Hey, here's a thought don't comment on the Stewart case if you don't know anything about it.

It's been shown she traded on inside information, denied it, and then tampered with evidence, what more do we need to know?

Here's where she went wrong:

she told her friend it's nice, and I am paraphrasing, to have friends in high places,

she traded a stock to avoid losing money while some sucker, who was not privy to her illegal information, lost a boatload, and, finally, what I consider to be her worst offense,

she was on the board of the NY stock exchange, which means she knew the rules, explicitly. This is grotesquely blatant.

Should she go to jail, no, but should she lose an excellent portion of her riches, absolutely.

Which is exactly the solution that a prosecution effects.

What's really funny is that the inside information she acted on was, in the long run, wrong. Despite the early unexpected setback she sold at, the drug in question was eventually approved.

Except she could have bought back when the insiders told her approval was coming.

This is all interesting, but has very little to do with the current trial, which is not about insider trading. SEC is pursuing the insider trading charges in a civil compliant. What she is accused of here is a securities fraud: knowing lying to the public that she was not guilty of insider trading in order to buoy the price of Martha Steward Living/Omnimedia. Although my first reaction is to not care, it is probably the better conservative reaction to oppose the prosecution.

David:

Since capitalists are to be immune from criminal prosecution?

Because it is not only an effort to limit her freedom of speech, but an effort to limit her freedom to speek to defend herself from the government, although the other thing is good, too.

You can defend yourself just don't lie to do so.

She wasn't under oath, she wasn't speaking to law enforcement and no one believed her, anyway. One shouldn't lie, but it's no crime.

She altered evidence and her lies profted her personally.

Then why didn't the feds prosecute her for that, rather than the obscure charge that one can't claim to be innocent? If you require people to be innocent in order to make the claim, you're invalidating the Fifth Admendment.

Moreover, regardless of whether you think she's guilty of insider trading, or even whether she is objectively guilty, she's not legally guilty. Are we now to prosecute someone on the basis of her disagreement with public opinion?

AOG:

The Fifth Amendment says nothing even remotely like that. It says we can't make you testify against yourself, not that you're free to lie about your guilt or innocence.

The reason she's being prosecuted for this, whereas they don't care much about the insider trading, is because prosecutors take obstruction of justice personally.

She'd have been better served to just acknowledge her mistake.

Alas all of the comments reflect a highly superficial understanding of the government's case.

1. She lied? That has not been established to any extent at all.

2. She traded on inside information. Actually, the real villains here are the FDA staffers. One of whom told a complete stranger to the ImClone case on December 24th that the appliaction was going to be rejected. That person told another person and that person told someone at Bristol Myers, which had a billion dollar stake in ImClone. It is not even clear that by the time this whisper down the lane got to Sam Waksal that it was "nonpublic." On December 27th, a day before the FDA announcement (while Waksal was selling), there was sufficient strength to the rumor (stated by an FDA staffer 3 days before) that CNBC's Carl Quinitilla was on TV talking about it. (See Alan Reynold's column "Obstructing Justice" from June 24, 2003 NRO). What has been established is that Martha got no tip from Sam, the best she got was that Sam was selling (giving Fanueil the benefit of the doubt, of which there is considerable). It is not even clear that information about sales by insiders given to non-insiders (Martha was not an insider of ImClone) is itself "nonpublic." Which by the way is why the government did not charge her with insider trading.

3. The government's handling of the interviews on which the claims of lies are based was shabby and amateur. They didn't tape them, the FBI agent who was the only one taking notes didn't even record the questions (relying on her memory of a two hour interview). It appears that as to at least one statement for which Stewart was indicted, the agent conflated her answer and the answer of her attorney into one statement. Peter Bacanovic was indicted for one statement that appears to be based on an I/we confusion about whether he did something or his company did.

4. Remember Stewart had already attempted to unload all of the ImClone stock, by the Bristol-Myers tender offer was over-subscribed and she only could sell about 1500 shares.

5. The security fraud count (Count 9) is a farce, which the government should have been embarrassed to bring, clearly designed to force her into a plea bargain. As to Sam Waksal (see 2 above, that even his trades may not have been on nonpublic inside information), it is my guess that he pleaded guilty to avoid an indictment of his daughter.

6. Hate, if you must, Martha Stewart for the right reasons, she is a friend of Hillary Clinton and a big contributor to the Democratic Party.

Hate her? I like her. But she behaved badly and deserves a good drubbing.

Mr. Judd;

My view is that Stewart is being prosecuted for this because the feds couldn't prosecute her on the insider trading, the case being so weak. That was certainly the focus early on, the current charges showing up only after the insider trading case collapsed.

Moreover, legally she didn't lie about it, if she was never convicted of the crime. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

In your view, why aren't people who plead "not guilty" in court but later convicted prosecuted for perjury? I mean, they lied under oath, which is even worse that Stewart's crime, not to mention that they are actually legally guilty of the crime.

If you're not allowed to lie about being innocent, then what do you do when the police / prosecutor asks you, "Did you do it?". You have to either "double down" on the crime or testify against yourself. That rips the heart out of the Fifth.

Mr. Ditter;

Is Stewart being prosecuted on the basis of non-public statements? All of the articles I've seen have the prosecution based on public statements by Stewart to prop up her stock price. I note from the article cited by Mr. Judd that without the testimony about Stewart's public statements, the government case evaporates.

I'm not seeing how the actual charges against Stewart in this case are related to obstruction of justice. How does Stewart publically claiming innocence obstruct justice? Or are you claiming that this charge is basically trumped up to get Stewart for other, non-prosecuted obstruction?

AOG:

It's all because of the obstruction--prosecutors hate that.

Boy, a lot of you guys really don't understand this case. For the record, Martha isn't being prosecuted for insider trading. Because she's not an insider, she couldn't be. Hell, if she'd said, "Yeah, my broker told me that so-and-so was selling, so I got out", she still wouldn't be guilty of crime. Again, she's not charged with that.

Second, she isn't prosecuted for saying "I'm not guilty of insider trading." She's being prosecuted for saying, "What? No one told me anything. I never heard anyone else was selling. I was going to sell all along." That is allegedly a false statement to federal investigators looking at insider trading by others. Lying to federal investigators is a crime in and of itself.

The government's theory on the security's fraud(which they all but abandoned) is that Stewart lied about her role in order to prevent the appearance that she was involved in something hinky, which might hurt the stock price of her own company. This is a securities fraud charge, with the idea being, essentially, that she told lies in order to prop up her stock price. This is kind of a stretch, as the Court seems to agree. The government has a much stronger case that she's guilty of plain old lying to federal investigators, which is a crime regardless of her motivation.

When the president of a company tells you to sell your stock because bad news is coming that no one else is privvy to, you're an insider:

http://management.about.com/cs/businessethics/a/InsiderTrade702.htm

Dear OJ: I'm not sure why I'm debating this issue with you since you have made up your mind based on "facts" that do not exist. There is no evidence, none, nothing, nil, that Martha Stewart got a tip from Sam Waksal about ImClone. If there was: (a) the government would have charged her with insider trading; and (b) Sam would have been called to testify at her trial to rebut her defense about the "sell at $60 stop loss agreement." He doing 7 years for his trading and could do with a little leniency for cooperation. The only reason that the government didn't call him is because they know from the careful scrutiny they made of his telephone records that he didn't call Stewart. By the way,"no one else is privvy to"by that I assume you mean no one else other than the various people not involved with ImClone told about the pending rejection on Christmas eve by the FDA staffer, who told other people in sufficient numbers that there was a rumor of sufficient strength to make the news on CNBC (I assume you didn't get around to reading Alan Reynolds piece I cited in my earlier post). Also by the way, by December 15th, somebody or somebodies were betting that ImClone was going to decline since there was short action to the tune of 77 million short sales. Also by the way, it does not appear to be against any FDA policy for the staffer to tell outsiders (friends, brother-in-law, whoever) about the pending action in advance of the announcement, although he would probably get in trouble for directly trading in the stock. But you are right there is no reason for you to let any of the facts or the truth about whom may have been behaving badly get in the way of your statement of faith that Martha Stewart behaved badly and deserves a good drubbing. Ever read Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons" ?. You could try out for the part of Roper.

I mention the 77 million short sales by way of perspective about the government's concern about Martha's sale of 3928 shares. Some speculator or speculators (who maybe know somebody at the FDA, where it is okay to give strangers tips about pending applications) had already bought the stock at the lower price to the tune of 77 million shares, so it is hard to get worked up about the idea that grandma lost her nest egg when mean old Martha sold her shares to poor trusting grannie. On the other hand, I'm glad that things are so serene in the Southern District of New York than the U.S. Attorney's Office has the time and resources to devote to a "hobby" like prosecuting people for obstruction of justice just because prosecutors hate that kind of thing.

She's getting all due benefits of the legal system, including, as you say, not being charged with many of the things she might have been. But we know that she traded on insider information--received not from the FDA, but from the brokers she shared with the Waksals, if noone else--and that she called Waksal that day.

Regardless, the original point is not about her actions on 12/27 but her decision to lie about those actions. If, as you suggest, she was entitled to trade on the information she received then she should have just said that's what she did, not created the @$60 scenario.

Now you really confuse me. One of the benefits of the legal system is to not charged with crimes that you did not commit? Boy, I feel better already. The information from the broker was not insider information, but okay you know best. And you also, I guess by virtue of some superior intuition and not the evidence that government has submitted know that she and her broker lied about the sell if the stock drops below $60 agreement. C. S. Lewis stated in one of his essays that he was not prepared to argue against someone who claimed to be speaking from divine revelation. I'm not prepared to argue against the revelation that has been vouchsafed to you by the Almighty.

No, she committed them all, was charged with only a few, and may walk on those. When you or I insider trade we should be so lucky.

If any of the facts in evidence are not believed by the jury--among them that she called Waksal and that the broker called her and that they altered documents later--she'll walk. What's the big deal?

Since you ask it is because your attitude on this issue is unworthy of you. I don't happen to believe that you have actually reviewed any of the actual data in the case. For example, you mention that she called Waksal, yes she did after she had told her broker to sell the stock. But she never spoke to Waksal. And of course the major public policy issue that Congress and the media should have been focused on, the role of the FDA in having no policy about one of its staffers leak a pending action that had major market implications got all lost in the view-halloo after Martha's alleged insider trading. I wasn't any kind of Martha partisan until I read Alan Reynold article in the June 24th NRO, every thing else I have read including the idiot press that keeps talking about a trial on charges that the government didn't even bring has lead me to believe that this is an uttely misbegotten prosecution.

She called ten minutes Waksal before she sold, though if they spoke it would have been after he called her back--since his phone logs say she didn't reach him then. Why was she calling if not to obtain more information? Just to chat?

By all means change the FDA rules, but that's a separate issue from her behavior.

Unlike you I've always been a Martha partisan. I like her--present tense. But she should pay the price--just like anyone else--for what she's done.

She's not likely to though--juries hate these cases because they're to complez to follow.

She spoke to Fanueil at 1:39 P.M. EST and told him to sell stock. She called Waksal at 1:43 P.M. and left a message. Telephone records show that Waksal didn't return the call. If you can cite to a story that proves your claim that she spoke to Waksal before the sale please do so and you might want to provide that evidence to the U.S. Attorney's office since they concluded, grudingly one suspects, that she didn't speak to Waksal before the transaction. She said she didn't and they charged her with alleged false statements on things much more innoucous that what you claim to know to be the truth.
In addition you are wrong about the FDA issue as well, nobody is talking about it since everybody is focused on Marthagate. If somebody at the FDA shorted ImClone's stock, the fact that the focus of the forces and array of the United States is on alleged misstatements made by Martha (not even accurately recorded) has to be the best thing that ever happened. So the issue of why the U.S. Atty. is chasing this case is the issue.

She sold the stock ten minutes after calling Waksal.

The FDA isn't a separate issue?

You keep repeating that she sold the stock after speaking to Waksal. But you also keep declining my invitation to cite to something to support that statement. There are all sorts of Internet reporting on the trial so it should be easy to cite me some evidence for that, except for the fact that there is nothing, nothing to support that statement. But I will answer your question about why did she call him. I don't know, but maybe she called him to tell him "sorry, but I'm bailing out on your company." He was after all a friend of hers. Unlike your repeated statement that she talked to him, when she didn't, my speculation is at least consistent with some of the testimony that the government elicited at the trial. But this continual refusal to look at the actual facts is that some kind of New Hampshire thing that I just don't get?

1:43 Martha Stewart

http://www.courttv.com/trials/stewart/docs/waksallog.html

1:53 p.m.: Martha Stewart sells her 3,928 shares of ImClone at an average price of $58.43.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/stewart/chronology.html

No, no, no. You are forgeting that people do't sell stock themselves, they have to use stock-brokers. MS spoke to Fanueil at 1:39 p.m. accroding to his testimony he told her that the Waksals were selling their stock, according to the defense, he told her that the stock was trading down rapidly and was below the target of $60. According to everyone version she told him to sell the stock. Even in this high tech age, that doesn't happen instantly and Merrill-Lynch didn't sell MS' shares for another 20 minutes with the sale being recorded at 1:53p.m. Meanwhile MS called Waksal's office at 1:43 p.m., but didn't speak to him. This is not really that difficult, the government, that has shown that it would love to nail Martha for something, has abandoned any claim that she talked to Waksal before executing the sale. The defense, just to hammer the point home, on cross examination, had the FBI agent that investigated all of Martha's phone records concede that no telephone calls were made from Waksal to MS. Waksal took the fall for his daughter and father (the SEC is not even pursuing the insider profits that they made) but do you think that he would not testify against MS if he could?

I can sell a stock in 30 seconds on my computer.

Wow, usually you have to bring up gays or evolution to get this many posts.

I don't like Martha, and I hope she serves some time at Club Fed.
I didn't like Leona Helmsley either.

Basically, they're both guilty of overweening arrogance. Sometimes you have to know when to pretend to be humble and contrite.

Would've worked for Bill Clinton, too.

We live in a country that allows a jury of twelve men/women that have no education about law to convict or excuse MARTHA STEWART> ...DID LIE...WHY? SIMPLY.....SHE GOT GREEDY....GREED IS NOT A CRIME....TELLING A LIE IS NOT A CRIME...IF SHE IS CONVICTED ON THIS SHE WILL BE ADDED TO A LONG LIST OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN PRISON OR CONVICTED ON BEING WHO SHE IS/WHAT SHE IS NOT/WHAT THE PUBLIC DON'T LIKE ABOUT HER. JEALOUSY OF SOMEONE WITH WEALTH IS NOT A CRIME, BUT I FEEL THAT CONVICTING SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE WEALTHY SHOULD BE.
LET US HOLD THE LAWYERS, JUDGES, PROSECUTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TOO, THEY DO THIS EVERYDAY TOO. CHEAT, AND EVEN BRIBE AND PROMISE.
WE COULD JUST IGNORE IT ALL AND IF SHE GOES TO PRISON SHE CAN TEACH UNEDUCATED WOMAN HOW TO DO POTTERY OR SEW A APRON GOING TO PRISON FOR A CRIME YOU DID NOT COMMIT IS NOT A CRIME...YET WE CONVICT PEOPLE EVERYDAY FOR CRIMES THEY DID NOT COMMIT...AND MANY WALK FREE FOR CRIMES THEY DID COMMIT. IN THIS COUNTRY WE ARE TO BE NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVED GUILTY. WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT IN THIS COUNTY MOST PEOPLE HAVE A GREED FOR MONEY. WE THEN PLACE OURSELVES IN POSTIONS THAT WILL HELP US GAIN MORE WEALTH. IN COURT THE SAYING GOES ' BY MEANS AND WEATLH YOU CAN WIN EVEN IF YOU ARE GUILTY, BY NO MEANS AND POOR BE READY FOR THE DOOR TO SLAM ON YOU AND THE KEY TROWN OUT',
OUR COURTS ARE A JOKE....AS ARE THE FORCES HIRED TO CONSTRUCT THEM. POWER PEOPLE.....PEOPLE THAT WANT POWER AND LIKE TO CONTROL PEOPLE. THIS IS SO SAD, TO SEE HOMELESS AND HELPLES STRUGGLE DAY TO DAY...BE CONVICTED DUE TO NO MEANS TO PAY A HIGH DOLLAR ATTORNEY. TO WATCH THE WEALTHY THAT CAN RAPE AND KILL WALK FREE SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE/HE HAS A POCKET FULL GREEN.
PRISON CAN'T BE MADE FUN BUT LET US HIT THE RICH THAT ARE PROVED GUILTY OF A JUST PROVEN CRIME IN THE POCKET AND GIVE TO THE POOR THAT MAY BE INNOCENT BY HAVING THESE MONEYS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT BETTER.

JURIES SHOULD BE OF MEN/WOMAN THAT ARE KNOWLEDGABLE OF LAW AN ORDER..CAN SET ASIDE THIER PERSONAL VIEWS AND NOT BE SWAYED BY ONE PERSON 'THE FORMAN OF THE JURY' TO SAY
INNOCENT OR GUILTY.
NOW......WANT TO REPLY TO THIS?

You're entitled to a jury of your peers--they found her guilty. She was.