|
Martha Stewart's Circus
By Tim Siggia
March 09, 2004
On Friday, March 5, jurors in the Martha Stewart insider trading case found Stewart, along with her former broker, Peter Bacanovic, of Merrill-Lynch & Co., guilty of conspiracy, perjury, making a false statement, and obstruction of justice, according to an article by Chicago Tribune reporters Susan Chandler and Andrew Countryman. The article was headlined, "Convicted On All Counts", and had a subhead reading, "Experts: Verdict Shows That The Law Applies To All". Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years and a $250,000 fine, though some legal experts predicted her sentence would probably be reduced to a year in prison, the article says.
There are many reasons for certain people not to like Martha Stewart. She is rich, she is powerful, she is elite, and she is reported to use the filthiest of language when the TV cameras are not upon her. She is also a close friend of former president Bill Clinton, who on at least one occasion has been a guest in her Connecticut home. Also, the aspect of a successful woman in what is supposed to be a man's world is bound to stir the resentment of those surviving male chauvinists not yet fully chastened and emasculated by the Women's Movement. All of which tends to make such a woman a perfect target for litigation, on whatever charge. The most serious charge, that of insider trading, was dropped, but Stewart was found guilty of the four other charges -- which made her critics jubilant.
In fact, it could be credibly argued that this trial had less to do with the actual crimes than it did with the defendant herself, with making an example of a rich, high-profile type who, in the minds of many, had it coming. Once again, we heard the familiar refrain, with apologies to Larry Klayman, of "no one is above the law."
"It's a wonderful day for the rule of law," says Stephen Presser, a professor of business law at Northwestern University's law school and Kellogg School of Management. "The message this sends is that no one is immune. No one is above the law. If she hadn't lied, she wouldn't be going to jail."
No one is immune? No one is above the law? How about one William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States, and one who was proven to have obstructed justice and lied under oath? He did lie, but did he go to jail? No, of course not. No less a body than the United States Senate declared that his crimes did not "rise to the level of impeachment" -- a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States -- thus placing this ultra-high-profile defendant above the law, and accountable to no one for his actions. So it is that while Martha Stewart will soon be an incarcerated convict, Bill Clinton, guilty as charged of nearly identical crimes, will remain a free man, a celebrity, the idol of soccer moms and object of worship to the army of sycophants that still follows his every move.
"The fairness of the trial?" said Martha Stewart to a New York Daily News reporter who questioned her on the subject. "The unfairness of the trial, that's the right comment."
I personally do not like Martha Stewart, but her reply to the Daily News reporter carries the ring of truth. She was, in fact, ill-served by a system motivated less by a quest for justice than by vengeance, and the desire to make an example of someone rich and famous. As long as Bill Clinton, who as a youth dodged the army and as president dodged prison, continues to thumb his nose at personal responsibilty and is allowed to shirk the consequences of his behavior, all pronouncements about the rule of law in the Martha Stewart case ring hollow.
|
