Two legs good, four legs better.
Posted on 02/07/2003 6:59:44 PM PST by Vigilant1
===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: February 6, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================
Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case reveal double standard, Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC ? Reports that federal investigators may file criminal charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe facing criminal charges as well?
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.
"Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the federal government."
Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on Thursday that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping 4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one day before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer drug ? an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.
But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.
* Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August 2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.
* McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18 million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock, McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.
"Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked. "And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on Cheney and McAuliffe?
"The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging in selective prosecution ? and if you're a powerful federal official you're probably not going to be selected.
"But if you're an ordinary American ? or a TV celebrity who can be exploited to benefit someone's career ? you'd better abide by the law or risk having your life turned upside-down by zealous federal bureaucrats."
Neale emphasized that Libertarians don't know whether the specific accusations against Stewart, Cheney or McAuliffe are true ? only that their cases are being handled very differently by government prosecutors.
The result, he said, is that "many people will wonder if justice is a game in America ? in which certain individuals can lose their freedom and others always seem to win a get-out-of-jail free card."
I too have wondered about the case.
Two legs good, four legs better.
Didn't he have to because he was running for VP?
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.
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.
I thought I was totally on top of this story but I missed that bit of information. Not a good thing!
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.
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.
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.