Martha Stewart guilty on all counts

AP/MSNBC | March 5, 2004 | unknown

[Bonaparte]

Updated: 4:01 p.m. ET March 05, 2004 NEW YORK - Martha Stewart was convicted Friday of obstructing justice and lying to the government about a superbly timed stock sale, a devastating verdict that probably means prison for the woman who epitomizes meticulous homemaking and gracious living. In a statement, Stewart said she would appeal the verdict.

More...

[anonymous_user]

You mean I get to say it first? Okay.

"It's a good thing."

[Bonaparte]

Ah, not only did "the Devil make her do it," but "everybody does it" so it must be ok.

What's next? Is this "old news"? Is it time to "move on"?

[AmericaUnited]

What is so pathetic about this is that a women who owned a business empire worth tens of millions of dollars, got all excited because $87,000 worth of some penny stock she owned was going go for a dive.

GREED, PURE AND SIMPLE!

[Bonaparte]

Preach it!

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

When this case was bought, I had a fair amount of sympathy dfor old Martha- attacked by an ambirious prosecutor for her publicirity value to huis career.
Then, I remmembered that Marth Atewart was one of BJ Clinton's big supporters, and she loves to give her money to the Democrats. Let her spend a few years in "White-Collar" Prison, whwrere she will be able to play "trading cells" qith a bunch of her Democrat buddies.
Also on the plus-side, she now has a LOT less money to donate to the Kerry campaign.
Of course, I believe strongly that ALL members of the Party of jailbirds, pornographers,drug dealers,abortionists, sexual deviants, Hollywood morons and anti-American bastards should be in prison.

[DCPatriot]

No, it's not time to move on. ;^)

She happened to be a personal friend of the head honcho of said company.

If you owned $50,000 in let's say, Kodak shares, would you sell them Monday if you got a call over the weekend that the company was going belly-up due to the conversion to digital photography vs. celluoid film?

I anxiously await your answer.

There but for the Grace of God.....

[Bonaparte]

That's right. Greed pure and simple. The stock was actually valued at $228K and she would have taken an approximate $50K loss if she'd sold it honestly. I learned a long time ago never to use a broker, but if a broker had handed me insider information, I would have turned him in immediately -- for my own protection.

Martha Stewart is the poster child for brains without common sense.

[Bonaparte]

"I anxiously await your answer."

You needn't wait for long.

I would immediately drop a dime on the criminal who passed me that information. I would be meeting with my lawyer that morning. I would be meeting with the SEC that afternoon. And I would be meeting with the FBI that evening.

[onehipdad]

Which causes me to wonder what she might've gotten away with, previously...

[chiefqc]

yea and everyone should fell sorry for poor martha, the same one who carried a 5000.00 purse into the court with her.

[mombonn]

Though it's undoubtedly already been said - IT'S A GOOD THING.

She used to be a stockbroker - she knew what she did was WRONG, and she was arrogant enough to think she could get away with it.

Kudos to the jury.

[Bonaparte]

"Which causes me to wonder what she might've gotten away with, previously... "

Me too.

[DCPatriot]

"...I would immediately drop a dime on the criminal who passed me that information. I would be meeting with my lawyer that morning. I would be meeting with the SEC that afternoon. And I would be meeting with the FBI that evening."

Yes, but would you SELL the stock before you called the lawyer? ;^)

[Ditto]

In a way it is kind of like entrapment. Martha did not go out looking for insider information, it was placed in her lap by her broker.

She is a former licensed broker on the NYSE and I believe was a board member of the NYSE when she got the tip. She knew exactly what she was doing and knew damn well it was a serious crime.

If she were just some wealthy housewife playing the market who was unaware of the law, I'd say to cut her some slack and lay it all on the broker. She was an insider playing a game far too many insiders play. She knew the rules and thumbed her nose at them and then did her best to cover her tracks. Sorry, I have no sympathy. She knowingly screwed other people out of their money to benefit herself and don't give a damn about the damage she did to them. Why should anyone give a damn about her?

[Muleteam1]

>>In a way it is kind of like entrapment. Martha did not go out looking for insider information, it was placed in her lap by her broker.<<

It was unethical for her broker to call her, but Martha made a serious ethical error when she acted on the information. Both are guilty.

Muleteam1

[MegaSilver]

Martha did not go out looking for insider information, it was placed in her lap by her broker.

It matters not how she got the information. Anyone who uses information that hasn't been made public for personal gain in the stock market can rightfully be subjected to investigation and prosecution for insider trading.

[Bonaparte]

Yes, yes, yes and... yes!

Say, convicted felons can't vote, can they? As a matter of fact, I don't think convicted felons can even own a pistol, either. And, if I'm not mistaken, they can't hang out with other convicted felons or hold many positions of honor and/or trust as well. They even have to report to parole officers. Wow, this is really gonna change poor, lying, thieving Martha's life!

Where is that violinist?

Would ya pass me the tissues, please?

[Bonaparte]

"...ethical error when she acted on the information."

Actually, she knowingly committed a major felony -- and then she compounded that by committing a series of fresh felonies. She's nothing but a common criminal.

[hosepipe]

Martha Stewart in jail..? .!!!

Jail, Jail... or Hamptons Correctional Facility jail..
be interesting to see what happens here...

[Muleteam1]

>>8 of 10 Freepers would have done the same thing under her same circumstances.<<

Then 8 of 10 Freepers would be guilty of the same thing.

Muleteam1