Stewart shows there are 2 sets of rules for jail time

...that Martha Stewart isn't an elected official and that Bill Clinton was, and to the highest office in the land. Big difference. If you think I have a "thing" for dear ol' Martha, you are mistaken. I've watched some of her shows, enjoyed a few, moved on from others. I admire what she's accomplished in the business world but nothing more than that. I've felt she dumped her husband in the same manner some men dump their wife after making it in the business world. Didn't care much for that part of her life. I just think she got a bum rap for a private citizen. Clinton was a public elected official with responsibilities to the people, more so than Martha.

So, your support of perjury is situational based on the employment of the perjurer? That seems to be what you're saying.

Dan

.

No, but instead that prosecution of Marth was "malicious" and the investigation of Clinton was warranted. Technically Clinton was never tried in a court for a crime, neither was he impeached. The articles of impeachment were voted down. So, in the end Martha suffers for the same thing that our ex-President was aquitted of. Fair?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article1.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article2.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/vote/vote_article2.html

...."neither was he impeached"

to read "neither was he convicted".

I think it's a big stretch to try and compare the public official, our ex-President Clinton being "impeached" before elected officials but not convicted, to Martha being "prosecuted" and convicted in a court of law for the same thing. If you take that stance, and believe Martha's conviction and judgement is correct, then you must also admit that Clinton didn't get what he deserved and justice was thwarted. Is this what you are trying to claim????

I made no claim.

Dan

.

"There's a disturbance in the Force".

Sadly, we must allow that the conditions meet the lower standards that apply to just.

Dan

.

away with it. In lying, he obstructed justice and committed perjury, and was judged guilty of that. Interesting that you make excuses for Clinton, who did lie, and condemn Bush who didn't.

Clinton lied UNDER OATH. That means that after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a formal proceeding in a court of law (he took a similar oath when taking office to faithfully uphold the law of the land, not just the ones that didn't impact his sex life), he lied. His punishment for same should put the doubts about that to rest.

Martha lied to investigators. Her lie may have extended the investigation slightly, but didn't change the fact that even if the investigator's scenario is accepted as the truth, it did not constitute a crime. It seems that often a spouse or family member may initially -- out of protective instinct, or out of disbelief that their loved one is capable of a crime -- act as an alibi. Often they eventually tell the truth. I don't know too many of such cases where that family member is prosecuted for lying to investigators.

Others have also pointed out to you that Clinton's lie also deprived another of their due process rights.

You really support people who lie to federal investigators? Does this extend to lying to all levels of law enforcemnt?

Dan

.

...with the prosecution and conviction of Martha Stewart for the same "crime" that Clinton did, that Clinton escaped the punishment that he should have received also for it? Do you also admit that Clinton lying under oath was less injurious to our country than Martha doing it?

You can't have it both ways. Either Martha shouldn't have been prosecuted for her lie, considering she wasn't an "insider" nor guilty of insider trading, or you have to say that Clinton escaped the justice due him.

I can't imagine anyone arguing that the justice system is uniformly applied or without the effects of political pressure. These cases are both examples where prosecutors had to decide to proceed or not and it could be argued that politics were not absent from those decisions.

Dan

.

That's all I wanted ANYONE to admit about this whole trial, comparison to Clinton, and this thread.

I wasn't making a representation of any kind. I was asking a question. Your previous statements have left me curious about that point.

Dan

.

is illegal for anyone. You don't have to be an insider. You just have to have the information. That's why Martha lied. The feds couldn't prove it because Waksal and the broker wouldn't talk. It boils down to arrogance. She thought she could handle it herself.

Her broker was probably guilty of something related to that, but AFAIK, he also was not charged on that count. IAC, she was merely informed that Waksyl was selling his stock. Regardless of the nuances, it wasn't an insider trade, which is what Waksyl is not rightly sitting in jail for actually doing. She was a stock owner, not an employee, CEO, board member or even informal advisor to ImClone. The information she received was that her friend (and they were friends) Sam was selling his stock. Subtle difference, maybe. Violating the spirit of the law, possibly. But for it to be insider trading she would have had to been privy to that information Waksyl used to result in his sales. I believe that is also why his kids were spared. He was the one with inside information that he traded on. He was probably careful in his communications to the kids to let them know he was selling.

The way to remedy any perceived inequities in this case and drug cases is to revamp the drug laws.

Evie

Then match that with the non defined concepts by the SEC. Yes, maybe someone on the "inside" did trades, but neither Martha nor her broker are "insiders" in that company. This prosecution was based on a stretched "understanding" of what "insider" means by stressing the "trader" part most and ignoring the true meaning of "insider".

Based on their definition, if Lee Koo made some statement in these forums, and I or you took it to be bad news for their stock, and if we then acted on that news to short sell the stock, we would be guilty of "insider trading". Even that is a stretch since I doubt Lee is a member of the board or involved in their day to day financial dealings.

I doubt the SEC would consider that insider trading. The information from Lee would be available on a public forum of virtually unrestricted access and membership where the source could not know or limit who received the information. We could be many things, but Speakeasy is not a location where information could be considered confidential.

Dan

.

In the matter of book-cooking, just about every Federal agency is guilty of far more, consistently and continually. And yet we let these fools capitalize on a few "evil" CEO's actions to fan the flames of hatred.

The real crook in this whole thing is Waksyl, but EVEN more, the FDA. SOMEONE in the FDA made public in advance information on their decision on Erbitux. Where is the investigation of that? Where is the review of the FDA Drug Approval procedures that result in this sort of high stakes gambling with scientific advances? There has got to be a better way.

Evie

Which fools? Those at the SEC? What capital do they gain from this and who are they flaming hatred against?

Dan

.

I'm surprised you support people commiting purgery and lying to federal investigators. That's a new stance for you, isn't it?

Dan

.

from dictionary dot com.

purgery

\Pur"ger*y\, n. The part of a sugarhouse where the molasses is drained off from the sugar.