I think she got the call that it hit $60 and Waskell (sp?) was selling, so she gave the go-ahead. If his name wasn't mentioned, all would have been fine That's not exactly true - her broker was still guilty of insider trading, regardless. All would have still been fine for her provided she then didn't conspire with her broker to try and cover everything up.
, since she had a standing order to sell at 60.
Part of her lies & cover-up; there was no standing order. According to the testimony in the indictment, the whole story was made up to try and explain / cover-up what they'd done.
"That's not exactly true - her broker was still guilty of insider trading, regardless. All would have still been fine for her provided she then didn't conspire with her broker to try and cover everything up."
Yup...... the cover-up was one of the two charges. She blew it there. BUT..... not insider trading against her. That's telling. I still think a jury would let her off. *shrug* Just my opinion.