Martha Stewart

Dudley D. Doright f16rsdad at JUNO.COM
Sat Mar 6 17:06:39 MST 2004


Very well put Mr. Spearing.

DD

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 15:39:47 -0800 MC Spearing <yuramac at YAHOO.COM> writes:


"Thomas J. Benthall" <tbenthal at EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
MC,

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
goverment.
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?

TJB
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.
MCS


France has usually been governed by prostitutes. - Mark Twain

- Remember:
Koby Mandell - http://www.kobymandell.org/about.htm
Shiri Negari - http://www.shiri.us/


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you re looking for faster.


"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment."

--Will Rogers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20040306/f90eb2e0/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list