yuramac at YAHOO.COM
Sat Mar 6 16:39:47 MST 2004
"Thomas J. Benthall" <tbenthal at EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
I don't think that the trial has anything to to with liberal OR conservative causes.........whatever they are.
I don't beleive I implied that it was. I said the press thought a tough sentence was just ducky for Leona Helmsley in 1992 (and publicly dwelled on her conservatism), but they rend garments over poor Martha -- a double standard. And you must have at least some sense of liberal and conservative causes, or you wouldn't be lurking around here, would you?
It is my understanding that Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice.........not insider trading violations.
Again, this is what I said. The obstruction occurred during the course of an investigation into insider trading allegations. And that she was not so charged in no way means that insider trading didn't happen. It means only that the prosecution found their case incomplete or otherwise incapable of sustaining proof beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the charges that were tried indicate to me that she narrowly escaped insider prosecution.
I could be wrong though, as I have not paid much attention to the trial. Actually, I wasn't even interested in the case
because I recognize it for what it really is...........nothing but smoke and mirrors, designed to take the public's
attention away from the biggest fraud in the history of the world. That being the insolvency of U. S. banks due to
their OTC derivative holdings......with the US Federal Reserve Bank at the helm. And sanctioned by the US
I disagree. If a trial would be in order for us peons for illegal behavior (like lying to investigators conducting a criminal investigation), and you know that it would be, then a trial also is perfectly in order for Martha Stewart. What on earth would exempt her?
The trial's publicity is due to her celebrity (and notoriety for arrogance), the voraciousness of the press, and the egos of the case lawyers.
Moreover, the condition of the USFRB may or may not be in dreadful shape (I personally dislike the organization) ... but a show trial of Martha Stewart concocted to draw away attention? PLEASE give me a break. This one is enough to give a bad name to conspiracy theories everywhere.
"This criminal case is about lying, lying to the FBI, lying to the SEC and lying to investors," James B. Comey, the
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, told a news conference. "This is conduct that will not be
tolerated by anybody."
Again, as I said.... And what is wrong with intolerance of making false statements and altering computer data evidence?
IMO, Martha Stewart is guilty of nothing. How can one be guilty of a crime if that crime is nothing more than lying
to the biggest liars the world has ever seen........the gov't?
In the jury's opinion she is well and truly guilty, and THEY DID "pay attention to the trial." I can scarcely believe the question that I just read. Let me look again. Yes -- it's still there in all its insouciant glory. I won't try to argue a point with these kinds of presumptive "if-thens" inserted into the logic. If my aunt had testicles, then she'd be my uncle ... BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW because of the false premise. Suffice to say that a jury convicted her, ergo, SHE IS GUILTY.
France has usually been governed by prostitutes. - Mark Twain
Koby Mandell - http://www.kobymandell.org/about.htm
Shiri Negari - http://www.shiri.us/
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk