The American Spectator

p> JUDGING MARTHA STEWART br> Re: Reid Collins’s Tembrel Rolling : /p>

For the life of me I cannot understand the infatuation of many Conservatives and Republicans with the idea of Martha Stewart’s innocence.

Agreed, the interpretations of insider-trading law need further tuning, and agreed that Stewart’s broker was perhaps unfairly caught in its coils. Agreed, that Martha will pay (and already has paid) a high price for a relatively minor crime, and agreed that many of the stockholders in her company will be caught in the undertow.

But what’s the other side of it? Should “relatively” minor theft by a wealthy person go unpunished? Should only the worst examples of using inside knowledge be prosecuted? Should a celebrity have received breaks that you or I would not get under similar circumstances? I think not. And we should remember that at many stages Martha could have called a halt to the proceedings by telling the truth; she might have received penalties but certainly not as severe as what she now faces.

In the end, her main mistakes were arrogance and, perhaps, stupidity: the belief that her interpretation of the laws would be proved correct, that her worshipers would make it to the jury, that her supporters great and small could favorably affect the outcome. In other words, she committed worse than a crime — she committed a mistake.

p>And as for Reid Collins’ laughable assertion that based on historical precedent she deserved to be tried before a jury of wealthy CEOs and company founders (not his exact words, of course), isn’t this a bit like insisting that John Wilkes Booth be tried by a panel of actors? br> — Richard Donley /p>

“[C]onsider the motives for fibbing to the feds, or fabricating a stop-loss agreement with the broker.”