President Donald Trump offered some financial advice on Wednesday morning that ended up making a lot of money for any lucky investor who listened to him.
That was back when they would weaponize celebrity prosecutions to keep everyone else in line - Martha Stewart for insider trading, Willie Nelson for tax evasion, etc. When the rubes see an occasional celebrity get punished, they get back into line like good little serfs.
Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.
I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.
She got the “tip” to sell from her own broker. The people who you would expect to get tips from. How was she supposed to know he had actual involvement with the company?
And to think, Martha Stewart went to prison for something far milder.
Prosecuted by none other than Comey, whose actions we can directly blame for giving us this dipshit in office, years later.
He cooked up charges to take down the first woman billionaire, then did almost the same thing to stop the first woman president.
That was back when they would weaponize celebrity prosecutions to keep everyone else in line - Martha Stewart for insider trading, Willie Nelson for tax evasion, etc. When the rubes see an occasional celebrity get punished, they get back into line like good little serfs.
Tommy Chong for bongs.
Martha Stewart wasn’t actually convicted for insider trading, the judge threw that charge (securities fraud) out saying that no competent juror could find her guilty of it.
I can’t remember if the true basis for dismissing the charge was lack of evidence or a judicial determination, but if it was the latter that’s pretty damning (that investigators didn’t have a case); as a determination of innocence presumes all evidence is factual, to a reasonable extent, and a determination of no crime having taken place does the same in concluding that the evidence describes no crime relating to the dismissed charge having taken place. A kind of legal non-sequitor.
She got the “tip” to sell from her own broker. The people who you would expect to get tips from. How was she supposed to know he had actual involvement with the company?