No one cares what Martha Stewart did because she hangs out with Snoop Dogg - who still threatens women as recently as 2020 btw - but there was mass outrage over what Aunt Becky did. Both are white-collar crimes and let's be real, what Stewart did was worse. And Snoop is a low life. But Aunt Becky? Hang her!
shareShe's an idiot.
She followed "Full House" opposite Tony Danza (his first series since "Who's the Boss?) in "Hudson Street" on ABC. The network gave it one the greatest time slots in history.
In between "Roseanne" and "Home Improvement".
It was an epic ratings disaster.
Loughlin must have believed in Karma.
After 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008...
Hallmark found her...
.... what?
shareAfter "Hudson Street" she went to shitville.
That was was an awful performance in one of the greatest debacles of the 1990's.
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, ..she couldn't get a job.
Here she is featured in "US Magazine":
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/lori-loughlin-through-the-years-from-full-house-to-college-scandal/end-of-an-era-5/
"Guest starred" on "Spin City" and a few other forgettable shows.
For the record, I liked "Spin City"...
Hallmark Channel plucked her away. A couple Christmas movies later and murder mystery of the type filmed in Canada and she was back.
Refresh my memory. Tell me what Stewart did and why it was worse?
Lori did try to cheat deserving students out of an education by illegally paying to get her non-academic kids in a college.
She and her husband could have done like smarter multi-millionaires and made a legal endowment to place their non-academic children ahead of deserving students.
That would have cost about the same (when legal costs are included) and been a lot less embarrassing. Plus an endowment is good publicity.
Refresh my memory. Tell me what Stewart did and why it was worse?
Good point, but she did more time than Lori and people were going to buy that stock anyway.
share
I believe she did time for perjury related to inside trading.
.. people were going to buy that stock anyway.
The people who bought the stock were going to buy shares anyway. They didn't buy the stock because Stewart sold them and hers weren't the only shares available. I don't know how someone could prove her specific shares were purchased and by whom. Buying stock is always a risk.
shareWell, you're the only person on the planet who believes that inside trading is not a crime.
Buying stock is always a risk.
Thanks for your insight.
shareNo he isn't the only person on the planet with that view.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading
"Even today many Japanese do not understand why this is illegal. Indeed, previously it was regarded as common sense to make a profit from your knowledge."
Wrong. Martha wasn't charged or convicted of inside trading.
share
I didn't say she was charged or convicted of inside trading. The question was what did Martha do that was worse than what Loughlin did.
You're too cute by half. For one, if she had committed insider trading she would've been charged with it. But let's say she did, the amount of the trade was marginal. We're not talking about a Bernie Madoff level financial crime. Martha victimized no one. The same can't be said for Loughlin and her husband. The spot given to her daughter was undeserved and cost qualified applicants admittance. The effects of their crimes could and probably was life changing for the other applicants not to mention their own daughter although she's no victim. Martha has maintained her innocence on the insider trading allegation whereas the "Loughlins" have admitted to their malfeasance. So you are objectively wrong because it isn't a proven fact that the alleged crime you attribute to Martha occurred whereas there is massive evidence against Loughlin as well as the admission of guilt.
share
If Martha was innocent of the inside trading charge, why did she lie to the federal investigators about it?
The fact she wasn't charged for the crime directly doesn't mean she didn't commit it, it was just that the charge of lying would be a slam dunk with the same result: Martha being punished for her crime. I *suspect* that if Martha didn't lie about it, she might have been charged for the inside trading. In any case, she certainly would have been better off just coming clean the first time.
As for the "no victim" question, it's clear that there is, which is why laws against inside trading exist.
You make absolutely no sense. She was convicted of a process crime and her lie was unrelated to insider trading which was why there wasn't a charge for it. Did you actually ask why she lied [about the arrangement she had with her broker]? Law enforcement is notorious for laying traps and gross manipulation. Why do people make false confessions? Watch Making a Murderer for crying out loud why don't you.
shareSamuel D. Waksal, the founder and former chief executive of ImClone, is serving a seven-year prison term in Pennsylvania after pleading guilty to orchestrating stock trades by his family members at that time, as well as to other crimes.
Both she [Stewart] and her former stockbroker, Mr. Bacanovic, were convicted of conspiring to hide the reasons behind her ImClone trade, which netted her about $227,000. They told investigators that it took place because they had agreed earlier to sell if the share price fell below $60 a share. But Mr. Bacanovic's assistant, Douglas Faneuil, testified that his boss ordered him to tell Ms. Stewart that ImClone's top executive and his family were dumping their shares on Dec. 27, 2001. Ms. Stewart sold her stake a few minutes later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/business/martha-stewart-s-sentence-overview-5-months-jail-stewart-vows-ll-be-back.html
Insider trading.
Hanging with with Snoop too. You can't even make the argument that his past in the past, because of what he said to Gayle King this year. He threatened a 65-year-old woman.
I'm not saying she didn't commit a crime, I'm saying others have done worse and are treated better. Her crime really isn't that bad.
I disagree that Loughlin’s crime isn’t that bad. Loughlin and her husband deserved what they got for their criminal activity. Their daughters, especially the younger one, didn’t even want to go to college, much less a prestigious one. It was their dream to send their kids to USC because they didn’t even get a college education themselves.
Their younger daughter even wanted to drop out of high school and run her social media influencer activities full time, but her parents (wisely) made her complete her hs education.
They wanted their daughters do go to USC because they viewed that as their own achievements— and were willing to break the law and cheat the system to make it happen. Do you even understand what RICO or racketeering is? They’re lucky they got off so easily.
I didn't say they didn't deserve to be punished, I just said it really wasn't all that bad of a crime. It's not rape, murder, assault, or even theft. People only care because she's rich and white. They wanted to see someone wealthy punished.
shareNo, people care because they didn’t deserve their places at USC, and took spots other students should have had. their daughters weren’t even close to USC calibre. USC is very difficult to get into; Loughlin and her husband bought their way in with money and lying. Their daughters weren’t coxswains but they faked that with Singer’s help and cheated their path to USC admission.
shareNah, it's because she's rich. And white. People want to see those two groups punished just because that's what they are.
When Loughlin's sentence was handed down, libs kept trying to compare her to that Tanya McDowell. McDowell was sentenced to 5 years for lying to get her kid into a better school. She was hailed a hero. Her supporters go on and one about how long her sentence was compared to Loughlin's, but button line is McDowell offered sex and drugs in exchange for getting her kid into a better school:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tanya-mcdowell-sentencing/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tanya-mcdowell-felicity-huffman/
Martha didn't inside trade and wasn't convicted of it. Try again.
shareumm.... the thing is though, elites have been putting their kids (with zero academic skills) into elite colleges for decades, if not centuries. The real problem is that she did it all wrong - even got fake pics of her kid supposed accomplishments.
She should have done it the way everyone else does it - a massive public donation to the university (probably double what she paid - so I understand why she went the other route). Her kids would get in automatically.
It's like a politician taking a direct bribe and getting caught - of course, you'll get caught! These days corporate bribes to politicians are paid via public speech fees.
The system is corrupt through and through, but she didn't use the legal corrupt channels to do the deed, hence prison.
Another example - Russia doping in the olympics. Everyone knows that these days doping is done via medical exemptions. Russia didn't bother with the official corrupt route and tried to tinker with the actual samples. A big No-No.
[deleted]
You obviously love Aunt Becky, but I guess you don't consider yourself among the people? sad
shareAre you trolls flocking over from IMDB2 or something? This used to be a good site, but more and more bozos popping up lately.
sharenever heard of imdb2. I know there were several alternative refugee sites for IMDB posters but most of them went nowhere within 3 months of their inception. I even registered with some of them only to see them wither and go offline.
shareDo you know what Martha Stewart actually went to jail for? Most people assume it was insider trading which is what they were attempting to get her for.. but she didn't get convicted for insider trading it was for obstruction of justice and making false statements, which might sound bad but which when someone gets this type of conviction and nothing else when being prosecuted by the DOJ it usually means they couldn't prove the crime they wanted to and to save face went back and looked at all the times she spoke to one of their investigators, found something she said that was slightly different from something she said at a later time and used that to show she was lying. Her biggest crime was being stupid enough to talk to any federal agent. We saw this happen numerous times when I worked in a law firm that only handled white collar crimes, rich people with lots of money think they are smarter than they are and will agree to talk to federal agents and lawyers by themselves because they didn't commit whatever crime they were being investigated for only when the prosecutor can't get the crime they want they save face by chasing after an obstruction and false statement charge. It is total bullshit, because you can't ask anyone on the street to tell you what happened at some time and place and then if you go back and ask them about the same thing a week or so later you'll get some differences in the story and that is all they need to say you were giving a false statement.
Some people understand this and realize she was fucked by an overzealous prosecutor. Lori on the other hand was fucking bribing people she didn't get nailed for on a trumped up charge she got nailed for what she was accused of doing to begin with.
Martha Stewart got "fucked", LOL. She did five months. Sit down.
shareWhether she got 5 months or 5 years a felony conviction has a lot more bite to it than simply the time you spend incarcerated.
shareThank you, that fool talking about 5 months like it's a vacation. She definitely got fucked because they got her for process crime.
shareUsually, but other than voting, it probably didn't affect her much.
sharePretty much eliminated her chances of every making any comeback, the stigma sticks forever. And most people don't understand it was bogus affair and just see convicted felon.
shareEliminate her chance of a comeback? She has had 2 TV series, one of which is still going, since her conviction. She also has a very successful line of kitchen and household accessories at Macy's. Add to that the fact that she's 80 years old, and looking at retirement some day. Most people definitely get hurt by a felony, but she doesn't appear to be one of them.
share
That is a nice sanitized version of events, but over zealous prosecution notwithstanding, Stewart was still convicted by a jury. She could have avoided that simply by not lying to the SEC, which is something they frown upon greatly. Of course, being truthful with the SEC would leave her open to prosecution for inside trading, but the amount of stock involved would likely have resulted in a plea deal with no time assuming they even decided to even prosecute. Martha, staying true to her personality, refused to admit her wrongdoing and the rest is history.
If they had had proof of insider trading she would have been convicted of it. Her charges of obstruction was bullshit, and if you had actually followed the early insider trading prosecutions in the 80's and 90's you would understand just how morally bankrupt the prosecutors are. Over zealous is putting it nicely, I've seen those cocksuckers in the DOJ threaten kids and spouses with prosecution for made up charges, watched them freeze all the assets in the entire family even go after more distant relatives of the people they were trying to convict just to try and get them to plea guilty and not go to trial... They didn't pull that kind of shit because they had an iron tight case against anyone they did it because they didn't have a solid case at all but because they had already jumped out and announced it to the media and couldn't admit they were wrong (go knows that would have hurt their future political ambitions) they would then just go into nuclear mode and threaten to destroy everyone around their target.
Stewart didn't admit wrong doing because she did nothing wrong. Her mistake was simply cooperating with the investigators. Learn from her mistake, never ever talk to anyone investigating anything, it will never help you and could get you bent over and fucked by the system.
Stewart didn't admit wrong doing because she did nothing wrong.
She couldn't have done a plea deal because it would have required her to plead guilty which would have knocked her out of her business just regardless of whether she had gone to prison, paid a fine, or simply gotten probation. As I said, guilty of a felony would have consequences and that is why she wasn't going to just accept a plea deal.
The destroying evidence was a joke, it was deleting a phone message which was done prior to an charges being brought against her. If you followed the trial you would have realized that this was a case where the prosecutor had a hard on for her and the jury just didn't like her which isn't hard to see as she comes across as arrogant which is never going to win you any credibility with a jury. If she had had a trial before a judge and not the jury trial she wouldn't have been convicted of anything because there were enough witnesses on the stand countering the prosecution that there was reasonable doubt.
It wasn't "deleting" a phone message, it was altering the message on her assistant's computer immediately after a lengthy phone call with her attorney. Martha's own assistant confirmed that on the witness stand.
She also claimed that she sold the stock because had a standing order to sell when it hit a certain price point. Unfortunately, the broker's computers prove there was never such an order.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/business/prosecuting-martha-stewart-overview-martha-stewart-indicted-us-obstruction.html
Time will tell with Lori Loughlin. Maybe after a couple of years this will all blow over and be forgotten.
Stay tuned.
In general, the public is pretty forgetful and forgiving. (Translation: Stupid). Some people thought that Martha Stewart was finished when she went off to Club Fed prison. They could not have been more wrong. It's not because the general public understood that she only went in for obstruction.
The majority of people if asked, are going to say she was imprisoned for insider trading, because those were the original charges that she was brought up on.
We live in a cancel culture now though. She was immediately fired from all her jobs. The public wanted blood. And for what? Bribery...for a school?! It's a crime, sure, but Hannibal Lector she is not.
share
I admit I had a "so what" attitude when this came to light. I assumed it was kind of like slipped the maitre d' a $50 for a good table..
I also thought that such a bribe would mean that a class would have 24 kids in it instead of 23. Turns out that's not the case but bribing a ticket to a college does deprive another student.
Because it was so long ago.. 2002. She served her time and people got over it, and had a sense of humor about it. The Laughlin situation is still fresh.
shareThey're both scumbags.
shareMaybe so, but Lori Loughlin is a smoking-hot scumbag! She'll serve her time, do the community service, make some charity donations and charity appearances, and all will be forgotten.
This mistake will cost both of them in the 10's of Millions in lost wages, and hopefully raises the exposure that bribery at this level is seriously CRIMINAL.
I am not a fan of either. Why does everyone pose either/or choices all the time when answers can also include neither, both or ambivalent?
share