Somewhere on the Web it was mentioned that because of her immorality Viacom (in order to maintain their standards) had canceled Martha's show and replaced it with "Janet Jackson Living" aimed at 14-18 year old girls with garment issues.

It's a good thing.

Can someone explain to my why it was well and good to charge Nixon "not for the crime, but for the coverup," but to charge Clinton with nither, and to charge Stewart with only one, but to do so very ambivalently and weepily?

Not defending Martha here. But the substance of this case, outside of true Insider Trading, seems awfully slippery.

1) Federal Investigators (who can do or say virtually anything, including the same lying the accused is now guilty of) can coerce and intimidate witnesses into potentially damning testimony. Two allegedly reasonable people are going to have a presumably factual conversation that can later be used as evidence in a court of law. However, one of the two parties is entitled to lie with impunity, while the other will go to jail for doing the same.

2) These same investigators can scare Martha, et al into lying to cover up the real crime (if there is one here).

So....

3) Try the alleged conspirators for lying but not for the crime you were investigating when they lied to you?

I'm willing to be out in left field here, but the grounds for an appeal should prove interesting.

John, I'm standing right next to you, and I think we have plenty of company. The idea that, outside of a court of law or grand jury under oath, you can be punished for lying to an Official Government Person ™ but the same individual can lie to you with impunity is an outrage.

In most cases, prosecuting someone for lying to a government official is a reasonable thing to do.

Let's take the archtypal situation. There's been a murder and law enforcement has three suspects. One of the suspects, though innocent, lies about where he was at the time of the murder. The result is that law enforcement wastes time, money and manpower chasing down the truth, which, usually, makes it less likely that the real criminal will be apprehended and convicted. Think of it as tacit, albeit unintentional, abetting of a crime.

I think what makes us (other than OJ) queesy (sp?) about prosecuting Martha is that we are uncertain about whether there even was an underlying crime and about whether the government ever thought that there was. Doesn't this give the government a lot of power to create a crime?

To take another hypothetical, suppose that I am a philandering President. A secret service agent, knowing that I was actively philandering at a certain time and thus innocent he's investigating, comes to me and says that he's investigating the illegal leak of protected information. The SS knows that the leak took place at a certain time and wants to know where I was. I lie. The SS agent proves that I was lying. Should I then be prosecuted for the very real crime I was tricked into committing?

David:

I know you believe that businesses and businessmen should be immune from the law, but can you explain how you'd maintain trustworthy markets if insiders are free to trade on inside information?

Actually, it's the other way round. To put it in Rawlsian terms, if asked to choose before knowing whether they would be insiders or outsiders, everyone would choose to let insiders trade. It's taken us seventy years of screwing up to get to the point that we think the market depends on prohibiting insider trading.

David:

Given the overall briliance of your comments here, I can't believe I know something you don't.

It isn't much, though: queasy.

David:

Man, you've got Cato-syndrome bad.

I was astonished to score 54 on the libertarian quiz that's going around the internet.

Thanks, Jeff.

David:

What does it have a whole section on steel tariffs?

Oh, how I long for the halcyon days of steel tariffs, when steel was cheap and easily available.