Two more US soldiers were killed in Iraq today. For what?
Do not be distracted by the horrific slaughter in Madrid...No, it was not the Basques, yes it was Al Qaeda related, and yes, it is a direct result of the _resident's foolish military adventure in Iraq...Do not be distracted when Tom Ridge, US Secretary of Homeland Insecurity, reaches for his box of crayolas...Of course, they are going to try to distract and INTIMDATE the US electorate and the Spanish electorate, etc., just as they have twisted some intelligence and selectively ignored other intelligence...Keep your eyes on the prize...The US presidential election is a national referendum on the
CHARACTER, COMPTENCY and CREDIBILITY of the
_resident...The _resident LOST the election in 2000,
not only the popular vote nationally but in reality
the popular vote in Fraudida...The _resident KNEW
enough in the months prior to 9/11 to make a
difference, but he did not act...The _resident LIED to
cajole, coerice and con the US electorate and its
representatives into Iraq...The _resident BLEW the
Federal surplus on an obscene tax cut for the
wealthiest among you and plunge us into deficit
perhaps for generations...
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now: No charges, for instance,
have been brought against Ken Lay, who was chairman of
Enron when its $9 billion collapse in 2001 ended the
jobs of more than 5,000 workers and decimated the
retirement savings of millions of investors. Lay is a
close friend of Bush and a major Republican campaign
contributor. In fact, Lay was one of his closest
advisers, one of his "pioneers," raising hundreds of
thousands of dollars for Bush's campaign. After Enron
collapsed, Kenny Boy--as Bush referred to his
friend--became Mr. Lay. Instead, the poster-child for
this new crack-down on corporate crime is Martha
Stewart. She is facing up to 20 years in prison after
a jury found her guilty on all charges last week for
covering up her sale of ImClone stock just before the
price plummeted. Quite the opposite of Lay, who is
deeply tied to the Republicans, especially the Bushes,
Martha Stewart is a major contributor to the
Democrats. She has given more than $150,000 in
political contributions--all of it to the Democrats.
This according to United Press International.
Pardon Martha Stewart, Appoint a Special Prosecutor to
Investigate Enron and the Bush Cabal, Show Up for
Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/11/1538249
No charges have yet been brought against former Enron chairman Ken Lay who was a close friend of President Bush and a major Republican campaign contributor, while Martha Stewart, who is a major Democratic contributor, faces up to 20 years in prison for lying to a federal investigator. [includes transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush presidency has been marked by war. The
invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and
now the apparent overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide
in Haiti. But these three years have also been marked
by rampant corporate crime. Enron, Tyco, Adelphia,
WorldCom have all become household names. The Bush
administration has said that it is a priority of the
president to crack down on corporate crime. But most
of the CEOs and corporate officials responsible for
the collapse of huge companies and the loss of
thousands of jobs walk the streets with no criminal
charges and no jail sentences hanging over their
heads.
No charges, for instance, have been brought against
Ken Lay, who was chairman of Enron when its $9 billion
collapse in 2001 ended the jobs of more than 5,000
workers and decimated the retirement savings of
millions of investors. Lay is a close friend of Bush
and a major Republican campaign contributor. In fact,
Lay was one of his closest advisers, one of his
"pioneers," raising hundreds of thousands of dollars
for Bush's campaign. After Enron collapsed, Kenny
Boy--as Bush referred to his friend--became Mr. Lay.
Instead, the poster-child for this new crack-down on
corporate crime is Martha Stewart. She is facing up to
20 years in prison after a jury found her guilty on
all charges last week for covering up her sale of
ImClone stock just before the price plummeted. Quite
the opposite of Lay, who is deeply tied to the
Republicans, especially the Bushes, Martha Stewart is
a major contributor to the Democrats. She has given
more than $150,000 in political contributions--all of
it to the Democrats. This according to United Press
International.
The Stewart decision was frontpage news across the
country. Headlines screamed "Martha Stewart convicted
on all counts in stock-trading trial." But what many
people don't know is that the government did not
charge Stewart with insider trading. In addition, the
judge threw out the most serious charge in the case -
securities fraud. So what was Martha Stewart guilty
of? - Basically, of lying to a federal investigator.
The law, which lawyers usually call 1001, for the
section of the federal code that contains it,
prohibits lying to any federal agent, even by a person
who is not under oath and even by a person who has
committed no other crime.
Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and civil
liberties attorney based in Cambridge, Mass.
Elaine Lafferty, Editor-in-Chief of Ms. Magazine.
Bethany McLean, co-author of "Smartest Guys in the
Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron."
She is also a staff writer for Fortune magazine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however
donations help us provide closed captioning for the
deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank
you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: We turn first to Harvey Silverglate, who
is a civil liberties attorney based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Welcome to Democracy Now!
HARVEY SILVERGLATE: Good to be on.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what this rule or law is?
HARVEY SILVERGLATE: Yes, it is a statute that has been
on the books for decades, which makes it a serious
felony, punishable by up to five-years in prison to
lie to a federal official. And what is crucial to
understand is that the lie can be told without being
put under oath. That is, it is simply a lie that’s
told in ordinary conversation, rather than in a formal
setting where you're put under oath and you're told
that you have to tell the truth, otherwise you'll be
punished. So, you have no warning, no oath, no
particular solemn setting, any conversation that you
have. Now the only restriction is the lie has to be
material to some federal investigation. That is to say
if you meet with an investigator, and you say, “It's
raining out today,” and it's not raining, it turns out
that has nothing to do with the investigation, that is
not a material lie. But anything you lie about in
relation to the investigation becomes a felony and
this is a statute that has been used, abused, and
misused for decades in a lot of contexts, not just the
Martha Stewart-type investigation.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So, in other words, you don't have to
have actually already been read your rights by a
federal agent. If you just misrepresent something
material to an investigation that he or she is
conducting, you can be in violation of this law?
HARVEY SILVERGLATE: That is correct, and it is the
lack of a warning that makes the statute particularly
dangerous. And I should point out it was used in the
Martha Stewart case this year. It has been used in the
past against political dissidents, who were incautious
enough to speak to an investigator and later claimed
to have lied. Now you find it popping up in connection
with the interview of people in national security and
terrorism investigations. People who are asked whether
they've been to certain countries, they list the
countries. They leave out, let's say, Afghanistan and
then they are charged with violation of 18 U.S. Code
1001 for making a material omission. Because remember,
a misstatement includes an omission. Not only an error
of co-mission.
AMY GOODMAN: Harvey Silverglate is on the phone with
us. This is quite astounding, just for everyday people
in this country. To know that if you're not told you
are under oath, and you're talking casually to a
federal agent, whatever you say… And in the case of
Martha Stewart, I would say at this point, most people
would say she was accused of insider trading and she
was convicted of that.
HARVEY SILVERGLATE: What is so interesting about the
case is that the applicability of this case to the
insider trading rules is very dubious. By that, I mean
this. It is not at all clear in the criminal law that
it is a crime to trade securities the way Martha
Stewart did. It is not so clear that the information
she had, even if one believes that her broker told her
that her friend Sam Waksal, the C.E.O. of the Imclone
Company, was trying to sell his stock. Now there is no
question Waksal was an insider, he was the head of the
company. But the mere fact that he was trying to sell,
it isn't clear at all that that constituted insider
information because Stewart didn't know the reason
that he was trying to sell, the reason being that the
company was about to get hit by bad news. So, the
government decided not to charge her with insider
trading, because they probably would have lost that
case. Instead, they charged her with lying during an
investigation, concerning this trade, whether it was
insider trading or not. So she probably didn't commit
a crime, but because they claim she lied about it
during the investigation, she is guilty of a crime.
And I want to point out something else that is
particularly pernicious about the statute and about
the way The Feds operate. They almost never tape
record interviews with witnesses. What happens, if
you're visited by an F.B.I. agent, almost invariably,
you're visited by two agents, not one. Why two agents?
Because one of them asks you questions, and the other
one takes notes. And the agent who takes notes then
goes back and…
JUAN GONZALEZ: If I could just interrupt you for one
second, Harvey Silverglate, because we'd also like to
bring into the conversation Elaine Lafferty, the
editor in chief of "Ms." Magazine. First of all,
welcome to Democracy Now!
ELAINE LAFFERTY: Thank you. Good to be here.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And get your perspective on why you
think the government targeted Martha Stewart given
this pantheon of corporate criminals that we've been
watching the past few years.
ELAINE LAFFERTY: We said Martha Stewart has never been
exactly a feminist icon. She's never made the short
list for "Ms" Magazine woman of the year, so this was
not a natural thing. But seeing this prosecution and
conviction and seeing what's not happened with Enron,
Adelphi, Halliburton, Dick Cheney and the trades of
2000, we said we really have to speak out on a
feminist basis. She is an unlikable woman to many
Americans, as 55% Gallup Poll was unfavorable towards
her. There is a web poll that rated her right next to
Osama Bin Laden for being annoying. I think that they
focused on her. I think they taped into a reserve of
hostility towards a successful, powerful woman. I
think they knew a jury would be inclined to look at
her unfavorably, and make her the poster child for
this, and then get to sell it to the public as this,
"We're going after the big corporate bad guys," and
this is a victory for the little guy, this is a
victory for the little investor. In fact, I don't
think it's that at all. I do think it sends a message,
but I think the message has to do with creating a
climate of fear and terrorism in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: We're also joined on the telephone by
Bethany McLean, who is author of "Smartest Guys in the
Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron.”
She is a staff writer for "Fortune" Magazine. We’ve
watched the fall of Martha Stewart, yet Ken Lay has
not been charged. Can you explain?
BETHANY MCLEAN: Well, it's complicated because the
Enron case has been extremely complicated, where as
the Martha Stewart case seemed, on the surface,
somewhat straightforward. That is the sort of easy,
superficial explanation for what's happened. The Enron
investigation is not over yet, I should note that, but
what seems to be the case is that the government
really took the opportunity to get creative and really
push the limits of the law on Martha Stewart. And we
have not seen that same sort of focus brought to Ken
Lay, and I think that's a travesty if Martha Stewart
ends up spending time in jail for maybe saving is
$50,000 on a trade. And Ken Lay who helped bankrupt a
$70 billion company ends up walking away scot-free.
There is something that doesn't feel right about that.
And you can extend that line of arguing to Frank
Quattrone, the guys in the Tyco trial, even Bernie
Ebbers of Worldcom. A couple of those cases are still
ongoing. But compare the magnitude of what they did
wrong versus Martha Stewart's alleged misdeeds and it
is pretty shocking.
AMY GOODMAN: In one minute on the issue of Ken Lay and
the magnitude of his alleged crimes, and the lives he
affected, can you sum it up for us versus what
happened with Martha Stewart?
BETHANY MCLEAN: Sure. Ken Lay was the C.E.O. of Enron
for most of the company's 15, 16 years of existence.
He says he was ignorant of all the things that
happened at the company. But he was the C.E.O. And
ignorance is a little bit of a perverse defense for a
C.E.O. During the final year of Enron's life, he was
surreptitiously selling some $80 million of stock
while telling the Enron Employees to buy the stock.
He's cried poor, but he is still living in a
multimillion-dollar River Oaks condominium, while many
Enron people lost their life's savings in the
company's bankruptcy.
AMY GOODMAN: Last comment to the editor of "Ms"
Magazine and what you're going to be writing in your
next issue.
ELAINE LAFFERTY: Well, actually, we have an open
letter in support of Martha Stewart that's up on our
website right now, on Msmagazine.com and it talks a
little bit about more of these issues and a little bit
about the cultural hostility towards women that this
prosecution and conviction has tapped into.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being
with us, Elaine Lafferty editor-in-chief of "Ms"
Magazine, Harvey Silverglate, criminal defense and
civil liberties attorney based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts and Bethany McLean, author of “Smartest
Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall
of Enron.” And you are listening to Democracy Now!
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire
program, click here for our new online ordering or
call 1 (800) 881-2359.