Softening his former view of the Martha Stewart affair, Stephen Bainbridge suggests that the government may be overreaching in prosecuting Stewart for publicly denying a charge of insider trading when it does not see fit to charge her with insider trading itself (Oct. 7; Oct. 8; Oct. 9; Oct. 10; Oct. 14; and follow links from the various entries). See also Reason’s recent cover story with its unnecessarily provocative title and subhead (Michael McMenamin, “St. Martha”, Oct.). Other views: Yin Blog, Oct. 8: Daily Kos, Jun. 5; Chris Byron, “$uper Winter Sale for Martha Stewart”, New York Post/Fox News, Jun. 11. Update Jan. 27 (trial).
Martha Stewart defended
Softening his former view of the Martha Stewart affair, Stephen Bainbridge suggests that the government may be overreaching in prosecuting Stewart for publicly denying a charge of insider trading when it does not see fit to charge her with insider trading itself (Oct. 7; Oct. 8; Oct. 9; Oct. 10; Oct. 14; and follow links […]
Comments are closed.