home

Fight, Martha, Fight

William Safire provides an insightful explanation in today's New York Times why Martha should fight the charges against her.

I hope she beats the rap because I don't like the idea of a prosecutor — eager to deter others from doing wrong — twisting the law to make an example out of a celebrity. In doing justice, righteous ends don't justify unscrupulous means.

The U.S. attorney has not accused her of the crime of insider trading. After a yearlong investigation, that central matter is nowhere in his indictment. Why not? Because he decided that would be too difficult a charge to persuade a jury to believe.

....Rather than drop the weak case and his chance at national fame, the prosecutor James Comey handed off the insider-trading charge to the S.E.C., which seeks civil damages, not criminal penalties, and must meet a much lower standard of proof. Instead of focusing on what the case is about, Comey told a rapt press conference: "This case is about lying" — to investigators and to investors. "Lying" is a harsh word....But "perjury" is a much harsher word, meaning "lying under oath." Martha Stewart has not been accused of perjury.

...Why not? Because when she voluntarily answered the questions of investigators, she was not under oath and could never have perjured herself. To make a case, the prosecution stooped to the use of Section 1001 of the criminal code, which makes it a crime to knowingly and materially mislead federal investigators. Prosecutors use it to beef up weak indictments, and judges often dismiss that count first.

Safire goes on to explain why the charge that Martha Stewart defrauded her company's investors is similarly bogus....cooked up to create victims for a jury....

Last summer, a week after Waksal had been arrested for fraud, Stewart — who had been subject to a series of gleeful leaks about her impending doom — dared to tell an investors' conference that her sale of stock was perfectly legal and that she was cooperating with investigators. She also proclaimed her innocence in some detail to The Wall Street Journal.

That, charges the government, was a crime. Although common sense suggests that mounting a public defense was the natural thing to do for a person being anonymously smeared, the prosecutor reads a sinister motive into her speaking out: she was not trying to salvage her personal reputation, but was instead pumping up the price of the stock of the company that bears her name.

Even a world-famous "domestic diva" has a right to speak out in personal defense of her reputation. Even a wealthy woman who created a company that employs thousands and generates taxable profits is entitled to act like a jerk on occasion without risking a charge of being a criminal conspirator.

We join Safire in saying, Fight, Martha, Fight. And for anyone else who learns they are the subject of a federal probe, white collar or otherwise, the best advice is keep your mouth shut and don't think you can talk yourself out of it. The jails are filled with people who thought if they only could tell their side of the story, the police and investigators would see it their way.

We're also skeptical of the wisdom of civil lawyers who trot their clients down for interviews thinking they're going to get some kind of benefit. Once you waive that privilege against self-incrimination, it's gone. Miranda rights are not just words . Remember....anything you say can and most likely will be used against you.

< Second Circuit Expedites Jose Padilla Appeal | Max Factor Heir Loses Appeal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort: