The wrongness of the Martha conviction

Doug Clifton talks about the Plain Dealer pulling Martha Stewart’s column. The explanation is that they don’t run the work of convicted felons (which makes me wonder, when have they had the opportunity before?).

Doug talks about his uneasiness with the conviction, which echoes my sentiments:

Her crime was doing the financially prudent thing when advised that the rats were deserting the stock she held. She sold the stock and denied she’d done it based on a tip from an insider.

Show me a thousand investors who wouldn’t dump a company’s stock if they learned the founder was dumping his and I’ll show you an investor who was day dreaming when the whispers began.

In some sense it’s good that prosecutors are making an example of a high-flying fat cat who by many accounts seems to be due a proper comeuppance. But something about this case sets off my bullshit detector … whatever Martha did, the result feels like some Jack McCoy wannabe at the Justice Department wanting to make a name by sending somebody famous up the river.

It just smells, to me.

2 comments for “The wrongness of the Martha conviction

Comments are closed.