Verdict reached in Martha Stewart trial... GUILTY on all counts...

[atom]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

As much as I dislike Clinton, he shouldn't have been in sh!t for lying. His sex life is his own personal business and he should have been able to enjoy it however he wants without having to tell the world about what happened. However, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ridiculed for showing a lack of concern about the image of the country, which he represented more than any one person in America.

But that's another story. Disagree if you want, that's my opinion.

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

There are laws on what you can sell and what you can't on the stock market. There are no laws on who you can sleep with.

What are you taking about dude, Clinton was accused of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, Stewart was accused of Obstruction of Justice and making false statements.

 

[dfi]

Originally posted by: djNickb

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
i think any human in their right mind will do the same as what she did....

her broker says "sell, it's gonna blow".....i would sell and not risk losing all that money....afterwards, she lies about it in court and who wouldn't really lie?

i say stewart shouldn't be victimized, but instead the broker who lent the advice should be going to jail. I know i knw he was found giulty as well, but he should be the one at fault and have more jail time and such

Rather than sell the actual stock, which would be insider trading, why not just purchase a put option at the current market price? Or does purchasing an option to protect against downside losses constitute insider trading too?

As far as I know, anytime you use nonpublic material information for trading purposes, that constitutes insider trading. So, if her decision to purchase the put option was based on nonpublic information, then she would still be facing insider trading charges.

dfi

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: slycat

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

yes. whats so hard to understand? its financial gain off a public offering. no one would give a sh!t if it was
from sale of her house or something.

It wasn't a public offering, the stock had been made public a long time ago. Clinton lied under OATH, which is what she did as well, but she obstructed justice by lying to investigators as well. Clinton lied to investigators(Kenneth Starr) as well. Lying under oath is lying under oath. Clinton might not have had a financial motive, but since when did that absolve you of having to tell the truth under OATH. Insider trading is rampant, if you don't know that then I feel for you.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: OS
can anyone offer any usable commentary about the actual facts and probable events about the charges? I don't know what's going on.

Martha Stewart's good friend Sam Waksal (I don't care to look up the spelling of his name) was the CEO of ImClone. He has been convicted of insider trading for telling family members who were stockholders in his company about an unfavorable ruling that the FDA was going to announce. Martha Stewart may or may not have recieved information (I believe from her stockbroker or his assistant, not directly from Waksal?) that she ought to sell her shares. She sold her shares. The government investigated, didn't find enough evidence to charge her with insider trading; instead, they charged her with several related crimes.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

.

Exactly what I was thinking.

What about Johnson pardoning Nixon?

How far back do you want to go?

I'm sure this has been happening in politics as long as politics has been around.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: djNickb

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
i think any human in their right mind will do the same as what she did....

her broker says "sell, it's gonna blow".....i would sell and not risk losing all that money....afterwards, she lies about it in court and who wouldn't really lie?

i say stewart shouldn't be victimized, but instead the broker who lent the advice should be going to jail. I know i knw he was found giulty as well, but he should be the one at fault and have more jail time and such

Rather than sell the actual stock, which would be insider trading, why not just purchase a put option at the current market price? Or does purchasing an option to protect against downside losses constitute insider trading too?

As far as I know, anytime you use nonpublic material information for trading purposes, that constitutes insider trading. So, if her decision to purchase the put option was based on nonpublic information, then she would still be facing insider trading charges.

dfi

You are correct, but it would have been much harder to prove. See, her broker's assistant turned on them. Without him they had no case either way. Wealthy investors get inside information all the time.

 

[Mill]

Do you people think Warren Buffet makes his purchases and trade for Berkshire Hathaway solely on public information.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

As much as I dislike Clinton, he shouldn't have been in sh!t for lying. His sex life is his own personal business and he should have been able to enjoy it however he wants without having to tell the world about what happened. However, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ridiculed for showing a lack of concern about the image of the country, which he represented more than any one person in America.

But that's another story. Disagree if you want, that's my opinion.

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

There are laws on what you can sell and what you can't on the stock market. There are no laws on who you can sleep with.

What are you taking about dude, Clinton was accused of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, Stewart was accused of Obstruction of Justice and making false statements.

Well, he can just pardon himself. Anyways, my point was - he should've been in that situation in the first place.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

As much as I dislike Clinton, he shouldn't have been in sh!t for lying. His sex life is his own personal business and he should have been able to enjoy it however he wants without having to tell the world about what happened. However, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ridiculed for showing a lack of concern about the image of the country, which he represented more than any one person in America.

But that's another story. Disagree if you want, that's my opinion.

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

There are laws on what you can sell and what you can't on the stock market. There are no laws on who you can sleep with.

What are you taking about dude, Clinton was accused of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, Stewart was accused of Obstruction of Justice and making false statements.

Well, he can just pardon himself. Anyways, my point was - he should've been in that situation in the first place.

No, actually he can't pardon himself. He was impeached by the House, but the Senate failed to convict him. If he had been convicted he would have been forced out of office. It would take another sititng president to pardon him i.e. Ford in the case of Nixon.

 

[dfi]

The way I see it, the SEC has to make an example of anyone who is found to be guilty of insider trading. Insider trading, while it may seem to be a minor and very understandable offense because the guilty party was simply trying to avoid financial loss, undermines the fiduciary duty of the company to their investors and the integrity of the market. If the penalty for insider trading was less severe, then it might occur even more frequently. This would seriously deter many investors from continued trading.

dfi

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

As much as I dislike Clinton, he shouldn't have been in sh!t for lying. His sex life is his own personal business and he should have been able to enjoy it however he wants without having to tell the world about what happened. However, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ridiculed for showing a lack of concern about the image of the country, which he represented more than any one person in America.

But that's another story. Disagree if you want, that's my opinion.

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

There are laws on what you can sell and what you can't on the stock market. There are no laws on who you can sleep with.

What are you taking about dude, Clinton was accused of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, Stewart was accused of Obstruction of Justice and making false statements.

Well, he can just pardon himself. Anyways, my point was - he should've been in that situation in the first place.

I don't think he could pardon himself, because I'm pretty sure the sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. He could have been charged after he left office, and I don't think Bush would pardon him. 🙂 You're right though, she shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place - he should have kept it in his pants.

 

[classy]

This is sad. I am not saying she is not guilty but it is clear she was made an example of. When you look at all the big companies who have cheated and stole from the American public and got away with it, to see this chick go down is weak.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Martha Stewart's good friend Sam Waksal (I don't care to look up the spelling of his name) was the CEO of ImClone. He has been convicted of insider trading for telling family members who were stockholders in his company about an unfavorable ruling that the FDA was going to announce. Martha Stewart may or may not have recieved information (I believe from her stockbroker or his assistant, not directly from Waksal?) that she ought to sell her shares. She sold her shares. The government investigated, didn't find enough evidence to charge her with insider trading; instead, they charged her with several related crimes.

thanks for keeping it BS free, it's kind of dragged on and I don't remember all the details anymore. Sounds like the government is on a power trip.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dfi
The way I see it, the SEC has to make an example of anyone who is found to be guilty of insider trading. Insider trading, while it may seem to be a minor and very understandable offense because the guilty party was simply trying to avoid financial loss, undermines the fiduciary duty of the company to their investors and the integrity of the market. If the penalty for insider trading was less severe, then it might occur even more frequently. This would seriously deter many investors from continued trading.

dfi

While I agree, it is fairly obvious that most wealthy investors rely on insider information. Prosecuting Stewart has not deterred anyone or even made sense. The punishment would have to be much more severe for people to be deterred. In most cases the financial gains are worth risking a very slight chance of prosecution. Unless someone rolls over on them(like in this case), then it is a very hard charge to prove, and the penalties are less than severe. That's typical of our government. Instead of trying to solve the problem they try to make an example and waste more time and money. Just a way to keep the public happy and make them think they are actually trying to solve the problem.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

As much as I dislike Clinton, he shouldn't have been in sh!t for lying. His sex life is his own personal business and he should have been able to enjoy it however he wants without having to tell the world about what happened. However, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ridiculed for showing a lack of concern about the image of the country, which he represented more than any one person in America.

But that's another story. Disagree if you want, that's my opinion.

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

There are laws on what you can sell and what you can't on the stock market. There are no laws on who you can sleep with.

What are you taking about dude, Clinton was accused of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, Stewart was accused of Obstruction of Justice and making false statements.

Well, he can just pardon himself. Anyways, my point was - he should've been in that situation in the first place.

I don't think he could pardon himself, because I'm pretty sure the sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. He could have been charged after he left office, and I don't think Bush would pardon him. 🙂 You're right though, she shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place - he should have kept it in his pants.

The issue was removal of office and was purely partisan if you really think about it. I don't think they were thinking about criminal prosecution. They wanted him humiliated, out of office, and have him disbarred.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ness1469

Originally posted by: DWW
Soooo stupid.

She gets in sh!t for lying but Clinton doesn't

As much as I dislike Clinton, he shouldn't have been in sh!t for lying. His sex life is his own personal business and he should have been able to enjoy it however he wants without having to tell the world about what happened. However, it is perfectly acceptable for him to ridiculed for showing a lack of concern about the image of the country, which he represented more than any one person in America.

But that's another story. Disagree if you want, that's my opinion.

So he can lie about his sex life because it is private, but she can't lie about a financial gain? 😕

There are laws on what you can sell and what you can't on the stock market. There are no laws on who you can sleep with.

What are you taking about dude, Clinton was accused of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury, Stewart was accused of Obstruction of Justice and making false statements.

Well, he can just pardon himself. Anyways, my point was - he should've been in that situation in the first place.

I don't think he could pardon himself, because I'm pretty sure the sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. He could have been charged after he left office, and I don't think Bush would pardon him. 🙂 You're right though, she shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place - he should have kept it in his pants.

That was supposed to be a joke 🙂

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

I wonder if she'll do her show on remote from prison. You know, lovely curtains on a budget for your cell, how to make a decorative and effective shank out of your toothbrush, stuff like that. Oh the possibilities.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mill
The issue was removal of office and was purely partisan if you really think about it. I don't think they were thinking about criminal prosecution. They wanted him humiliated, out of office, and have him disbarred.

Yeah I realize that, but I thought when you compared Clinton to Stewart you were referring to criminal prosecution - obviously Clinton was never charged, but he could have been (and if he weren't the president, probably would have been). And as you pointed out, the president can't pardon himself from impreachment, which made me think he was talking about criminal prosecution.

 

[rky60]

Useless info here 🙂

That Sam Waksal dude is in the Federal prison about 2 miles from me. 🙂

 

[JoeKing]

--edit--
bah n/m...I'd still do Martha Stewart :Q

 

[ctcsoft]

Originally posted by: MemberSince97
John Ashcroft is getting his Karma today also...

Ya got damnn right he is.

Next is Dick Cheney and his corrupt Hallibutron company.

 

[ctcsoft]

Originally posted by: SKORPI0

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: SKORPI0
Martha Stewart found guilty on four counts. Max penalty 5 years and $250,000 fine.

False Statements, Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice and Lying to the Government. :Q

I believe that's PER COUNT.

Viper GTS

Yes!!!!! To bad she'll never serve the full 20 years. Sentencing on June 17th.

An Open Letter from Martha Stewart

Were you born retarded? Some people who murder don't even serve 20 yrs. She doesn't deserve 2 years let
alone 20. Get a brain.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Mill
The issue was removal of office and was purely partisan if you really think about it. I don't think they were thinking about criminal prosecution. They wanted him humiliated, out of office, and have him disbarred.

Yeah I realize that, but I thought when you compared Clinton to Stewart you were referring to criminal prosecution - obviously Clinton was never charged, but he could have been (and if he weren't the president, probably would have been). And as you pointed out, the president can't pardon himself from impreachment, which made me think he was talking about criminal prosecution.

Sorry for that bit of confusion.

 

[Mill]

Fusetalk blows.

 

[Mill]

Fusetalk blows.