YES!! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/05/2004 04:40:57 PM · #2

Deep fry that old hag!! LOL Hheheheheeheeee

Originally posted by dsray:

Martha - Guilty on all four counts. I'm not usually wishing bad for people but, damn she had it comming.

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

03/05/2004 04:45:06 PM · #3

Yeah but the Federal Prison she most likely will get sentenced to is probably nicer than my house!

Russell2566

03/05/2004 04:46:51 PM · #4

I'm glad our government spent so much money on something that was so meaningless...

It's good to see them go after the famous like a regular person, but this was over kill...

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

03/05/2004 05:07:39 PM · #5

One of the "counts" was obstruction of justice - for protesting her innocence. (!) Welcome to John Ashcroft's Amerika.

Interesting that the Ashcroft Justice Department went after Martha Stewart, a well-known Democratic Party donator, for white collar crimes a million times smaller than those of Ken Lay, yet Rush Limbaugh the drug trafficker remains on the air. If Rush were poor and black, he would already be in prison for at least 30 years.

Before we celebrate the administration of "justice" in this country, I think there's "some serious 'splainin' to do, Lucy."

MadMordegon

03/05/2004 05:35:47 PM · #6

i say put her away and give all her money to greenpeace.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

03/05/2004 05:44:55 PM · #7

.........and that's a good thing!!

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

03/05/2004 05:46:07 PM · #8

Originally posted by buzzrock:

Yeah but the Federal Prison she most likely will get sentenced to is probably nicer than my house!

If it's not already it will be before she leaves.

dsray

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

03/05/2004 05:50:52 PM · #9

Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by buzzrock:
Yeah but the Federal Prison she most likely will get sentenced to is probably nicer than my house!

If it's not already it will be before she leaves.

LOL LOL

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/05/2004 05:55:01 PM · #10

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Interesting that the Ashcroft Justice Department went after Martha Stewart, a well-known Democratic Party donator, for white collar crimes a million times smaller than those of Ken Lay, yet Rush Limbaugh the drug trafficker remains on the air. If Rush were poor and black, he would already be in prison for at least 30 years.

Yeah, yeah, it must be that she is a Democrate supporter and not the fact that the jury found her guilty on ALL COUNTS. I guess John Ashcroft also must have planted those jury members also? Get over your great-right-wing-conspericy-theory ideas.

Rush Limbaugh isn't a drug trafficker! What the hell are you talking about, he's a person with drug problem, and was addicted pills. People like you who further the rift between whites and blacks by saying "if he were black he would be in prison right now.." and the worst kind of hate mongers in this country. Most people are trained to instantly agree with a racist statement like this, but I'm going to point it out and turn the tables on people who do this, when ever I see/hear it. If anything a "nobody" probably would never have been put through what Limbaugh was for simply being addicted to something.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/05/2004 06:02:14 PM · #11

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

If anything a "nobody" probably would never have been put through what Limbaugh was for simply being addicted to something.

I agree Rush wasn't a trafficker, but I work everyday with people who are put through H*** "simply for being addicted" to the wrong substance. He is receiving both priviledged treatment and increased scrutiny because of his celebrity. Unfortunately, US drug laws have little to do with the actual physical/medical effects of the substances involved, and everything to do with economics and "special interests."

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/05/2004 06:16:08 PM · #12

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

One of the "counts" was obstruction of justice - for protesting her innocence. (!) Welcome to John Ashcroft's Amerika.

Actually it was obstruction of justice because it was proven she tampered with some documents. I bet If I did the same thing Ashcroft would be all over my @ss, and I haven't given a dime to the democratic party!

MadMordegon

03/05/2004 06:52:38 PM · #13

what do you do exactly general?

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

03/05/2004 08:00:22 PM · #14

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

]

Yeah, yeah, it must be that she is a Democrate supporter and not the fact that the jury found her guilty on ALL COUNTS. I guess John Ashcroft also must have planted those jury members also? Get over your great-right-wing-conspericy-theory ideas.

What I'm saying is that Ashcroft can indict anyone he so desires. As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. The question I posed is not did she do something wrong - evidently she DID. The question is why HER - when there are so many other bigger , but better connected fish to fry?

Rush Limbaugh isn't a drug trafficker! What the hell are you talking about, he's a person with drug problem, and was addicted pills.

I would suggest that you not get your information about Rush Limbaugh's guilt from Rush Limbaugh! :D

When you buy $100,000 of controlled substance drugs without a prescription from people who aren't pharmacists it's called drug trafficking with intent to sell. When you bribe people $200,000 not to rat you out to the cops it's - well, I'm not sure, but its along the lines of felony obstruction, etc.

People like you who further the rift between whites and blacks by saying "if he were black he would be in prison right now.." and the worst kind of hate mongers in this country.

Hardly - I'm just telling the truth about our prison system. In fact, about one half of the two million people locked up in jail in our country (the most of ANY country, now, in the world) are there on drug charges, and most of them ARE black. And, BTW, lots of them just for buying - even for personal use when they had an addiction problem.

I am no hate mongerer and resent your accusation and your unneeded personal attack. I suggest you take a look into the many available writings available on the two simultaneous systems of justice we have in this country - the one for the poor, and the one for the monied. It will bring you to tears.

The statement is not racist - the system is racist.

Most people are trained to instantly agree with a racist statement like this, but I'm going to point it out and turn the tables on people who do this, when ever I see/hear it. If anything a "nobody" probably would never have been put through what Limbaugh was for simply being addicted to something.

Rush wasn't simply addicted. He broke a lot of laws, laws which have put MANY less well-connected people into jail immediately and for long sentences.

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 20:11:04.

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

03/05/2004 08:09:08 PM · #15

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
One of the "counts" was obstruction of justice - for protesting her innocence. (!) Welcome to John Ashcroft's Amerika.

Actually it was obstruction of justice because it was proven she tampered with some documents. I bet If I did the same thing Ashcroft would be all over my @ss, and I haven't given a dime to the democratic party!

I have not read anything about the trial outcome, so let me just say this:

Ashcroft DID charge Stewart with obstruction of justice simply for protesting her innocence during questioning. It was the first time in living memory outside of a Kafka novel that any reporter could remember anything so notorious, and quite a big deal was made of it at the time.

What has happened to that charge, and how that relates to the document of which you speak, I don't know.

And hey, I don't think you would have much to worry about even if you DID do something like what Stewart did - it happens hundreds of times a day, evidently. Look at what Enron, WorldCom, etc got away with for years :(

W.R.Miller

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/05/2004 08:31:22 PM · #16

Okay, she got some information that said that her stock was going to go to the shits if she didn't sell. What was she supposed to do? Sit and watch it go to shits? I think only a real idiot would know they were going to loose lots of money and just watch it go. What was she supposed to do? It isn't her fault that someone told her that something was going to happen. Is that how the stock market works? If you find out something is coming up and do something to protect yourself you go to jail?

So what? She protected her assets. Anyone with a little bit of brains would do the same.

And NO! I don't like Martha Stuart but I think the US government should have better things to do. So what if she is guilty? Fine her and let her go free.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/05/2004 09:03:29 PM · #17

The person who illegally gave her the info about her stock tanking also went down today.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/05/2004 09:56:36 PM · #18

Originally posted by wackybill:

Yes that is exactly how the stock market works ... if you have information about a company not known to the general public and trade stocks based on that information you are guilty of "insider trading" and essentially defrauding the other stockholders. If she'd gotten a tip that FDA was going to rule the other way and snapped up another 50,000 shares before the stock spiked (and made a ton of profit) and then lied about it she'd be just as guilty.

Part of the "facts of life" in the stock market is that sometimes you will lose money ... that's the gamble you take in exchange for a huge possible upside.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/05/2004 10:05:20 PM · #19

it isn't over, and the sentencing isn't until june i think.

they will go to appeals court, and the whole process will start again, odds are she'll get off, or a lesser sentence, possible just a fine.

listen to NPR

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

03/05/2004 10:09:34 PM · #20

Originally posted by soup:

No doubt her lawyers have been working on her appeal for sometime.

MadMordegon

03/05/2004 10:15:09 PM · #21

speaking of NPR. those of you living in tampa FL do you listen to NPR? it is probably the best version of NPR ive heard. there shows that air around noon to 2pm daily are so truthfull i have a hardtime understanding how its on public radio for all to hear..

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/05/2004 10:23:50 PM · #22

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by wackybill:
Okay, she got some information that said that her stock was going to go to the shits if she didn't sell. What was she supposed to do? Sit and watch it go to shits? I think only a real idiot would know they were going to loose lots of money and just watch it go. What was she supposed to do? It isn't her fault that someone told her that something was going to happen. Is that how the stock market works? If you find out something is coming up and do something to protect yourself you go to jail?

Yes that is exactly how the stock market works ... if you have information about a company not known to the general public and trade stocks based on that information you are guilty of "insider trading" and essentially defrauding the other stockholders. If she'd gotten a tip that FDA was going to rule the other way and snapped up another 50,000 shares before the stock spiked (and made a ton of profit) and then lied about it she'd be just as guilty.

Part of the "facts of life" in the stock market is that sometimes you will lose money ... that's the gamble you take in exchange for a huge possible upside.

I guess I'm a nit picker but I don't think the standard of the law is "information about a company not known to the general public." I think the standard is privileged information not yet publically known. The problem here wasn't that the decision of the FDA was about to be negative; the problem lies in the concept of "privileged" information. If Martha had gleaned from any number of publically knowable signs that the FDA was going to torpedo IMClone then it would have been her legal right (and many would argue a financial responsibility to herself) to divest herself of said stock. Because the heads up came from someone who was legally required to not share the information he had and she then chose to act on that same information, she broke a federal law. As stupid as it seems the stock market is a risk venture. What Stewart should have done according to US law was to inform someone from the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) that she had received insider information regarding a stock and then take her financial bath along with the rest of the investors.

As for the value of pursuing her I'm glad the a prominent person with excessive amounts of money has been tried and convicted. I'm also glad that this very week some people from Enron have been indicted and will be tried but I, too, still see inequality in how some politicos are able to use powerful personal contacts as shields. I don't know that VP Cheny is guilty of fraud, extortion, collusion, racketeering or any of a number of other crimes that I would tend to think might be involved in a high-ranking politician being involved with a major industry like power. I do know that any investigation into his experiences and choices has been completely off-limits during his tenure in the White House. While he's innocent until proven guilty I do think that this falls very close to a double-standard as few other American citizens could simply say "I don't wanna have to come to trial" and get away with it. It isn't like he pled the Fifth Amendment, he simply never had to testify before Congress regarding his involvement with major energy businesses nor his financial gains as an officer and consultant for the same. Likewise, if his office is to be a shield then why wasn't President Clinton's office a satisfactory shield behind which to hide while in office? I mean, sure he did have some inappropriate interaction with an intern (where I grew up we called it adultery whether you stuck the whole cigar in or just ran it around the edges). Regardless, it isn't a perfect system but it seems to work on some levels and one thing that you can definitely say in regards to this thread: whether she did profit from insider information or not, Martha Stewart was found guilty of that count today. Ostensibly, if she hadn't acted as she did, she wouldn't have to worry about being found guilty (although its not like no innocent people have ever been incarcerated).

"Just think happy thoughts . . . ."

Kev

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/05/2004 10:33:03 PM · #23

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

I agree, I put it in less precise terms, although I think we agree in the overall concept.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

03/05/2004 10:33:50 PM · #24

Martha Stuart possibly going to jail, Michel Jackson possibly molesting young boys, Janet Jackson showing off a boob, Rush Limbaugh Hooked on oxicontin, Howard Stern possibly getting kicked off the airways. WOW! The times we live in, they are amazing.

Or is it just another year in the life of America.

We should all bow our heads in shameâ�¦

jm