The Gantry Launchpad

I am completely floored by terrible reasoning I've seen in this thread!

Big Dan: "she very clearly did the crime..." "Her crime in particular may have cost more to prosecute than her crime in particular was worth. However, if you DON'T prosecute insider trading, ..." (Dan seems to think that Stewart is in jail for insider trading) "She did the crime. She deserves punishment..."

Vickie: "Point remains she was convicted of a federal crime..." "...I have absolutely no pity whatsoever for her. I still maintain she got off about as scott-free as you can get." (emphasis added)

Ach: "One of the interesting problems is her 'crime.' I understand why it (insider trading? whatever) is considered a crime." (Ach apparently thinks that Stewart is in jail for the insider trading charge)

Catch 22: "She chose lying."

theinfamousj: "She did commit a crime. The thing that makes insider trading illegal..." (theinfamouj also seems to think that Stewart is in jail for insider trading)

Has no one sat down and worked through the events here?

-Martha Stewart was arrested and charged with insider trading.

-The prosecution could not build a case around what they had. Recall that the jury did not find her guilty of insider trading.

-Somewhere during her interviews, she lied to a Federal agent. BTW, can anyone tell me -specifically- what she lied about? I do know that she was not under oath at the time.

-The Feds could not build a real case against her, so to save face (not to mention indulge in a bit of petty vengence) they decided to prosecute her on what is in truth a bullshit charge. Since most folks who end up on important-case juries don't have the collective IQ of a clam, much less a backbone, they passively digested the instructions spoon-fed to them, and found her guilty.

Here's the point, boys and girls; there's this lovely little law that lying to a Federal agent (or any Federal representative, if memory serves) is a felony, even if that person is not under oath.

Here's an example: a man is questioned by the FBI for something they're investigating at his workplace. One of the routine questions is where he was on a particular evening, or weekend. Recall that our joe is not under oath. Let's also say that joe was cheating on the missus (or mister, whatever) and fibbed about where he was: something irrelevant the investigation.

Now normally this isn't too much of a problem, but suppose the Feds think our joe can be useful. They want him, basically, to spy for them. Our joe, being the practical sort, says "uhh, no thanks!," but this doesn't make the G-men happy.

They say "joe, we know you've lied to our agents. If we choose to prosecute, you will be charged with a felony, and we will convict you."

What's our joe supposed to do?

Now call me silly and old-fashioned, but there's a name for this: blackmail. Just because Federal agents are playing the game doesn't make it right. That law is nothing more than a bullshit way to wiggle past constitutional rights such as due process, or double jeapordy. It's a kind of catch-all to which Feds can resort when they don't have a real case against someone.

Want a real-life example? I have a near-parallel to hand: Bill Clinton testified -under oath- that he didn't have sex with Monical Lewinsky. Despite what your personal position (Donk, Derm, for or against) in point of fact Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Perjury is a felony, last I heard.

This made Bill Clinton subject to impeachment and prosecution. Quite a few conservative/Republicans feel that lying under oath -for whatever reason- is not acceptable behavior for the President of the United States. I'm not talking about just the Clinton-haters here; Lord only knows the number of odd looks I got here in Southwestern Ohio when I tried to point out the ethical problems of how Starr caught him in that lie. These folks have very simple (but not simple-minded) rules. In this case, "the sumbitch lied, throw him in jail!"

But here's the problem: what the devil does Clinton humping anyone have to do with the Whitewater investigation!? Somebody answer that for me, please? What does the location of the "Willy" penis in 1996 have to do with land deals in Arkansas before Clinton got elected? Did he hide confidential memos inside of Monica? What?

As I said, I'm a kinda old-fashioned guy. In this case it means I think that a prosecution should stay on some sort of track that is remotely related to the original charge.

In other words, no fishing expeditions. The Lewinsky affair (heh!) had nothing to do with Whitewater, except that Kevin Starr was a tremendous woody to nail the President. Add your own disgusting speculations here. :)

Clinton was, in fact, more guilty than Stewart. He committed a recognizable crime (perjury). Stewart's only crime (the only one they could convict her of at any rate) was only so because the Feds said so. If the Congress passed a law that flipping the bird to a Federal representative, or spitting on them was felony assault, would the readers here bend over and say "Thank you sir! May I have another!?"

A law only has true force when it can be considered just; that it carries some valid moral or ethical reasoning behind it. This contemptible catch-all is anything but just. I dread to meet my forefathers when my time comes, that I will be forced to explain just how American citizens have become so slavish in bowing down to their civil "servants."

Hell, there's still parts of this county where lying to the "Revenuers" is not only an obligation, but a sacred duty!

We are descended from men who revolted against the British Empire because that government had become opressive and unjust. Today all we hear is "well, she did break the law!"

I suppose that at least some of the commenters in Her Majesty's thread feel that Stewart has not been truly persecuted; after all, she's filthy rich, and so on. What these people obviously have not considered is that the same unjust practices are used against citizens in this country every day, and damn near all of them don't have Martha Stewarts attorneys to protect them.

Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you that an an unjust or unethical law is no respector of wealth or privelege; that in fact such a law does even more damage to the common people, who have fewer resources to legally protect themselves.

A long time ago, Englishmen would band together to defend the local knight or baron when unjustly accused or prosecuted; not in fear of retribution, or to curry favor, but in the recognition that what threatened one citizens' rights threatened everyone's rights, high or low!

So yes, Martha Stewart did, in fact, break the law. What we have to ask ourselves is whether that law is just, or not?

Remember this: we were born free! Truly, the only people who can put chains on Americans are ourselves.