Turow wrote a great piece on Martha in the Times today.

[AP]

I've argued the same exact thing here with little success. It was a relief to read this article today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/opinion/27TURO.html?hp

{Stewart apologists} repeatedly noted that Ms. Stewart was charged only with lying after the fact about the stock sale, but not with securities fraud for the transaction itself. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for example, said there "was something strange about prosecuting someone for obstructing justice over a crime that the government doesn't claim happened." And some feminists have suggested that Ms. Stewart was being penalized for being a powerful woman.

I don't buy any of it. What the jury felt Martha Stewart did — lying about having received inside information before she traded — is wrong, really wrong. And the fact that so many on Wall Street have unashamedly risen to her defense is galling — galling because what she did actually harms the market. Wall Street leaders should be expressing chagrin that a corporate tycoon — who was also a member of the New York Stock Exchange board — could feel free to fleece an unwitting buyer.

Virtually everybody who takes Ms. Stewart's side conveniently ignores the fact that there was some poor schmo (or schmoes) out there who bought her shares of ImClone. Those buyers, no matter how diligent, no matter how much market research they read, no matter how many analysts' reports they studied, could not have known what Martha Stewart did: that the Waksal family was dumping shares. In my book, that's fraud. Martha Stewart ripped her buyers off as certainly as if she'd sold them silk sheets that she knew were actually synthetic.

...

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the whole case, to me anyway, is how the arguments in defense of Ms. Stewart show a widespread mentality that is all too comfortable with unwarranted privilege. It is yet another example of how justice is very different for the rich and poor.

...

To be sure, Martha Stewart, Peter Bacanovic and their lawyers have every right to complain loud and long about allegedly perjured testimony. But like most of the caterwauling that has gone on in this case, these cries of outrage cannot change the fundamental facts. The jury convicted her not because of anything Larry Stewart said, but for the reason juries are supposed to: there was solid proof that Martha Stewart deliberately violated common standards of honesty and decency, and lied about it when she was caught. And it is only the privilege the law sometimes extends to the well-to-do that explains why she was not convicted of more.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Let's see him say the same thing about GOP donors who break laws

Then I'll consider that Martha Stewart is an evil, evil woman.

--bkl

[AP]

2. Oh, lord.

This isn't about being evil. It's about justice.

Reread the article (or read it a first time if you haven't yet).

[Dogmudgeon]

23. I read the article

I've read several articles about this.

Yes, it's wrong that the rich should get a pass on so much financial manipulation and crime. But this is a matter of a class of crime, and the structure of our laws.

Martha Stewart is being selectively punished. Selective punishment is injustice. It does not exonorate her for her particular misdeed, only as the recipient of the harshest punishment in its class for which nearly all other violators -- even those found guilty -- go free.

Martha Stewart was high-visibility, the hipsters hated her, and she was a major Democratic fund raiser. The perfect target for an emotionally-satisfying takedown.

Justice would compel the laws to be changed a.s.a.p. to prevent anyone from profiting from manipulation (which I define to include insider trading).

Since Stewart was first charged, how many of those laws have even been scrutinzed by our lawmakers? If you divide that by the number of Martha-Stewart-redecorating-her-prison-cell jokes told at the New York Improv alone, that's the proportion of outrage I will give to her crime -- and the reciprocal, the proportion of outrage I will give to her punishment.

--bkl

[AP]

26. She has been selectively COVERED by the media. Read the news...

...dozens of white collar criminals are being tried today.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

42. For whatever it's worth

I checked out Scott Turow on www.newsmeat.com (he's from Illinois if you want to check it yourself) and he's been an extremely generous supporter of Democratic candidates -- on a par with Martha herself.

[phantom power]

3. It seems to me that

people aren't so much defending Martha, as they are saying "hey, there are many CEOs who've embezzled thousands of times as much as she did, and they are getting off scot-free. Why not turn your attention to those people?"

[AP]

4. They're also saying, "this is such a small thing, why prosecute her at...

all?"

[Generator]

7. Well yeah it's that

and some of the most anti-Martha people I came across have just not been "my type" of people. Kind of the law and order types, which I'm not. So it's kinda turned my mind in the other direction. I know this is a non-sequitor and all that, but really this woman in jail proves, shows, does nothing. Insider trading will contine unabated, and even though much of the time, especially as a "homemaker" myself, Martha Stewart irritates the crap out of me, but when I feel sorry for someone, I go with it. It's what makes me a bleeding heart liberal.

Free Martha.

[AP]

11. Turow is no "law and order" type. He was on that panel which advised the

IL Gov to drop the death penalty.

[AP]

43. ...and Turrow's a big donor to the Democratic party (see post 42)

[BillZBubb]

5. This article is bullshit!

Any time someone dismisses perjured testimony that was key to the conviction as incidental, my bullshit meter gets red-zoned.

Add to that the fact that a juror lied about his criminal background and several jurors thought they were convicting her for "insider trading" (but that wasn't even a charge) and any reasonable person would question the entire trial.

[AP]

10. Read the article. The guy was acquitted on the charge to which that

evidence related.

[BillZBubb]

27. That's really comforting. NOT.

The fact is, that testimony worked as corroboration of a coverup. Even though it was shown to be shaky by the defense, it added another circumstance that the jury could buy into in general.

Certainly you realize how juries can be swayed by issues not even entered as evidence? If not, I am wasting my time. Something actually entered into evidence, even if not certain but plausible, can have a huge impact.

You remain totally wrong on this.

[AP]

30. The jury rejected the evidence on that point. They didn't believe it.

They didn't convict him of having changed the number. Perhaps they sensed the prosecution's witness was untrustworthy?

The believed other evidence, however.

As Turow points out there was a special verdict that itemized everything the jury believed and didnt' believe.

If they didn't believe the evidence that would have convicted the guy of changing the number, how could they have then used what they didn't believe to convict them of other charges?

[AP]

32. Here's what Turow said about that:

Now the government has indicted Larry F. Stewart, the laboratory director for the Secret Service, with lying when he testified that he examined a list of Ms. Stewart's holdings prepared by Mr. Bacanovic and determined that a notation "@ 60" had been written in a different ink from other entries on the page — suggesting that the document had been altered to bolster their claim about the agreement. (The problem, according to the government, is that Mr. Stewart's subordinates had actually performed the analysis.)

As troubling as this is, the fact is that Mr. Bacanovic was acquitted of altering the document in question. Thus the prosecutors insist that the new perjury charges shouldn't lead to overturning the verdicts. More important, the jury returned what is called a "special verdict." That is, they did not merely find Ms. Stewart and Mr. Bacanovic guilty, but indicated on their verdict form exactly which lies they found the two had told. The list included Ms. Stewart's testimony that she didn't recall speaking to Mr. Bacanovic's assistant, Douglas Faneuil, on the day the stock was sold. (Mr. Faneuil testified that he had called her to warn her that the stock was about to collapse.)

See, the jury said that there wasn't evidence to convict Baconovic for changing the number. He's not guilty of that. But they believed Faneuil that he gave Stewart the heads up and that Stewart sold on that call.

What more do you need? They believed that she lied to investigators trying to cover up the fact that she sold as a result to the call. She had nothing to do with changing the number -- that was Bacanovic, so all the things she lied about are completely independent of that alteration. She was asked point blank questions and she claimed that she had an existing sell order. That was a total lie, the jury decided.

Do you believe she had an existing sell order? Or do you believe she sold based on the inside information?

[Insider]

6. selective prosecution

my issue with this case is, and always has been, selective prosecution. there is no reasonable standard in play when we spend valuable resources on stewart, and nothing so far on ken lay.

in fact, i'm researching now the selective prosecution of "corporate-types" in the last three years. what states, what political affiliation, which prosecuters, etc.

i think the bush-rove machine is giving the green light for attack on everyone BUT their buds. they get the headlines they think america wants ("tough on corporate greed"), but none of the embarassing risk of (fairly) sending away some of their own.

oh, and by the way, SPEEDING is morally wrong too since a driver puts us all at risk.

(edit fot typo)

[bleedingheart]

8. You know what really makes me mad about this case?

While I agree that what she did was wrong and she should serve her time or pay a penalty, I think that this case shows how easily people can be diverted away from the bigger fish.

Funny how Ken Lay has yet to do the perp walk?? In fact a recent NPR broadcast (few months ago), insinuated that he may never do the perp walk because they are still amassing data.... amassing data???? the man robbed people of their nest eggs!!! and he will walk free I guarantee it...in fact I bet he never goes to trial.

Corporate boards are committing greater frauds than Martha did and yet they are going unnoticed... To be honest I felt that this case was a "show trial"...so that federal lawyers could pat themselves on the back on camera and tell Joe Q. Public..."looky here...we got Martha and knocked her off her damask pedestal".

Martha committed a crime with her private earnings. She didn't defraud the investors of Martha Stewart Inc. She didn't dash her employee pensions on the rocks or cause the investment crisis that looms over Wall Street right now. If anything Martha Stewart actually created something...she had a company that had a product. Enron on the other hand....they were a broker they had nothing...and they had to rig their books to make themselves look better/more substantial while they were fleecing investors....

Let us be honest, if we really intended to lock up all the criminals who are guilty of Martha's crime we might as well build a prison fence around the high rent districts of Manhattan.

[AP]

12. The media ignores the World Com trial and all the other ones which

undermine the markets.

That doesn't it make it wrong that Stewart was convicted.

[bleedingheart]

14. yeah but it is pathetic...

typically when resources are tight which they always are at the federal level they plea out the small stuff...like Martha...she would have paid a fine it would have gotten a bit of air time and be done.

They wasted my tax dollars going after her and it pisses me off when their are far bigger fish getting away with far more serious crimes.

She was guilty but the government was guilty of overkill.

[AP]

17. That's the attitude Turow is criticizing.

Two justice systems. One for the rich and one for the poor. If we'd throw a guy in jail for stealing a $50 watch, we definitely have time to prosecute someone who STOLE $50,000 from investors.

[nomatrix]

9. In this new world order of justice

you are finally vindicated. The FemiNazi lost her show and is about to do time for a stock tip.

Go post with the Freepers.

[nomatrix]

13. You say you concern is with justice

go serve on a jury. They are starved for jurist. I just finish a week.

There are real crimes going unpunished everyday. Jails are over crowded and our tax dollars pay for them. This case displayed the most twisted logic ever. Letting the bankrobber go and the penny candy thief do the perp walk.

[bleedingheart]

16. my thoughts exactly...

[AP]

18. Oh, lord, oh, lord. Did you read the article. Since whenn is stealing $50K

NOT a REAL crime?

[sangh0]

19. And some of that money came from people who have less than Martha

It's not like she was some kind of Robin Hood.

[AP]

21. Thank you. In fact, you can bet that her broker wasn't protecting

the portfolios of the doctors out in Iowa or the first generation college graduate lawyers from North Carolina.

They were protecting their super-powerful clients by selling their soon to be less valuable shares to people farther down the chain of wealth and power.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. Martha was busted becasue she's a Dem & a Woman and didn't kiss-up

n/t

[AP]

20. That's delusional. She was charged and convicted of a crime she

committed.

The media might have played it up for those reasons you state (and is ignoring the WordCom trial and the Enron guilty pleas to protect Republicans).

But that's not a good reason to apologize for Stewart.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

25. My mom is a Dem, a woman, and she doesn't kiss up to anybody

but they didn't prosecute her for anything.

[dsc]

24. I do have one major problem with the perjured testimony

How do I know that the rest of the case is untainted? If the prosecuter put on one liar why not two? or five?

[tishaLA]

47. Indeed. And if we have one lying juror,

what are the possibilities of others? And even though they didn't convict on the @60 notation, how do we know that didn't have an effect on the way the jury viewed the other evidence (because, as with most cases, testimony is cumulative)? And why didn't the prosecution reveal what it KNEW was false testimony at the time of the trial--because they knew Larry Stewart was lying and that he hadn't personally examined the document? Why did jurors talk about Ken Lay after the trial and about a "victory for the little guy" when that was patently NOT what Ms. Stewart's trial was about, but was indeed what the popular press coverage concerned?

It's all dubious.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. I want to see Ken Lay do his time

it is only just. Fuck this Martha Stewart small time peanuts bullshit celebrity lynching. If she had held onto her stock she'd be richer for the investment today.
There is no proof anyone got hurt by her actions other than Martha Stewart.

[AP]

29. Read what Turow says about "nobody getting hurt." People who steal $50

watches and shit like that go to jail every day. Who gets hurt from doing that? Watch sellers. We still take theft seriously.

Stewart stole $50K from people who didn't have the information she had. And then she lied about it. Both parts of that should be a crime. She got away with the theft part because the government didn't want to go for that one. She's lucky she was only convicted of the second part.

[Pobeka]

34. I don't give a hoot about thieves, when murderers are afoot.

This is about where to put law enforcement resources, and the priority should be the most heinous offenders.

Go after Ken Lay first -- he's done WAAAAYYY more damage than Martha.

[AP]

37. Well, if Martha isn't heinous enough, then lets clear the dockets of EVERY

crime that is worth $50,000 or less.

What do you own that you're willing to let people go unpunished for stealing so that you can show simpatico with all the little criminals, like Stewart?

[Pobeka]

39. That's not the only issue.

We have to consider deterence. If everyone knew they could drive 5 miles per hour over the speed limit and not get a ticket, then they would -- oh, hey they do ;-)

So there must be some balancing across the board, for the greater societal good, or we'd have common criminals ruling the street, and wall street would be clean.

AP, thanks for this discussion, but I'm really tired and need to get some sleep. I'll check in on this thread tomorrow to see what else you have to say.

Cheers!

[AP]

40. Oh, don't worry about the speeders. They're definitely not going to ...

get prosecuted. We're only worried about crimes worth over $50K.

[Cleita]

31. I haven't read the answers to this post, but I will say

again that our Prez did the same thing Martha did with Harken Energy. He never lied about it under oath because charges were never brought up to cause him to lie under oath. He did sell two-thirds of his Harken stock a couple of weeks before it crashed. So I still think Martha is being boiled in oil, if you don't mind me saying so.

[AP]

33. Bush actually was an insider to the corp he sold stock in.

So even if he didn't lie about it under investigation, he could still have been convicted as an inside trader.

Now, doesn't everyone agree that we shouldn't look away when this happens?

And I have to emphasize that their are court dockets across the country filled with cases like Stewart's but Stewart's is the only one that got the media attention.

That shouldn't make her innocent.

[Pobeka]

35. Martha is not president. Bush is. Bush ran on "integrity".

... and we all know the standard that Clinton was held to. Bush failed to meet that standard, and deserves to be called on his "integrity." The point here is that Bush is a common criminal, and the general public needs to know. Not the same deal at all with Martha.

Again, I'm not saying what Martha did was right, it is a matter of relative importance.

[AP]

36. I was only making a comment on the crimes they committed.

Or, in Bush's case, probably committed.

And again, Turow is writing about the perception of "relative imporance" -- to many here, relative importance means Stewart's $50K should go unpunished because we're not punishing Lay's billion dollar crime.

To Turow, who was a prosecutor, he says, if we're going to send people to jail DAILY for committing $50 crimes, then we damn well better take Stewart's $50K crime seriously.

[Pobeka]

38. I understand your point. But I think it makes the "relative importance"

... even more important. I can't take the argument of Turow's that 50,000 vs 50 is why we have to go after Martha, and yet "Kenny Boy" gets a free ride when he got away with 100 (1000?) times more than Martha, and unjustly damaged so many more lives.

Ken Lay should be one of the Democratic Party's poster boys, in my opinion.

[AP]

41. So you only want to relate things in one direction? You still haven't...

...convinced me that only the relative difference between Stewart and Law matters.

I really don't know how we could claim our justice system has any legitimacy when we tell the million or so people we throw in jail for crimes which have much less financial impact on society that we're not going to go after martha because we care more about how her case relates to the worst case ever of finacial impropriety (of course nothing compares to Enron!) than we care about how it relates to the thousands of people we try every day for property crimes worth less than 100 dollars.

[Cleita]

44. Financial impact isn't the point here. The point is that if they

throw the book at Martha, a person everyone knows, and who basically represents all those low financial impact criminals, then shouldn't Bush and Ken Lay be wearing orange jump suits for committing basically the same crime for lots more money? Instead they have gotten away with it, and have not even gotten their wrists slapped. Neither Martha nor any of those other criminals should be tried and convicted until the criminal-in-chief and his buddy, Ken Lay are tried in a court of law just like Martha and company.

On edit also it appears that maybe Martha didn't lie and the person who said she did is the actual liar. He's changed his story a couple of times, which ruins his credibility.

[AP]

45. They didn't throw the book at her.

They even gave her several chances to plea.

And the fact is we do put millions of people in jail for crimes much less serious than theft of $50,000 dollars.

I really don't know how you can say to all those people that Martha isn't worth going after.

[Cleita]

46. If Martha is guilty she should be tried, but my point is that

so should the President, Ken Lay and anyone else should also be put on trial for the same crime, even if it's only a small amount. Other than that the justice is selective and as long as Bush and Lay are walking around free, neither she nor anyone else should be put on trial until they are.

[AP]

49. Do you feel better that Ebbers is being tried. How 'bout if we say that ..

....it's OK that Martha was tried an convicted since Ebbers is being tried, (and since we put in jail so many poor people who do so much less).

[msmcghee]

48. Interesting thread, but there's another point . .

. . to consider.

Underlying the whole Martha Stewart debacle - is the obvious truth that insider trading happens all the time in ways that are impossible to prove. If the information had been passed in person rather than by telephone and both parties denied it there would be no case. Does anyone doubt that such information doesn't get traded every day over cocktails? Perhaps just a hint, an innuendo - and it's done. And like most other types of market crime, it thrives in an old-boy type of network where confidences are never broken and crimes are never reported.

Insider trading laws are a farce. Like tax cheating, only the little people get caught (or for the occasional political enemy). They are there to convince the unconnected investor that the stock market is abov-board and free of such devices. It is their money that is the target of the inside traders and they want access to lots of it.

It would be better to admit that insiders will take advantage and the justice department has no real ability to stop them - and everybody else is on their own - because that's the truth. Unfortunately, people would be much less likely to place their money at such risk. So, we have the farce of insider trading laws that occasionally punish political opponents that are outside the good-ole-boy network.

Edited to change subject line. I first said the thread misses the point. That's not right. This is just another point.

[AP]

50. Insider trading laws are a farce because, as Turow notes, they wouldn't

even have clearly have addressed what Stewart did, and they should have, and because white collar criminals are so lawyered up and rich, that unless there is really clear evidence (eg, ebbers) they don't get tried.

The thing with Stewart -- if you had read the NY'er article a couple weeks abot -- was that she was really brazen, got bad advice, didn't prep for her meeting with the FBI, and persisted in telling lies because she thought she'd get away with it.

In other words, she gave the prosecution all the evidence they needed, which is unusual.