Martha Stewart

Cutten · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from Mecro:

Uhm wasn't she told directly by Waxell about the situation of his company?

And then she mysteriously had her broker sell right before the public announcement?

Whatever the full details, she is being prosecuted for the right reasons and I think they are letting her off easily. What she did was blatant insider trading.

Totally incorrect. Her broker told her that Waksal was selling - that is not insider information under current law, it is viewed the same as your broker saying "hey, we've just seen Jeff Skilling unload a truckload of Enron, maybe something is up". She then acted on her brokers information - nothing mysterious or illegal about that.

So you are incorrect on all three of your accusations. Basically you are clueless about the facts of the case.

Cutten · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from SteveD:

She lied 2 or 3 times to he FBI and also got her broker and his assistant to also lie. This is major "obstruction of justice" and the Feds take a very dim and aggressive view of this activity. If found guilty, she will go to the Federal Pen.

Sometime when people are so smart they become very stupid.

SteveD

It can't be obstruction of justice, because the thing she was covering up/lying about was not illegal. To obstruct justice, you must interfere with the ability of the law to discover criminal acts - since in this case no criminal act occured, no obstruction has been committed.

It is not illegal to lie to the FBI, as long as this does not interfere with their attempts to detect crime.

Once again we have someone who does not know the facts of the case, yet who wants to send a citizen to jail who has committed no crime. So much for innocent until proven guilty eh?

billpritjr · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from Cutten:

It can't be obstruction of justice, because the thing she was covering up/lying about was not illegal. To obstruct justice, you must interfere with the ability of the law to discover criminal acts - since in this case no criminal act occured, no obstruction has been committed.

It is not illegal to lie to the FBI, as long as this does not interfere with their attempts to detect crime.

Once again we have someone who does not know the facts of the case, yet who wants to send a citizen to jail who has committed no crime. So much for innocent until proven guilty eh?

Uh, you better re-think that one. False statements to a federal investigator is indeed a crime.

dgabriel · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from Cutten:

Totally incorrect. Her broker told her that Waksal was selling - that is not insider information under current law, it is viewed the same as your broker saying "hey, we've just seen Jeff Skilling unload a truckload of Enron, maybe something is up". She then acted on her brokers information - nothing mysterious or illegal about that.

So you are incorrect on all three of your accusations. Basically you are clueless about the facts of the case.

You are actually wrong here. Stewart heard from her broker that Waksal was selling and called Waksal to find out why. They have her recorded message to him: "Something is happening with Imclone and Martha Stewart wants to know what" (some message, huh? And from a woman to a former bedmate)

The Feds believe that he told her the FDA was about to reject the application. If she sold after receiving this information and prior to its public release, that is illegal insider trading.

If it were not illegal, there would have been no reason for her to issue an explanation for selling.

The defense of Stewart here on this thread I beleive is evidence of the successful spin and influence she and her handlers have effected through the media. Until the trial, we all cannot make any substantive judgement. No matter if you feel Martha is a rotten cunt or a saint. Which is a good question for a poll, no?

AAAintheBeltway · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from Cutten:

It can't be obstruction of justice, because the thing she was covering up/lying about was not illegal. To obstruct justice, you must interfere with the ability of the law to discover criminal acts - since in this case no criminal act occured, no obstruction has been committed.

It is not illegal to lie to the FBI, as long as this does not interfere with their attempts to detect crime.

Once again we have someone who does not know the facts of the case, yet who wants to send a citizen to jail who has committed no crime. So much for innocent until proven guilty eh?

I'll admit to not knowing all the facts in this case, but I do believe it is a federalcrime to lie to investigators, whether or not you are impeding their ability to discover a crime. I can assure you as well that the SEC and Justice Department are VERY sensitive to obstruction in securities cases, and you frequently find these counts thrown in. Add a celebrity defendant and they really have no choice but to prosecute, even though the original selling was probably legal, or if illegal, the kind of thing you pay a fine and promise not to do it again for.

Where I have a problem is with the additional garbage they have added. I believe they have charged her with securities fraud because they claim by lying about her involvement, she misstated relevant facts concerning MSO stock, namely that the CEO was a crook, or something along those lines. I find that absurd and hopefully the judge will as well.

If that thug Quattrone can get a hung jury, I like Martha's chances as well. It only takes one.

ArchAngel · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from Cutten:
Totally incorrect. Her broker told her that Waksal was selling - that is not insider information under current law, it is viewed the same as your broker saying "hey, we've just seen Jeff Skilling unload a truckload of Enron, maybe something is up". She then acted on her brokers information - nothing mysterious or illegal about that.

They supposedly have phone records that show that after she got the news from her broker about Waksal and family dumping Imclone stock (which is considered insider info) she immediately called Waksal on his cellphone. They've got both her and his phone records that show they talked at length immedately afterward and then immediately following that she called her broker again and miraculously the "stop order" was executed.

Concluding that what she covered up was NOT illegal because she wasn't charged with it (lying to federal investigators by itself being a crime notwithstanding) is wrong. Al Capone was sent to jail for tax fraud, not all the other things he did. Were the other things not illegal because he wasn't charged with them? Of course not. Prosecutors just decided they had a better case on the tax charges. Supposedly that's what was decided here.

Now, do I think they should be wasting millions to prosecute Stewart for a $150K trade? Hell no. They should have just had her pay a fine of that amount, admit no wrongdoing, and walked away.

Turok · Jan 16, 2004

Cutten, normally I find your posts pretty well thought out, informative and factual.

You are SO FAR OFF factually on this one it's amazing.

I'll agree on the "innocent until proven guilty" -- let the jury sort the evidence out. But your take on what evidence they say they have is WAY off and your comment about lying to investigators is just amazing.

Lie in the course of a law enforcement investigation whether the outcome of the investigation reveals ANYTHING illegal and you are exposing yourself to valid charges.

JB

gms · Jan 16, 2004

Quote from ArchAngel:

Now, do I think they should be wasting millions to prosecute Stewart for a $150K trade? Hell no. They should have just had her pay a fine of that amount, admit no wrongdoing, and walked away.

My point exactly. Making a public example of her with the threat of prison helps keep the rest of the population towing the line.

Besides, people love a hanging.

If there were more of a focus on the best thing to do and less on satisfying other criteria, Grasso would've been kept on at less or zero pay.

Cutten · Jan 20, 2004

Quote from dgabriel:

You are actually wrong here. Stewart heard from her broker that Waksal was selling and called Waksal to find out why. They have her recorded message to him: "Something is happening with Imclone and Martha Stewart wants to know what" (some message, huh? And from a woman to a former bedmate)

The Feds believe that he told her the FDA was about to reject the application. If she sold after receiving this information and prior to its public release, that is illegal insider trading.

If it were not illegal, there would have been no reason for her to issue an explanation for selling.

Records show that Stewart made that phonecall *after* she sold the stock. She didn't even speak to Waksal, she left a message on his voicemail - and records show the phone call was not returned. So your facts and your conclusion are completely wrong.

If the Feds believed she found out insider info on the phonecall, why did they drop the insider trading charge?

dgabriel · Jan 20, 2004

Quote from Cutten:

Records show that Stewart made that phonecall *after* she sold the stock. She didn't even speak to Waksal, she left a message on his voicemail - and records show the phone call was not returned. So your facts and your conclusion are completely wrong.

If the Feds believed she found out insider info on the phonecall, why did they drop the insider trading charge?

Feds don't think they can sustain that charge in court and that it would undermine the prosecution of the other charges.

My facts aren't wrong. Read my post carefully.