Previous   Next

Do you think Martha Stewart is doing the right thing by serving her sentence before scheduled?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on September 16, 2004

Browse the archives

Photo of Mike McPheeters

“If I were Martha, and I was satisfied with the court decision, then I would want to get it over with as fast as possible.”

Photo of Todd Alcala

“I would say yes. I didn’t think that the announcement should have been that emotional, but I think she is doing the right thing.”

Photo of Ken Stevens

“She is. I think that it is a good business decision. It is too bad they made such an example out of her when so many other people have done the same thing.”

Photo of Bret Hedenkamp

“She will probably be in and out by Christmas, so she is probably doing the right thing.”


Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

RealityCheck...a few things..... First, the feds initially tried to go after Martha for insider trading, but abandoned their efforts because unlike Linda Tripp, the feds weren't able to record any of those alledged phone calls that took place. (Too bad! Her ass would really have been toast if they had!--Legally wired her phone, that is! The Tripp reference was a joke.) So, ultimately the feds went after her for charges that they felt were the most practical to convict.--And they were able to do so successfully. And it was not the result of some so-called "witch hunt" and some people have claimed. Second, you may have noticed that I STATED IN AN EARLIER POST today (9:19 am) that if she hadn't done the "cover-up thing" she probably would have been fined with no jail time given the realities of market and its rules. (Although, I still think what she did was jail worthy, even if she had admitted wrong doing, but that's just my opinion.)
Why do you have a problem with my "capitalization thing"? I capitalize certain words and phrases for effect. I guess it really gets your attention, huh? Bugs you too, it would seem, judging by your sarcasm.

"...but for the rest of the world she will always be known as Martha Stewart"

....And you speak for the rest of the world, do you? I gave my opinion today. I speak for myself. I pretty much made that clear all throughout my posts today. I never said lots of other people agree with me. But along that same vein.....You think that I'm alone in knowing, not just thinking, but knowing, that Martha Stewart is, in fact, a CONVICTED FELON?--And viewing her henceforth as such?.....There used capitals....are your eyeballs rolling backwards yet? I believe that she is a liar and a cheat...therefore I choose to give (convicted) liars and cheats tags that I see fit. YOUR DAMN RIGHT. (More capitals for you!!) She abused her power and influence---and you, RealityCheck know it's true. So come down off your high horse about me "labeling" others. Martha Stewart has acheived much in her life, far more than I ever will, but with her success and rewards, much is expected from someone like her. SUCH AS HONESTY.----Is that too much to ask from our leaders (be it business or politics)? And please don't tell me that I'm in no position to judge others....because if I'm not (or if you're not) then who is? Someone in this world has to stand up and shine a light on those who cheat, lie, and deceive. That's why we have police, courts, and ultimately that the dishonest/bad folks go to jail (like Martha). I'll tag anyone I see fit...Liars, cheats, murderers, child molesters, etc. etc. Martha lied, cheated....she's convicted....she's a felon. Period. Lastly....I get the feeling that you somehow believe that what she did was no big deal. Well, fine. I would love to know what the rules and regulations, the good and the bad, and what the big deals vs. little deals are in YOUR WORLD! On second thought......

Savage 13 years, 9 months ago

oh, she is so evil considering her stock broker called her, told her to sell cuz the stock was going to crash, and she did. Let me ask how many of you people would lose 40 thousand dollars if your broker called YOU and told you to sell. You see... the only problem is...the broker wasnt supposed to know the FDA was going to back out of the deal but he found out somehow. I guess that makes Martha unforgivable. Whatever.... as a matter of fact she wasnt even convicted of that in the end you sillies. She was convicted for obstruction of justice for shredding a few papers or whatever which is totally unrelated to the REAL charge they wanted to charge her with in the first place. Get the facts straight.

Otherwise to answer the daily question:

Wise move martha, wise move... get it over with!

Giver her a break.

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Savage......

If you really want to get technical......Richard Nixon was not directly involved with the Watergate break-in itself. However, he was involved with the cover-up part of it. He lied to authorities and the press about his knowledge of any sort of break-in. In additon, whereas Martha shredded documents to cover her ass, Nixon destroyed 18 minutes worth of tape recorded conversation(s) he had with close associates pertaining to the Watergate break-in. So....based on your logic, Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon, because after all, Nixon, like Martha, really didn't do anything that would be considered that big of a "big deal". Huh?

Were it not for her cover-up, she might have been able to avoid jail time, believe it or not!! She would have been fined, big-time. And she probably would have had to step down as chief of operations of her company, but that's about it. You know what the only difference between her and Nixon is/was? Martha never actually pointed to any camera, and said with a scowl: "I AM NOT A CROOK!"

Redneckgal 13 years, 9 months ago

I think if I were in her shoes I would do the same thing. Get in get out and get on with her life. Its not as if she killed someone.

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

No "Flake", Martha is a multi-millionaire head of a business empire who tried to cheat the stock market with help from her friends in high places. Hell, she has more money than Nixon ever had in his whole life, and she wanted to make (keep) more of it for herself!--That's called greed. Her thirst/lust for greed caused her to lie about her transaction(s). Just like Nixon's thirst/lust for power caused him to lie/cover-up Watergate. What's your point "Flake"? What? You think she should have been left alone?? It was no big deal, or something? Don't give me any crap about this whole thing having to do with her being "a rich, powerful, succesful businesswoman" and all!!---Any "Martha defender" who uses that line is, in fact, tossing up a "red herring" response to the issue/facts at hand! Her conviction(s) have nothing to do with her being a "rich, successful home-decorating maven/female" spare me, okay?! She's a crook plain and simple. She tried to cheat/circumvent the system and its rules and regulations---she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar (no pun intended)--and now she's about to pay the price for her misdeeds. Good!, I say! Good, because she is no different than you or me, and if you or I did what she did, then you or I would deserve the same penalty. Besides, since she is a person of tremendous influence and stature, the judge has an obligation to sentence/penalize her for her transgressions so as to set an example to the public at large (you and me). You got it now, "Flake"? Huh? Was I able to successfully penetrate that thick skull of yours?? I hope so!

Savage 13 years, 9 months ago

Jonas...well... Its pretty close actually.

I am even wondering how its even against the law if you invest 100k in a stock, and you find out that some banker in switzerland is going to destroy and take over the company you invested in, and you find this out, but were not supposed to know. I say... whoever told you should get in trouble... I shouldnt get in trouble for trying to save my a**.


nicegirl 13 years, 9 months ago

Not to be mean (even though I guess it is) but how many people really care about what happens to Martha Stewart? She is still going to be on TV everyday saying "It's a good thing" Yuck!

jonas 13 years, 9 months ago

Well put, FlakeyT. A business woman's shady dealings are of much less importance than a president's, as only one was elected to be a leader of a whole society. The judge was of course obligated to sentence her appropriately, and putting a tarnish on her image does probably as much harm as any country-club prison sentence she'd probably get. That said, she'll be fine, it certainly won't put her into poverty, or even out of "money out the @$$ wealthy." She might as well just get it done. But wow, will that prison ever be aesthetically arranged by the time she gets out!

mrcairo 13 years, 9 months ago

I wonder if she'll have conjugal visits. Inquiring minds want to know.

I could spend 5 months behind bars with Martha, she's a babe.

Martha - call me.. 785-

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago know what, "Flake"? I'm not gonna play tit-for-tat games with you.

Let me say this....your first post had a "implied tone" to it that basically said..."What's the big deal here?" --And Nixon vis-a-vis Stewart is "apples and oranges". If you meant otherwise, it's your obligation to say as much. Clarify your own meanings/intentions--don't put me in the position of having to do so. And you know something else? I'm tired you and others giving that "Nah-nah! Stick your tongue out at me phrase" like..."I didn't say that, did I?" Please! Do me a favor....BE SPECIFIC (The first time you post!)!! Don't give roundabout phrases and viewpoints!--You have just as much of an obligation to make your point(s) as clearly and concisely as possible, as do I have an obligation to correctly interpret those thoughts and views of yours. It's a two way street. Also, regardless of what Martha ends up doing during her stay in prison---she still deserves jail time. She's a cheat and a liar....That to me equals time spent in prison. How she made her millions has nothing to do with the consequences of her actions. You say a president is of such stature, that yeah, he definitely deserves to go to jail.---And what? Martha bakes cookies for a living, so what's the big deal with her? She's a powerful player/leader in American business, and just like those at Enron and Westar, when you corrupt the system in any way by being well-connected to other powerful people in the know, she, and her counterparts at other large corporations deserve to have the book thrown at them. What she did undermines the system otherwise known as the stock market.----And that's a big deal!! (To me, anyway.)

jonas 13 years, 9 months ago

Man, Mr. Cairo, that's creepy.

/no accounting for taste

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

1.) Thanks Bob!

2.) Whether you're talking about the President of the United States or the head of some large corporation or just the guy on the street....all three have one thing in common. They each put their pants on one leg at a time--and their socks too! They're just like you and me. (And please, with reference to pants...I can see somebody like Jonas making a Clinton/Lewinsky joke from a mile away! I already know it's coming!! Yep! Here it comes now! Thanks, Jonas!) They're human beings like the rest of us, and they should all be treated the same way when it comes to their (shady) actions! That's all I'm saying. My point is clear, yes?

3.) Nobody says you have to agree with other people's opinions---but it would be nice if you could specifically state your own viewpoint when you do disagree with that person. (Which you failed to do in your first post, "Flakey".)

4.) I couldn't help but detect just a hint (just a hint, mind you) of smugness/sarcasm in your last post. didn't mean to add to my strife?--Okay, sure! If you truly mean it, then I accept your apology. (If you truly mean it.) And in correlation...I promise not to "infer" incorrectly as I sometimes do. Is it a deal?

5.) mrcairo thinks Martha's a babe? ....Any response on my part concerning that particular statement would definitely be considered "smug/sarcastic" I won't go there.

6.) Thank you!

nicegirl 13 years, 9 months ago

Who knew so many people felt so passionately about the trials and tribulations of Martha the Domestic Goddess?

mrcairo: I gotta go with the masses on this one, that's just sick man!!

jonas 13 years, 9 months ago

Hi-jinks: Huh? I don't recall ever, in my life, making a Clinton/Lewisnky joke, and I rarely make jokes of a sexual nature. I would've hoped you'd give me more credit than that. My humor is off-base, often insane, but rarely crude.

How they put their pants on is irrelevent, even as a metaphor. It's what they do after they put those pants on everyday that is important. While the law should be fairly much equal to all people, it would be fallacious of the public to view cases that are dissimilar, or people that are dissimilar, as the same. Nixon's transgressions damaged the office of the presidency, cast our entire political system into greater suspicion than before, and it's effects are still felt today. Martha's transgressions did. . . what? Mostly provided us with a few jokes, and some vindictive pleasure at watching the goddess of the perfect house get mud splattered all over her. Not the same thing at all. If there was more to your point than that, I'm confused at what it was supposed to be. She did/is getting punished, and no one on the board has stated that it was wrong for her to get punished, just that it was not a very major issue.

jonas 13 years, 9 months ago

Oh, I just saw your comment on undermining the stock market. But I disagree with you that it had any impact whatsoever. My cynical opinion is that this stuff happens constantly, and always has. The only difference is Martha got caught at it.

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

Jonas....Right! She did get caught! And now she's being punished. Also, when people like her are guilty of doing the kinds of things she did....they, as I said earlier, undermine the credibility and stability of the stock market. Is she the only one that did/does so? No! But so what? What's your point, Jonas? The stock market has an enormous influence on this country--as does the office of the President. Actually, both institutions go hand in hand in terms of power and influence. Matha was/is a big player with her "Omnimedia empire"--it's a billion dollar operation. When someone like her does something illegal (whether it's her own company stock, or stock from another company, like ImClone), wham! she goes to jail---and people like me aren't happy to see her go because it simply makes her look bad (mud on her face), I'm pleased to see her go to jail because of her abuse of power and influence. You seem to downplay the importance of the "market" (and those involved in it), and you trump up the stature of the Office of the President. Ask the president how important the stock market is on world affairs. Hell, there are those who say that market foces are what drives most presidents to do what they do (for the most part).

Also. please, Jonas, spare me the "false modesty" of your previous post about "sexual comments" concerning Clinton's pants. Oh, so you were so "aghast" at my joke about your (possible)joke-to-be? How disingenuous, to say the least! Spare me! I've read your (numerous) posts before. You josh around quite a bit, and that joke-to-be remark that I made is you! And I'm beginning to think that "Flakey" is you as well! Both of your posts seem to come on the heals of one another......Hmmm....Conspiracy, perhaps?.....Maybe....Maybe....

My pants reference was about how, no matter who you are, we are all the same. But apparently, you didn't interpret it that way. And I believe that as you say, what happens after a person puts on their pants is important too. So after Martha and W. put on their pants, if they both cheat/lie in their respective offices--they both go to jail. Also, what does her Imclone deal and its impact on the market (whether there was an actual impact or not) have anything to do the subject at hand? ---Is that your point? It was the deal itself that's at issue here!--Not its impact! Her shady dealings had no immediate impact on the market, so....who cares? Is that your point? Jonas, you are not that naive! This is about the perceived (and also very real) impact that illegal deals like hers can have on the market. That's why the feds went after her. It's all a matter of principle. Today it's Martha Stewart and a 60,000 dollar stock deal gone bad----And tomorrow it's the XYZ company and some XYZ insider/stockowner dumping millions of dollars worth of (his personal)stock back onto the market! Okay, so there are many others like Martha who do what she did--and haven't been caught. So? Hopefully, someday they will.

jonas 13 years, 9 months ago

Hi jinks: I'm not flakeyT, don't worry. And I wasn't aghast, just surprised at a characterization of myself, because I consider sexual humor and innuendo, in general, as fairly low humor, and have this conceited (I guess) notion of being above it.

As for the rest, I agree that, had the feds not gone after her it could have had an impact, but I'm not sure where you got this idea that I disagreed with you on whether she should have been punished or not. The only thing that anyone has been disagreeing with you about is your equating this to Nixon's scandal, and I still fail to see how you could make that comparison, in all seriousness.

In regards to the pants comment: I understood perfectly well what you meant, as it's a fairly common metaphor. I do disagree completely with the idea that we are all the same, but I suppose that's a whole nuther topic.

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

C'mon, Jonas! My comment about Clinton/pants and someone like you making what I thought would be a light-hearted joke about it was very much "G-Rated" (Suitable for all ages.) I'm not anymore "crass" about sex and peoples' sex lives than you are---but having said that, I (along with about 98% of the adult population) am not exactly above making a passing/casual reference about such matters, either. And I'm sure you are not, as well. A person can make light-hearted references about sex/other peoples'sex lives and not be in "the gutter", humor-wise...and others can interpret such banter without being quite so 'prudish" with their interpretation.--It is possible, I think...Unless, of course, you happen to be the Pope! (I'm not saying you are a prude--but I think you know what I am talking about.)

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

You're right, consumer1.....I spent way too much time today giving my personal take on Martha Stewart. I get "worked-up" about her situation because I still hear on the radio and on TV people saying that we all should pity Martha.....She's a good gal, she means well, and the feds were just picking on her because she is a successful, powerful, influential FEMALE! I've heard people say (with a straight face) that Martha was the victim of some sort of "witch hunt"!!!


Witch hunt??

Oh, my God!!!

I want to puke!!

Bottom line....I'm just glad she's on her way to prison. And no matter what she does with the rest of her life (and no matter how many millions more she makes) she will forever be known as...


And that "tag" will follow her around for the rest of her life---as well it should!!!

jonas 13 years, 9 months ago

Certainly, we should not, in any way, pity Martha Stewart in any fashion. Though I agree with part of Savage's original post: if it had happened to me, I would have done what she did as well. (At least, if his telling of the situation is accurate) But then, I've always had a problem playing by the rules.

RealityCheck 13 years, 9 months ago


just two things:

  1. Since you are so concerned about the market as you say, let me inform you that Martha Stewart's transaction was NOT proven illegal (she did not know about the non-FDA approval) at least from the government's standpoint.
    That means that if someone learns from their broker that someone else sells all their shares of the stock he/she also owns, they can just go ahead and sell as well. The most it could happen to them would be a civil case against them by FCC to claim the gains back - but they will not go to prison. There may be some moral issues around it but such a transaction is NOT A FEDERAL CRIME.

So Stewart is not going to prison because she hurt the market (or at least let's say she didn't hurt the market enough to get criminalized for it) but because she lied to investigators. So yes, she is probably not a "good gal". Does she deserve to go to prison for that???? I know that you are glad she is going to prison, but, honestly, I don't think anyone can give a clear unemotional, not driven by good or bad personal feelings for her answer to this question.

  1. I'm sure in YOUR world she will always be known as Martha Stewart, the CONVICTED FELLON (notice how I capitalized it just like you did). But for the rest of the world she will always be known as Martha Stewart. Let each and everyone of us assign their own "tags" - with or without caps.

nicegirl 13 years, 9 months ago

Hi_jinks: Who knew you were so passionate about Martha? I hope you took your blood pressure medication today...:) You know I'm kidding. HAVE A NICE EVENING (How do you like them caps?).

RealityCheck 13 years, 9 months ago


sorry but I'm not really convinced about your general concerns for the market and/or the honesty of our leaders, blah, blah, blah.

It is more than obvious, judging by your language and you attitude, that your comments and opinions are essentialy driven by your empathy against her - after all it is apparent you have read every single article about her the last few days otherwise you wouldn't have known the "witch hunt" thing - so please spare us the "bad folks go to jail" talk.

It may be also obvious that my opinion is driven by the fact that I like her. Our difference is I don't rumble about honesty and justice - or rules and principals in my world. Do you really care anyway?

Savage 13 years, 9 months ago

jinks ...

realitycheck, nicegirl and myself have described fair and balanced points of view today. Today was just not your day was it? Im sure a majority of forum readers today would agree with our merciful rants more that your throw away the key mentality.



he-heh-heh (just like rush limbaughs chuckle)

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

I'm as happy to see guys like David Witting (Westar) go to jail and hopefully, some day, Ken Lay (Enron) as well! Martha is just "one of the boys" as far as I'm concerned! So, RealityCheck, my views are not based on "anti-Marthaisms" and I do believe in our free market here in America---and how it operates (honestly) as well! If you aren't as interested or concerned in the "market" and how it should be run (fairly/honestly/integrity of, by, and for the system) well, then, I guess there isn't much more to say....but I could go on all night if you'd like me to. lengthy posts today are Larry-inspired. You all know how Larry goes on and on about subjects he strong believes in........Well, sometimes, so do I! It's not about me having a bad day.

Hi_Jinks 13 years, 9 months ago

I would stuff Martha Stewart's aging and corrupt body into that time capsule and leave her there to rot! One hundred years from now, people will be able to see for themselves what early 21st Century greed (in all of its ugly forms) looked like!!!

P.S. Jonas, Savage, nicegirl......What? Did you guys honestly think that I would abandon my "Martha Stewart's an evil person who belongs behind bars-thing" after just one day???

You silly gooses!! Of course not!!




Commenting has been disabled for this item.