[SarahW]

Just want to add somthing I left out - Selling stock and making a profit isn't a crime...even if the people who buy it from you lose money.

She wasn't convicted of insider trading. They couldn't even get that charge to a jury. Assuming the worst was true, her acting on her brokers tip isn't insider trading.

[RedWhiteBlue]

She wasn't convicted of insider trading. They couldn't even get that charge to a jury. Assuming the worst was true, her acting on her brokers tip isn't insider trading.

She isn't out of the woods on insider trading yet. There is a civil suit by the SEC on that very charge that remains active. See post #102.

[Howlin]

And yes, she does, the judge has the *discretion*, if not the inclination or reason, to give Martha probation.

You are dead wrong. Not under federal guidelines. I've already told you once that the ten months IS factoring in any positive things on Martha's side.

Whichever it is, the judge will NOT give a person who has been convicted on four counts -- FELONIES -- probation OR a suspended sentence.

As for this remarks:

Assuming the worst was true, her acting on her brokers tip isn't insider trading.

you might want to call the SEC and inform them of your much more enlightened knowledge than they have; they have filed a suit against her and will be interested in knowing they are wrong.

[nopardons]

THE SEC IS NOW BRINGING A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST MARTHA, FOR INSIDER TRADING !

[Dinsdale]

Assuming the worst was true, her acting on her brokers tip isn't insider trading.

Absolutely incorrect.

If she knew the broker had insider information it was insider trading (she did).

The difference between insider trading and trading on a rumor is that you know the information comes from someone connected. Such as this case. It is difficult to prove.

IMHO She committed insider trading, but getting a conviction would be tough.

[Bonaparte]

" She wasn't convicted of insider trading."

There is no such criminal or civil charge as "insider trading." Those who illegally trade inside are convicted of charges arising from that behavior.

"They couldn't even get that charge to a jury."

They didn't want to do that. They elected to try her on the criminal charges arising from her cover-up of the illegal insider trading first because it would then be far easier to convict her of those charges arising from the insider trading itself. Those will be civil charges subject to a lower threshold of proof. And the SEC is, in fact, pursuing that litigation. As soon as the stay is lifted (soon), it will proceed.

"Assuming the worst was true, her acting on her brokers tip isn't insider trading."

It is. And I expect her to be convicted of the charges stemming from it.