General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Does Martha Deserve it?

Started by Larry · · Last activity · 149 posts · 3,183 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
7 March 2004
Last activity
13 June 2004
Original author
Larry
Posts
149
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,183
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 149
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Nancy Young said:

    Exactly! Thank you, Reg. Sorry, I could have looked it up
    but I'm trying to clean up from my first potsticker making
    experiment. She was charged with defrauding her
    stockholders, not insider trading.

    Yes. The logic behind it was somewhat convoluted, enough for
    the judge to call it a "novel" interpretation of the law.
    She was accused of a crime, and by asserting her innocence
    she was trying to defraud her investors and therefore guilty
    of a yet another crime. Very, very weird.

    The US Justice Department never intended that charge to
    stick (they must not have given the judge was practically
    laughing under her breath about it) but they succeeded in
    cornering Martha. She lied under oath (a Justice Department
    investigation is, in effect, a deposition and is conducted
    under oath) and that's all was required for a successful
    prosecution.

    --
    Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
    com

  2. [email hidden] (Steve Dufour) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I
    guess she deserves to go to JAIL. I think they should
    fine the #%&$ out of her and put her back to work to pay
    some big taxes. But on the other hand those with plenty
    of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big
    deal.. but some time in stripes scares nearly everybody.

    Laurence

    From today's Washington Times

    Saving the streets from Martha Stewart

    she's had her comeuppance.

    realcities.com8137164.htm

    Posted on Mon, Mar. 08, 2004

    Kerry alternately pleases, befuddles Arab Americans and Jews

    By James Kuhnhenn

    Knight Ridder Newspapers

    WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry is a former altar boy with a
    Jewish heritage that includes at least two victims of the
    Holocaust in his family tree. His brother converted to
    Judaism. He supports Israel. So he should be a cinch with
    Jewish voters and donors, yes?

    Not quite.

    Over the past few months, wary leaders of the Jewish
    community have questioned Kerry's stance on the Middle East.
    Many were incensed when he told Arab-Americans in October
    that Israel's security fence presented a "barrier to peace."

    They've urged him to clarify his position and warned that
    Jews, a reliable Democratic bloc in the past, are
    politically in play after President Bush's forceful post-
    Sept. 11, 2001, policies in the Middle East.

    "The Jewish community has not been a battleground until
    now," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who attended a question-
    filled session between Kerry and Jewish leaders last week
    in New York.

    For Kerry, holding on to Jewish voters is especially
    important in states such as Florida. So far, Kerry has fared
    well with Jews as he has moved to secure the Democratic
    Party nomination, but the Sunshine State could be crucial in
    November's general election, and Jewish defections to Bush
    could cost Kerry the state.

    The closely divided U.S. electorate, however, has led Kerry
    to perform a political high-wire act.

    Arab-Americans are also becoming a political force and
    constitute a sizable voting bloc in states such as
    Michigan and Pennsylvania. Kerry has gone out of his way
    to appeal for their votes. He has scored with his
    criticism of Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom many Arab-
    Americans accuse of civil rights violations in the
    aftermath of Sept. 11.

    "We feel closer to Senator Kerry than we did to many of the
    other (Democratic) candidates who were running," said James
    Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute,
    an advocacy group for Arab-Americans.

    Zogby pointed out that Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese
    ancestry, received more than 13 percent of the Arab-American
    vote in 2000. More than 80 percent of those voters, Zogby
    said, chose Nader because of his pro-Arab stance on Middle
    East policy.

    "There's something there (for Kerry) to be concerned about,"
    Zogby said.

    The Middle East thicket also could affect Kerry's ability to
    raise money. Jewish contributors have always been a staple
    of the Democratic donor base. With President Bush armed with
    a record-setting campaign treasury, any slippage in fund
    raising could be disastrous.

    "Among the Democratic voter base for whom Israel is a
    seminal issue, there are many more who are writing checks to
    Republicans than I have ever seen," said Weiner, a Kerry
    supporter.

    The Middle East also poses another problem for Kerry: It
    illustrates the criticism that he equivocates on issues.

    In his speech to Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich., in
    October, Kerry said Israel's security fence was "provocative
    and counterproductive" and presented a "barrier to peace."

    He also said that, if elected president, he would name
    former President Jimmy Carter or former Secretary of State
    James Baker as peace envoys to the region.

    But many Jewish leaders have long perceived Carter and Baker
    as being tougher on Israel than on Arab countries and object
    to giving them negotiating roles.

    At his meeting with about 50 Jewish leaders in New York on
    Feb. 28, Kerry backed off and offered to send President
    Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy"
    Berger and his special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, as
    his intermediaries.

    Kerry also has been a persistent critic of President Bush's
    foreign policy, calling it arrogant and inept and has
    demanded a greater role for the United Nations. That sparked
    a question from Jack Rosen, the president of the American
    Jewish Congress.

    "Given his position on the question of multilateralism and
    knowing that the United Nations has not been a kind home for
    the Israelis ... would he continue to maintain the current
    Bush policy of vetoing any one-sided resolution at the U.N.
    Security Council," Rosen said he asked. "He quickly reacted
    and said he would maintain that same policy."

    [ just listen to this guy. is there any question that he's
    putting israeli security interests ahead of american
    security interests? does he even consider american security
    interests after 9/11? ]

    Kerry also repeated his assertion, made in a debate earlier
    in the day, that the fence is "necessary to the security of
    Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate."
    Campaign spokesman David Wade later said the objections
    Kerry expressed in Michigan about the fence were based on
    its proposed location inside the West Bank, not on Israel's
    right to build it.

    Rosen, a longtime Democrat, is a fan of Bush's Middle East
    policy and gave $100,000 to the Republican National
    Committee in 2002. He said that while Kerry has a long pro-
    Israel record, he was withholding final judgment.

    [ $100,000 to the RNC in 2002? and now he's
    "withholding final

    of american security. until rosen gives $100,000 to the dem
    party, i say dems should "withhold final judgment" that he's
    still a democrat.

    republicans can have all the israel-first jews that they
    want. dems don't need them for this election, and after
    defeating bush, maybe this whole jewish lobby mystique can
    finally be put to rest and they can go run into the arms of
    their newfound nascar/kkk buddies in the republican party.

    look at lieberman's candidacy. look at the success of mel
    gibson's movie even though the hysterically pro-semitic
    media overwhelmingly criticized it. they ain't all that. the
    vast majority of americans are NOT fixated on full-tilt
    support of israel. if dem jews can't understand that the
    best way to reduce anti-semitism in the long term is NOT
    having the most incompetent president in modern history be
    their champion for israel, then they're a lot more
    emotional, and a lot less smarter than they appear.]

    "You can't go to Michigan and give nuances to one crowd
    and then come to New York and give nuances to another
    crowd," he said.

    Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat turned
    Bush supporter, exemplifies the problem Kerry faces.

    "I am for Bush because I think his position on international
    terrorism and the Bush doctrine, which is we will go after
    terrorists and countries who harbor them, trumps everything
    else," Koch said. "I don't agree with any domestic position
    he has taken."

    In meetings with Jewish backers, Kerry reminds them that his
    brother Cameron converted to Judaism and that his sister-in-
    law is Jewish. Kerry also mentions his Jewish ancestry - his
    grandparents on his father's side were Jewish.

    Last week, an Austrian genealogist hired by the Boston Globe
    discovered that Kerry's grandmother's sister and brother,
    Jenny and Otto Lowe, died in the Holocaust. On his Web site,
    genealogist Felix Gundacker said Otto Lowe was murdered in
    the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia in 1943. Jenny
    Lowe disappeared in the Treblinka death camp.

    Two weeks ago, aboard his campaign plane, Kerry voiced
    concern about the resurgence of anti-Jewish sentiment in
    America and abroad. Asked whether he intended to watch Mel
    Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ," Kerry
    said he was unsure.

    "I'm concerned about the anti-Semitism message," he said. "I
    don't know if it's there or not there. But it's a concern.
    There's a lot of that around right now. There's a lot in
    Europe. There's a lot in other parts of the country. I think
    we have to be careful of it."

  3. [email hidden] (Steve Dufour) wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    "larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess
    she deserves to go to JAIL. I think they should fine the
    #%&$ out of her and put her back to work to pay some big
    taxes. But on the other hand those with plenty of money
    are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but
    some time in stripes scares nearly everybody.

    Laurence

    From today's Washington Times

    Saving the streets from Martha Stewart

    By Wesley Pruden

    We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our
    beds (with or without flowered sheets). The feds are
    finally getting Martha Stewart off the streets. Her
    expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall
    behind the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the
    prosecution. Martha, who insists on things being done
    right, will help him choose the appropriate presentation
    for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a deep red matte
    ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant and
    fetching way. Some of the reporters and pundits who are
    offended most by Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and
    neat hair, orderly digs, and flowers and dishes arranged
    for a king's most demanding subjects haven't had so much
    fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker into
    prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel. The first
    juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing Miss
    Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy."
    You could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge
    done well. "Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who
    loses money in the markets because of these types of
    transactions, the people who lose money in 401(k) plans,"
    said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer programmer who
    talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a
    little more confident feeling that can invest in the
    market and everything will be on the up and up." Well,
    maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar
    on prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal
    criminal trial, particularly since the feds' bill of
    particulars was thin soup to begin with and made more so
    when the judge threw out the charge of insider trading,
    the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot. Juror
    Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was
    exactly what the feds were counting on to save them from
    the humiliation of a collapsing railroad job. Miss
    Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance,
    haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner
    are no more attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious
    living than in, for example, a presidential candidate from
    Massachusetts. A nice Polish girl from New Jersey got into
    trouble in the first place by hanging out with the wrong
    crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side who
    summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to
    her mama, who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd
    is guaranteed to get a girl into trouble, and not
    necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can get into
    between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking
    heads, a woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called
    Miss Stewart the prototypical "rich [censored]," showing up in
    court in her furs, jewels and designer dresses. Indeed,
    her expensive lawyers should have taken her back to New
    Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant
    frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn
    some of her celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and
    Bill Cosby, to stay away from the courthouse if they
    really wanted to help. "If anything," the voluble Juror
    Hartridge said of the parade of Martha's rich and famous
    friends, "we may have taken it a little as an insult. Is
    that supposed to sway our opinion?" In a word, yes. That's
    the way lawyers play the game. This time, the defense
    trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may
    be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers. But Martha
    Stewart was not indicted on the charge of [censored],
    witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of
    conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false
    statements to federal agents, who are themselves enabled
    by the law to lie. The government even suggested that she
    was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she was
    innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side
    that gets to mark the cards. We've always taken a certain
    pride in the proposition that in America, class doesn't
    count, that we look out for the poor but don't begrudge
    the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of
    how to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot
    Lane. Recent decades of class warfare, abetted by the
    rich, the pampered and the celebrated who play at
    populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced religion
    as the national religion, and with greed comes envy.
    Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than
    crimes, and learning a little humility is never a bad
    thing. But when the government commits vendetta, the sin
    becomes a crime. The government ought to be ashamed of its
    bullying self.

    Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

    I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't
    think she should go to jail. What offends me about the
    decision is that I feel that with the underlying charge of
    insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the other
    charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought
    she had committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail for
    that. It's not a question of jurisprudence, just one of
    exercising reasonable discretion. However, if her (new)
    lawyers can make a case on appeal that the convictions can't
    stand because they are based only on lying about something
    she didn't do, I wish them well.

  4. <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:


    I live across from a park and at least once each spring,
    I see the prisoners out picking up trash and they're
    dressed in all orange attire.

    Orange in the spring? Surely Martha will take care of the
    fashions when she gets there. Ed

  5. On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:43:15 -0600, Pan Ohco <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Steve Wertz said:
    Quoted message said:

    Every Federal prisoner, that I have seen, wore the orange
    jump suit. Of course there may be some that wear normal
    cloths, possibly at the "club fed" prisons.

    They only wear orange jump suits when they travel
    someplace (like court or being transferred to another
    prison). Have you ever actually been *in* a Federal
    prison, or just seen it on TV and the movies?

    Yes Steve I have been. That is why I stated those "that I
    have seen". Pan Ohco

    They don't wear orange jumpsuits *inside* the prison (unless
    they're getting ready to go someplace).

    -sw

  6. larry said:

    Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess
    she deserves to go to JAIL. I think they should fine the
    #%&$ out of her and put her back to work to pay some big
    taxes. But on the other hand those with plenty of money
    are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but some
    time in stripes scares nearly everybody.

    Martha stole? I don't think so. Lie? Cheat? Okay, I will
    grant you that, but MS was never accused of being a thief. I
    think a hefty fine is in order too. Since MS reportedly
    earned an extra $50K out of that imclone deal, she should be
    fined at least that much. Sentencing MS to jail would only
    serve to waste tax payers' dollars.

  7. larry said:

    Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess
    she deserves to go to JAIL. I think they should fine the
    #%&$ out of her and put her back to work to pay some big
    taxes. But on the other hand those with plenty of money
    are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but some
    time in stripes scares nearly everybody.

    Martha stole? I don't think so. Lie? Cheat? Okay, I will
    grant you that, but MS was never accused of being a thief. I
    think a hefty fine is in order too. Since MS reportedly
    earned an extra $50K out of that imclone deal, she should be
    fined at least that much. Sentencing MS to jail would only
    serve to waste tax payers' dollars.

  8. <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If you
    or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she
    should also. If we would be given probation, they that
    should suffice for her.

    No special deals, but nor should she be given harsher
    punishment than anyone else.

  9. <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If you
    or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she
    should also. If we would be given probation, they that
    should suffice for her.

    No special deals, but nor should she be given harsher
    punishment than anyone else.

  10. Quoted message said:

    I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't
    think she should go to jail. What offends me about the
    decision is that I feel that with the underlying charge of
    insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the other
    charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought
    she had committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail
    for that. It's not a question of jurisprudence, just one
    of exercising reasonable discretion. However, if her (new)
    lawyers can make a case on appeal that the convictions
    can't stand because they are based only on lying about
    something she didn't do, I wish them well.

    Thanks. Very interesting point. What I object to is the glee
    of many people over a famous person being punished, without
    much regard to fairness or justice.

  11. Quoted message said:

    I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't
    think she should go to jail. What offends me about the
    decision is that I feel that with the underlying charge of
    insider trading dropped, it was wrong to pursue the other
    charges. It comes down to lying about a crime she thought
    she had committed, but hadn't. Nobody should go to jail
    for that. It's not a question of jurisprudence, just one
    of exercising reasonable discretion. However, if her (new)
    lawyers can make a case on appeal that the convictions
    can't stand because they are based only on lying about
    something she didn't do, I wish them well.

    Thanks. Very interesting point. What I object to is the glee
    of many people over a famous person being punished, without
    much regard to fairness or justice.

  12. NO ! OJ deserved it !

    Historic, Internet Jury Poll Comments
    _____________________________________

    OJ is free, send Martha to Jail. LOL 03/11/04 9:14:57 AM MST
    The envy is incredible, isn't it? 03/11/04 7:36:55 AM MST
    total injustice 03/11/04 7:26:01 AM MST The jury is still
    out. 03/10/04 2:49:50 PM MST Martha Stewart is just a
    scapegoat. 03/10/04 1:35:01 PM MST Prosecutors pandered to
    populist prejudices! What a country it now is!
    03/10/04 11:50:28 AM MST Another Stalinist, Show Trial !
    03/10/04 10:32:27 AM MST you are crack pots - and
    thats a goodthing 03/10/04 9:28:29 AM MST Not Guilty
    03/10/04 6:36:19 AM MST Free Martha ! 03/09/04
    9:37:20 PM MST

    What do you think -you get to add your comments after
    reading the Closing Argument, and determining Guilt or
    Innocense. The Internet jury is still out !

    skakel.tripod.commartha.htm

  13. NO ! OJ deserved it !

    Historic, Internet Jury Poll Comments
    _____________________________________

    OJ is free, send Martha to Jail. LOL 03/11/04 9:14:57 AM MST
    The envy is incredible, isn't it? 03/11/04 7:36:55 AM MST
    total injustice 03/11/04 7:26:01 AM MST The jury is still
    out. 03/10/04 2:49:50 PM MST Martha Stewart is just a
    scapegoat. 03/10/04 1:35:01 PM MST Prosecutors pandered to
    populist prejudices! What a country it now is!
    03/10/04 11:50:28 AM MST Another Stalinist, Show Trial !
    03/10/04 10:32:27 AM MST you are crack pots - and
    thats a goodthing 03/10/04 9:28:29 AM MST Not Guilty
    03/10/04 6:36:19 AM MST Free Martha ! 03/09/04
    9:37:20 PM MST

    What do you think -you get to add your comments after
    reading the Closing Argument, and determining Guilt or
    Innocense. The Internet jury is still out !

    skakel.tripod.commartha.htm

  14. Edwin Pawlowski said:
    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If
    you or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she
    should also. If we would be given probation, they that
    should suffice for her.

    Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What
    purpose does jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since
    people commit crimes thinking they will not get *caught*.
    It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism rates show it
    doesn't work. And it's not a proper punishment since it
    doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In
    Stewart's case, a more proper punishment would be heavy
    fines commensurate with her income. Jail doesn't do anything
    except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her punishment.

    --
    Darryl L. Pierce <[email hidden]> Visit the Infobahn
    Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care
    what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

  15. Edwin Pawlowski said:
    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If
    you or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she
    should also. If we would be given probation, they that
    should suffice for her.

    Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What
    purpose does jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since
    people commit crimes thinking they will not get *caught*.
    It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism rates show it
    doesn't work. And it's not a proper punishment since it
    doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In
    Stewart's case, a more proper punishment would be heavy
    fines commensurate with her income. Jail doesn't do anything
    except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her punishment.

    --
    Darryl L. Pierce <[email hidden]> Visit the Infobahn
    Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care
    what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

  16. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If
    you or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she
    should also. If we would be given probation, they that
    should suffice for her.

    No special deals, but nor should she be given harsher
    punishment than anyone else.

    I agree. I don't think a non-celebrity would be sent to jail
    for a first offense of a crime such as insider trading. But
    I could be mistaken about this.

  17. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If
    you or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she
    should also. If we would be given probation, they that
    should suffice for her.

    No special deals, but nor should she be given harsher
    punishment than anyone else.

    I agree. I don't think a non-celebrity would be sent to jail
    for a first offense of a crime such as insider trading. But
    I could be mistaken about this.

  18. Check out Bongo News' latest:
    bongonews.comlayout1.php

    Personally, I like Martha and would hate to see her talents
    wasted in prison. She can afford a hefty fine and some
    community service. She's already suffered plenty (her
    empire's value dipping, her tv show getting dropped by
    Viacom, public humiliation, etc.). It's aged her.

    P.S. Way too many people here know way too much about
    prison garb! ;-D

    - Chris
    ---
    sudairy.comsudairy.com

  19. Check out Bongo News' latest:
    bongonews.comlayout1.php

    Personally, I like Martha and would hate to see her talents
    wasted in prison. She can afford a hefty fine and some
    community service. She's already suffered plenty (her
    empire's value dipping, her tv show getting dropped by
    Viacom, public humiliation, etc.). It's aged her.

    P.S. Way too many people here know way too much about
    prison garb! ;-D

    - Chris
    ---
    sudairy.comsudairy.com

  20. "Darryl L. Pierce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Edwin Pawlowski said:
    Quoted message said:

    Sentencing MS to jail would only serve to waste tax
    payers' dollars.

    She should be sentenced the same as any other person.

    You mean, just like Ken Lay who is "any other person?" Who
    is still walking around, free, along with a bunch of his
    cronies? Who ruined countless lives with his greed,
    including a lot of the state of California? Or the other
    Enron couple who got special consideration -- serving their
    sentences at separate times so their children would have a
    parent at home? Do you think any poor person would get that
    consideration? Heck no, their kids would be slapped into
    foster care.

    She lied while not under oath - the charges and prosecution
    are ridiculous, compared with, for example, Bill Clinton who
    lied under oath.

    She has drawn this kind of prosecution because there are
    probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country who
    have such unmitigated envy of what she's accomplished (while
    being as business-aggressive as any successful male CEO)
    that they can't stand
    it.

    It's all bull-hockey and even though she could have been
    smarter about what she did, I don't think she deserves
    jail time.

    j.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.