MARTHA

.:VerTiGo:. · Post by **.:VerTiGo:.** » 17-07-04, 3:42 pm

No, I didn't hear her say "I'm sorry for illegally doing insider trading.."but,I watched it live yesterday... I don't have it recorded, but I do remember her apologizing.. maybe not for the trading and such, but she did apologize to her "fans and supporters" for what has happened.

Post by **Sholix** » 17-07-04, 3:52 pm

I don't emember an apology from her either.
Nor any remorse after the trial or the sentencing.

I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression her being charged stemed from "insider trading."
The fact that she had a seat, @ one time or another and used information gotten thru those sources of the impending drop.

I thought they did something, charges, or something against the Enron Big Chief and some of his closest cronies, back when this all went down?

C-Dub · Post by **C-Dub** » 17-07-04, 4:22 pm

you're right V ... we do disagree here.

i think its a great thing that they made an example of her, with her status and $ for fancy lawyers, they still showed you will go down for serious crimes.

.:VerTiGo:. · Post by **.:VerTiGo:.** » 17-07-04, 4:26 pm

I do agree with the fact that she SHOULD have been punished, but there is no such thing as a "little illegal" and "big illegal". Because of who she is should not change the fact that she broke that law, but what about the BILLION or so people who did the SAME thing on the SAME day with the SAME stocks? She was NOT the only one. Maybe the only one with a big enogh name, but definatley NOT the only one who "broke the law" that day.

C-Dub · Post by **C-Dub** » 17-07-04, 4:29 pm

why do you say others did the same thing?

i dont know if you know ... but selling stock today is done in real time ... if u see someone suddenly sells millions of shares YOU DO THE SAME

.:VerTiGo:. · Post by **.:VerTiGo:.** » 17-07-04, 4:33 pm

There were more than 700 billion stocks sold that day, C-Dub.. they weren't all HERS..

this is from her interview with Barbara Walters last night:
Stewart said she's angry over the two-year-long legal drama that forced her to give up her self-made, multimedia empire. "Many, many people have suffered. People have lost jobs. I am very saddened and very, very sorry for that."

<a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/07 ... a.stewart/' target='_blank'>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/07 ... tewart/</a> 15th paragraph

Posted Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:34 pm:

why do you say others did the same thing?

i dont know if you know ... but selling stock today is done in real time ... if u see someone suddenly sells millions of shares YOU DO THE SAME

and did she not follow the advice of someone else to sell those stocks?

AJ · Post by AJ » 17-07-04, 4:35 pm

Death to Martha I say!

C-Dub · Post by **C-Dub** » 17-07-04, 4:42 pm

There were more than 700 billion stocks sold that day, C-Dub.. they weren't all HERS..

and did she not follow the advice of someone else to sell those stocks?

no no no

1. she got 'advice' from the ceo (her friend) to sell because it would drop in price
2. wallstreet was WAITING for the results of the gov if it would approve that product they were making ... ready to BUY or SELL within SECONDS of finding out
3. she sold, note: MILLIONS, of shares BEFORE this news hit ... (if you were a wallstreet trader wouldnt that be a HUGE RED FLAG?)
4. if someone suddenly dumps millions of shares ... the price PLUMMETS ... if others are selling ... you have to sell quicker!

her selling = others selling!

.:VerTiGo:. · Post by **.:VerTiGo:.** » 17-07-04, 4:56 pm

oh. well, apparently, I'm seeing things from a different angle. I can totally see your point, and agree that what she did was wrong. I'm not dismissing that at all. ... and honestly, I don't even remember WHY I'm arguing about it..

Peter · Post by **Peter** » 17-07-04, 6:38 pm

Something important that most people miss

I think that when a wealthy person like Martha sells useing illegle information so she can save 50,000 bucks is a big problem.

I say this because when people like Martha sell their stock with inside information, millions of small people that have the stock in their RRSP's and can't sell, then these millions of people suffer a finacial loss that could potentionally ruin their retirement.

Jean Pool · Post by **Jean Pool** » 17-07-04, 7:16 pm

Right on. But instead of prison, maybe a hefty 100% of the profits fine to help the homeless. Why spend tax dollars imprisoning her as she is no threat to society when we could use some of her wealth for good purposes? We could punish her by making her stay in a messy house with out being able to fix it up. Mine would work. No Martha Leave the cobwebs where you found them and you have to share the dog dish, I rinsed it out.

.:VerTiGo:. · Post by **.:VerTiGo:.** » 17-07-04, 7:52 pm

JP.. you are great! hat is actually a wonderful idea!!

Something important that most people miss

I think that when a wealthy person like Martha sells useing illegle information so she can save 50,000 bucks is a big problem.

I say this because when people like Martha sell their stock with inside information, millions of small people that have the stock in their RRSP's and can't sell, then these millions of people suffer a finacial loss that could potentionally ruin their retirement.

This happens everyday. EVERYDAY.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » 17-07-04, 10:50 pm

JP.. you are great! hat is actually a wonderful idea!!

Something important that most people miss

I think that when a wealthy person like Martha sells useing illegle information so she can save 50,000 bucks is a big problem.

I say this because when people like Martha sell their stock with inside information, millions of small people that have the stock in their RRSP's and can't sell, then these millions of people suffer a finacial loss that could potentionally ruin their retirement.
This happens everyday. EVERYDAY.

But they don't get caught everyday. And when they do, an example should be made.

Merideth · Post by **Merideth** » 18-07-04, 2:57 am

ok ok ok... wait.. here's a littl fact y'all are missing:

she was NOT charged with insider trading. she was charged with misleading or lying (whatver) to feds during a federal investigation

they (feds) could not find sufficient evidence to charge her with insider trading.

now, after knowing this, i am changing my original stance. if we're gonna convict people when they lie to the feds during an investigation, we should have a set sentence and USE it ALL the time (clinton did the EXACT same thing and got NOTHING)

btw, why is insider trading illegal? do people have no right to protect their own assets? she found out the stock was gonna drop, she sold hers (i see NO problem with this).

G.O.D · Post by **G.O.D** » 18-07-04, 3:38 am

it gives a person an advantage...that's why.