-
Martha Stewart might have been given info to sell her stock before the stock's value crashed.
My question is, what was she supposed to do once she was given the advice?
NOT TAKE THE ADVICE???? Just pretend she never got the advice and watch her stock tumble?
If the information was freely given to her, and she did not in any way ask for it or demand it, what has she done wrong?
The answer, nothing.
So why is she under investigation?
It's Clinton all over again.
It's about Lying. But Lying about what? Lying about a situation that will make a public figure look bad.
NOT BECAUSE THEY BROKE A LAW!
This is More News fodder to entertain the masses. The key to this situation is how does the Department of Justice go after the person who gave out the stock tips without proof from those recieiving the stock tips?
Since they can't build a case without Martha Stewart fingering her friend, Martha Stewart now may face Insider Trader charges.
I think it's a joke. Martha Stewart should not be forced to answer such questions in the first place. If she didn't solicit illegal stock information, she shouldn't be tried for not revealing this information when asked for it by federal officials.
Martha Stewart should only be investigated if she had previously been notified about the illegalities of insider trading and had agreed to not partake in such activities.
-
i'm beating you in post count
-
Yes, but I make my posts count.
-
your posts would be nothing without my posts [img]tongue.gif[/img]
-
Your the posted with the mosted.
-
i'll never hear the end of that, eh [img]tongue.gif[/img]
-
Ah, you made the connection. A pretty clever pun, actually. Only you and me will connect it to elsewhere.
Should I have titled this topic post Martha Stewart is indigent.
-
no, you shoulda entitled it:
ALEX MAKES JOKE
-
Martha Stewart was solicted to invest in a company and the primary criteria for investing was the personal relationship she had had with the owner of the company of the stock she invested in.
The cessation of her investment should be allowed to occur in the same environment that led to the initial investment, if it was casual in, then it can be casual out.
What I find strange about the trial against Martha Stewart is that Martha Stewart would have convicted herself if she had answered the federal investigators questions about the actions of others.
It seems that the verdict against Martha Stewart stems from her not divulging information that would help convict another, yet there was no way for Martha to give that information without indicting/convicting herself.
Unless Martha Stewart was offered immunity in exchange for her testimony, this verdict is a sham.
Just my opinion.
-
Well, I still say Martha is innocent because what she did was behave in the only way she could have for the situation she was in.
