| I can't help but think that Martha Stewart was railroaded in her recent case. After all, the amount of money involved was miniscule by her standards. It would be likened to Joe average getting convicted for his pocket change. Surely the temptation was there and she acted on it. Surely she lied about it. ....... But surely there are far more corrupt individuals on wall street ... and where are the investigations in those cases. I contend that Martha, liked or not, Corrupted or not was never a danger to wall street or the American public and was held up as a sacraficial lamb by prosecutors that would further their careers rather than admit this was a minor incident. What truly did she do wrong? She acted on a tip. Most of wall street does this every day and gets away with it. She lied about it mostly to save embarrassment. Most of wall street would lie and never be embarrassed. It's a way of life. It's a fact of life. Why didn't they just ask for the money back plus a fine and bar her from trading? Was her crime greater than the S&L scandels or the Enron debacle? Where is the perspective here? | |
