1 I totally agree, but I haven't even been able to get my diehard conservative mother to understand this 'cause she's too busy hating Martha for, you know, being Martha. It's frustrating. Reason magazine "on dead tree" had a good article about eight months ago on this. I couldn't find that online, but I notice today they have this one.

2 Well I just dont like her. Thats my reason.

3 Hell, I don't like her either. Doesn't make it any easier to swallow.

4 Well said, Jim. Too many people are blinded by the "joke factor" of Martha going to jail, without seeming to realize what a horrible precedent is being set.

5 I love her. But I wholly understand why a lot of people don't. Seems like the anti-Martha sentiment more than anything is what was driving the prosecutor and jury.

6 Quite right, Kate. Read that link that Ilyka posted. It's all about how the jury convicted based on how they felt about Martha.

7 From what I've read on the matter, I agree. If you want to send her to jail for being Martha Stewart, then at least that's what it should say on the charge sheet. Of course, then it would get kicked out on appeal, probably with damages awarded. Which is fine by me.

8 In full disclosure, I think Martha Stewart is the Anti-Christ. Jim, keep in mind the serious charge against her (securities fraud, that is, insider trading) was dropped. She was convicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. The obstruction of justice stems from her modifying her call records--which was testified to by an eyewitness. I suppose your next argument would be if she hadn't been arrested on (what you feel are) trumped-up charges, she wouldn't have had to obstruct justice. Of course, I'll just claim she must've had a guilty conscience about *something* otherwise...it'll turn into an endless loop, and I'll not touch on that. I'll talk about why the charges were brought, even tho I'm not a lawyer. I confess insider trading, like art, is difficult to define, but you kinda know it when you see it. When your stockbroker is involved, though, it can get a little grey, but sometimes it can't. It gets grey because you pay him to advise you on when to buy and when to sell, and that's supposed to come from research you don't have time to do yourself. Fair enough. But there are rules on how you can conduct that research, and acting on information that is supposed to be privy to only a few (it doesn't matter how you got that information) is against the rules...and the law. I don't know what the rules are concerning the FDA releasing the info to Imclone, so I can't comment on the legality of that, but the CEO of Imclone certainly knew that information would cause his stock to drop. When he started calling up people (doesn't matter who) and letting them know the drug was not approved *before* the official announcement was when insider trading laws were broken. The broker should not have passed on that info (neither to Martha nor to anyone else) and he probably should have contacted the SEC, under the law. I think had Martha not done the things she was convicted of doing (changing her story, changing her phone logs), she would have been home free, and I suspect a jury would have seen that--I certainly would have. The article ilkya linked tries to sway my opinion, and it fails. Martha's own actions only convince me further she did something wrong.

9 I think you missed my major point. Martha was not and could not have been guilty of selling her stock based on any information no matter how she got it so long as she herself did not break a law in order to get the information. This is why all of the serious crimes she was originally accused of were either not pursued or were thrown out. There simply was no wrongdoing on her part in selling the stock. What that means is she was convicted of conspiracy to commit a lawful act, obstruction of justice in pursuit of a non-crime and two counts of making false statements about a legal act.

10 Jim, I concede any charges about insider-trading migh have been difficult to prove. Maybe Martha knew, maybe she didn't--but her actions afterward certainly imply she knew something was fishy. Otherwise, why would she have done them? Panic? Maybe. Stupidity? Certainly. But if she had not done anything other than confess her innocence (and I mean only that) I think she would have been scott-free. Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice, whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. Start acting in a suspicious manner during an investigation (like, change your story), and a prosecutor will be on that like a pit bull on a steak. Had she just played dumb from day one, I doubt the case would have gone to trial. Instead, she played stupid. Talk to any cop or judge. More people convict themselves than any prosecutor.

11 Wrong word in there: But if she had not done anything other than profess her innocence ...

12 Not difficult to prove. Impossible to prove. Impossible to have been commited. Martha did not occupy a position to which that offense can be attributed. The only way she could possibly have been guilty of improperly benefiting from insider information would have been if she herself went out and acquired the information illegally. It is not illegal for an investor to act on information that is given to them, no matter who gives it to them or what their relationship is. But how many people know that? The "street definition" that everybody knows is that using information that isn't in the public sphere makes you an inside trader. I'd put dollars to donuts that Martha didn't have any better grasp on it than that. So when the SEC came in accusing her of insider trading she panicked, just like anybody else would have. It's the freaking SEC! They know what they're doing, right? They wouldn't be coming after somebody who hadn't committed any crime, right? Well in this case they definitely knew what they were doing and they came after somebody until she committed a crime.

13 Jim, I can see we're not going to convince each other, so on your last word let's agree to disagree, eh? : extends hand and offers to buy the next round :

14 I can always go for a beer. I'll even give you that all would have been pie and apple cider for Martha if she'd just kept her yap shut. How's that for magnanimous? ;-)

15 Thanks, Jim. That was basically my entire point. That is so magnanimous I feel I should give you my first-born male child in return. I am not worthy of your magnanimosity.

16 I appreciate the offer but I'll have to decline. I just went over this with Ryan yesterday...you see, the upkeep on firstborns is way higher than the sales literature leads you to believe. Even if I got one for free it would be cost prohibitive to maintain. Since I've already got one the novelty factor wouldn't be there to compensate for the excessive costs. But thanks for the offer!