The latest victim
The New York Times really outdoes itself in the Bullcr*p Department today with its commentaries on the Martha Stewart case. In a front page "News Analysis," some learned law professors remind us that the real reason Martha was prosecuted was because she was a successful woman in the business world.
We also learn that the time-honored prosecutorial practice of standing tough in cases involving high-profile celebrities made Martha a "victim."
It doesn't stop on the front page, either. Back in the Week in Review section, we read that one of the federal statutes that Ms. Stewart was convicted of violating is actually a "remarkable trap."
Shame on the Times (which, by the way, has made lots of money syndicating some of Martha's writings). Martha Stewart engaged in a calculated course of venal, crooked activity, including bald-faced lying, for which she was rightly prosecuted. Her egomania has always bordered on mental illness, and now her detachment from reality appears to have landed her in jail.
The prosecution and the jury are to be congratulated and thanked. Martha Stewart is pitiful, but she has only herself to blame. The true victims are we fools who paid $5 to read the claptrap in today's Times.
UPDATE, 3/8, 2:43 a.m.: On a lighter note, Martha blogs in jail.
| Posted at 10:18 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (7)
Not everyone who lies to the FBI gets prosecuted. Maybe one out of ten does. As a lifelong prosecutor, I can tell you that certain defendants are, as they say in the trade, "The Prize". Famous, arrogant, and powerful, these "prizes" are a refreshing,front-page relief in an otherwise nameless,faceless career of government service. Leona Helmsley comes to mind when you think of someone who the public felt needed a good ass-whupping.
Martha is a 62 year old woman of Polish origin, from Nutley, NJ, and now she appears to be heading to the big house. For my sensibilities, I think that with all of the crime and violence tearing apart our urban settings, the Government could have better invested the $40 million dollars it spent prosecuting Martha on busting up violent gangs or sexual preditors on the Internet. Their self-congratulatory press conference on the steps of the courthouse betrays their shallow quest for "the prize" and their satisfaction in taking a big name down.
Are the streets any safer tonight ? Free Martha.
Posted by brother gary | March 8, 2004 5:28 AM
"Her egomania has always bordered on mental illness, and now her detachment from reality appears to have landed her in jail."
I didn't know you were her psychiatrist JB.
Posted by Jyah13 | March 8, 2004 10:18 AM
When is Bush going to get prosecuted?
Posted by alan | March 8, 2004 10:33 AM
"Not everyone who lies to the FBI gets prosecuted"
well, not everyone who commits a crime gets prosecuted either. In relation to her fortune, what she did to avoid a loss was minimal. However, just because the amount of money she didn't lose didn't mean much to her doesn't mean she should get away with it.
Are the streets safer at night? No. What kind of question is that? Why don't we just stop prosecuting white collar crime altogether? None of it really hurts anyone, right?
The lack of accountibility of CEOs (which is what Martha Stewart is) has been a disaster over the last few years. The government needs to let them know that they are going to be held responsible for ALL their actions, whether they be related to the company they run or not. And that is what Martha Stewart's conviction did.
Posted by Steve | March 8, 2004 10:58 AM
The thing that confuses me about this case is that they charged her with lying about insider trading, but they never charged her with insider trading.
I don't really get that. How can they convict you for lying about a crime that they never proved you committed?
I'm not saying that I think she should go free unless they can convict her of insider trading too (necessarily... I'm too confused to really have an opinion either way). It just seems sorta weird to me.
Like if there was a murder last wednesday, I lie an make up an alibi, later some guy is convicted of the same murder, I can still be tried for lying about the murder? I dunno. Whatever.
Posted by no one in particular | March 8, 2004 10:12 PM
Like if there was a murder last wednesday, I lie an make up an alibi, later some guy is convicted of the same murder, I can still be tried for lying about the murder? I dunno. Whatever.
Part of the investigation centered around whether you were involved in the murder. You weren't, but you did go through the victim's pockets to see if you could grab some spare change. When federal law enforcement asked you about it later, you lied and said you weren't there. And you agreed with some other people who had also been there patting down the victim for valuables that you would all tell the same false story to the federal officers.
It's a sad state of affairs when people think there is any question whether it should be a crime for a suspect to lie to law enforcement officers. You have the right to remain silent. If you're guilty, use it. Better yet, if you did something legal but sleazy and minor, admit to it. That way, you won't go to jail like Martha or be impeached like Bubba.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 8, 2004 10:40 PM
I would also add that prison contains a certain number of other people whose custody is largely irrelevant to the safety of the streets. Prison is not made up of murderers and Martha Stewart.
One of my old college professors used to say that the thing about prison is that 80 percent of the people there probably don't need to be there and the other 20 percent should never be allowed to leave.
Posted by Alli | March 9, 2004 2:46 PM