct the stockbroker to place a "stop loss" order at a certain price (here $58) so that the stock will be automatically be sold when it goes down. This is one of many strategies used by millions of investors to limit risk of loss of capital.

I too have wondered about the case.

[1ofmanyfree]

Guess they all but forgot about Hitlery's cattle futures trading by now.

[irishtenor]

Four legs good, two legs bad?

[upchuck]

Two legs good, four legs better.

[tophat9000]

Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August 2000

Didn't he have to because he was running for VP?

[NewYorker]

The foundation of the securities industry is equal access to information. If someone is allowed to trade on inside information the whole structure of the industry crumbles. Therefore there are strict laws about when corporate "insiders" are allowed to trade shares.

Selling the day before bad news comes out on a stock, as Martha Stewart did, raises the suspicion that the seller was tipped off to the bad news. Anyone who has a securities license, or is the officer of a publicly traded company, should be well-aware that nothing gets you into trouble faster than the appearance of insider trading.

Perhaps it was an unfortunate coincidence that Martha Stewart sold her Imclone stock the day before the stock tanked and as her friend, Sam Waksel the CEO of Imclone, was encouraging his family to dump their shares.

Her defense, as reported in the press, is that she had previously entered a "stop-loss" order with her broker. A stop-loss order is entered into the computer system the moment it is received by the broker and the order is executed automatically when the price hits the level named in the order.

[canuck_conservative]

Martha's problem is that she immediately advised her close friend to sell also - her cell-phone records nailed her. Had Martha just sold and kept quiet, nothing probably would have happened.

But passing on an insider tip? That's a securities no-no. She's going down.

[Boundless]

> Martha's problem is that she immediately advised her close friend to sell also...

That's only part of it. Unlike some of the other big names bandied about, Martha is also a former stock broker. She can't even claim innocent ignorance of what insider trading is.

But that also is only part of it.

Unfortunately, I suspect the bulk of the focus is due to political ambitions and good'ol fashioned envy. Going after Martha almost guarantees lots of TV face time for the prosectors and politicians that want to put her on the spot.

If this case had been about some rogue floor-trader, it would have been plea-bargained eons ago.

[The Electrician]

After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their life savings.

Simple answer: Despite the innuendo in this silly article, merely selling stock at a high price some time before the price goes down is not against the law. Equating Martha Stewart's circumstances with Cheney's or McAuliffe's is not justified by logic, reason, or the law.

[NewYorker]

Martha's problem is that she immediately advised her close friend to sell also - her cell-phone records nailed her.

I thought I was totally on top of this story but I missed that bit of information. Not a good thing!

[NewYorker]

Martha is also a former stock broker.

And CEO of a publicly traded company and, briefly, on the board of the NYSE. She should have known better.

It's sad to see someone with so much to lose self-destruct like this.

[lainie]

I still have two questions:

1. How can an non-insider be charged with insider trading?

2. Who is the creep at the FDA? The one who leaked (that the drug was not going to be approved) to Sal in the first place?

If anyone should be brought up on charges, it's THAT GUY. He's the one in a public position with a bonafide ability to affect stock price. Passing on a stock tip? It just so happened she got a phone call. She could have heard it in the ladies' room.

[LilithUnfair]

People do seem to hate that. Especially MS. Go figure. You can bet they'd not jump on Oprah, though. Therefore it can't be entirely due to MS being a successful woman nor her dem connections. Regardless, it's absolutely ludicrous what they are doing to Stewart. Considering the crimes politicians get away with on a daily basis, this is their most pressing case.

[canuck_conservative]

The moment you hear inside information, you're considered an insider (otherwise you wouldn't have heard it!)

[lainie]

I'd have to read the statute. (no offense)

[doug from upland]

Perhaps there are some good points in this article but I no longer wish to hear crap from the Libertarian Party.