Dave Smith wrote:
> ScratchMonkey wrote:
>
> > "Fudge" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Au Contraire.... Martha has been a sacrificial lamb. She only
lied and
> > > stole 40K. There are Wall Street crooks out there that filched
> > > billions. Now, the gullible public can safely entrust their cash
to
> > > Wall Street secure in the knowledge the guilty have been
punished.
> >
> > A nice analysis of her "crime":
> >
> > http://harrybrowne.org/articles/MarthaStewart2.htm
> >
> > The real criminals are the federal prosecutors, making big names
for
> > themselves.
>
> Harry Brown certainly has an interesting take on Martha's crime, and
> contrary to what he says, I think it is a crime. The western world's
> economy relies very heavily on the stock market, and the value of
stocks and
> investments should have some credibility to it. Sure, it can be a bit
of a
> crap shoot to invest in some companies. Sometimes you win and
sometimes you
> lose. In Martha's case, as I understand it, she got some inside
information
> that something had happened that was going to make the value of her
stock
> plummet. Accordingly, she dumped it. If the information she had been
privy
> to have been made public, she would have lost a considerable amount
of
> money. Instead, she sold the stock and someone from whom that
important
> information had been withheld lost money. She sold something in what
is
> supposed to be an honest market place, knowing full well that it was
worth
> much less.


You are making the same mistake as many others - the stock sale was NOT
her "crime." Lying to investigators was the "crime." Her prison
sentence had nothing at all to do with whether or not she was guilty of
insider trading.

N.