Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
What a dumbass. That's called material non-public information. Everyone knows you don't trade on it or you can wind up in jail. Just ask Martha Stewart.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Martha wasn't convicted of any "trading of non-public information"!
She was convicted of lying to the FBI .... like HillariousNoMore.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Yes, Martha Stewart was convicted of lying. About her insider trading. A jury found her guilty on 4 counts of lying to investigators and obstruction of justice.
|
Morphing your posts. And I'm sure you followed the PreTrial and Trial proceedings carefully. Proving one's "thoughts" or "knowledge" is a challenge and is almost always based on "circumstantial evidence" and/or she-said/he-said testimony of either convicted or about-to-be-convicts persons .....
ala the current debacle in the Senate over the "newly" discovered evidence ... and charging someone with what someone else thought they were saying or "meaning" irrespective of transcripts of conversations.
You just did the same thing. Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of "insider" trading.
The value of the Stewart conviction to current events, especitally with Comey, is that when he announced there was insufficient evidence against HillariousNoMore in his famous pre-election lie, he based it on his "legal opinion" that "circumstantial evidence" cannot be used to convict a person of a crime. If that was what he actually believed then he was (and is) not qualified to empty trash baskets for the FBI. Otherwise he's a liar plain and simple.
