About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Even I have my limits when it comes to TV | Main | "MI-5" compared to "24": the direction of things to come? »

March 05, 2005



Even though Enron sleazebags have or will serve prison terms, the prosecution's (and media's) focus on Martha is disproportionate to her crime...which was, remember, a crime (lying to federal investigators) that was collateral to a non-crime (she was cleared of insider trading).

I agree with Edward. Martha took one for feminism. And now she's on the rise. It's a "good thing."

Tung Yin

the prosecution's (and media's) focus on Martha is disproportionate to her crime

I disagree. Martha Stewart lied directly to SEC lawyers and FBI agents -- with her attorneys next to her!! Consider that she was slated to serve on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange. . . . I don't see how the SEC and the U.S. DOJ can let someone who lies to them about stock transactions serve in such a position of supervision over the stock market.


hmmm. But its OK for the POTUS to lie about sex under oath in front of a grand jury. While overseeing the most powerful country in the world and subject to blackmail by any foriegn intelligence service that might find out.

Just as most people would lie about minor adultery most would lie about minor financial malfeasance (even though neither underlying offense would rise to the level of a crime). The key is the expectation that grand jury investigations a backed by force &/or imprisonment for lying.

Not that I'm saying it was your position Tung. However, it seems to be the irreconcilable position of a lot of liberals out there.

Tung Yin

Well, my sense is that the "liberal" position, if I can paint with a broad brush, is that Clinton should not have been impeached and Stewart should not have been prosecuted, so that's actually not inconsistent. But, as you note, I'm not inconsistent on lying under oath (re Clinton).


I'm going contra the commenters' cynicism. Stewart was more interesting than the other folks. Plus, she was a media celebrity BEFORE the trial, where as the other folks were not. Thus, it would make perfect sense that the media would follow her trial more closely.

Besides, the media has made her more or less a media darling. I'm not sure how they attacked her, or anything else. She's doing damned well for someone who arrogantly thought that she would lie to federal agents. Someone with her smarts should have known better.

The comments to this entry are closed.