Martha Guilty

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

this is a sad day indeed

― D Aziz (esquire1983), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Martha Stewart, anyone?

― chules (chules), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

right but now she's been found guilty

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/marthaguilty1.html

― D Aziz (esquire1983), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

perhaps you didn't hear him, Martha Stewart, anyone?

― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:33 (twenty-one years ago)

ahh good point, do you have to search for that?

― D Aziz (esquire1983), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Sad 'cause she got what she deserved? I tell you this...

GUILTY GUILTY THEY HEAR ME SAY

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

got what she deserved for doing what?

― D Aziz (esquire1983), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

BEING EVIL INCARNATE

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

she got served. Literally!

― Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Friday, 5 March 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

She's gonna make somebody a good wife in the Big House. Stenciled cell walls and all.

― andy, Friday, 5 March 2004 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

i thot the charges were thrown out ?
also, do you really think that she got a fair trial, is this just schadenfreude, is this b/c she is a woman ?
(c/c enron chair kenny boy lay)

― anthony, Friday, 5 March 2004 23:34 (twenty-one years ago)

why is this sad and why bring gender into this issue?

― ??, Friday, 5 March 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

name another female CEO who isn't Oprah

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 March 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

not that she isn't, by all accounts, highly annoying

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 March 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Only one charge got tossed, something to do with committing fraud to prop up her own company's stock price. This was the most serious charge, though, so she's lucky it's gone.

Probably a fair trial, but I wonder when advice from your broker becomes "insider trading." I mean, they're supposed to know what's going on at a company via research. Are clients supposed to investigate everything their brokers tell them? (In Martha's case I think the broker told her it was insider info, so it wouldn't apply here.)

― nickn (nickn), Friday, 5 March 2004 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It's obviously sad because she's a good capitalist ubermensch, and Rand-lite here hates it when anyone but the poor gets fucked.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Friday, 5 March 2004 23:55 (twenty-one years ago)

um, Meg Whitman? Carly Fiorina? There are loads of 'em.

― Broheems (diamond), Saturday, 6 March 2004 00:03 (twenty-one years ago)

ok, I don't think most Americans know who Kenneth Chenault is either

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 6 March 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

if someone is not guilty of the crimes with which he or she has been charged, then he should not be convicted. that applies whether the accused is rich or poor, ayn rand or tyrone crazy homeless-guy.

i have no opinion re: whether the verdict was correct or not. i haven't followed this closely enough.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 6 March 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Miloauckerman, get a life.

― D Aziz (esquire1983), Saturday, 6 March 2004 05:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean "Lenin-lite," hilarious isn't it!!

― D Aziz (esquire1983), Saturday, 6 March 2004 05:44 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.