There are two things here that I am sure of:

1) You and I feel exactly the same way about this.
2) We aren't likely to get much simpathy.

The way that so many Americans rejoice when one of our priveledged falls, even when it happens unfairly, really disgusts me.

Bill Clinton committed perjury before a Grand Jury, obstructed justice, used the full force of his office to hide his crimes (abuse of power), and slandered the man investigating him (all felonies or crimes) and got off merely surrendering his law license IN ARKANSAS for 5 years. Martha was not fully honest to investigators accusing her of ONE crime (insider trading) the accusation of which was then dismissed-and she goes to jail for 5 months, has 5 months house arrest, and two years probation (or was it 5?)! Is something out of kilter here? But, hey, with Clinton it was all about sex! Maybe Martha should have exposed her privates and told the investigator to ``kiss it``. That would have gotten her off, and probably promoted her a chance to run for the Senate courtesy of the Democratic Party!

Bill Clinton committed perjury before a Grand Jury, obstructed justice, used the full force of his office to hide his crimes (abuse of power), and slandered the man investigating him (all felonies or crimes) and got off merely surrendering his law license IN ARKANSAS for 5 years. Martha was not fully honest to investigators accusing her of ONE crime (insider trading) the accusation of which was then dismissed-and she goes to jail for 5 months, has 5 months house arrest, and two years probation (or was it 5?)! Is something out of kilter here? But, hey, with Clinton it was all about sex! Maybe Martha should have exposed her privates and told the investigator to ``kiss it``. That would have gotten her off, and probably promoted her a chance to run for the Senate courtesy of the Democratic Party!

***In other words, her crime is claiming to be innocent of a crime with which she was never charged.***

Are you talking about Al Capone?
Oh... I see... Martha Stewart....
Though I think that something should've been done, and I don't think that a $30K trade is chump change (like Rosie does), I do believe that this was a bit extreme.
I imagine that there is a list of people guilty of more heinous crimes who have gotten off with less.... a certain O range J uice comes to mind.

The punishment definitely did not fit the crime. Especially with all of the public service help she could've done...

-Super

You know, Supe, I thought the same thing; teaching homemaking skills to recently released women prisoners at a halfway house comes to my mind.

I do really think that she was specifically targeted to be made an example of. Without giving any details, I was made an example by the law when I was 20 years old and I have always wondered if it was because I rejected the PD and hired my own attorney. You know, "if you she can afford an attorney, she's a little rich girl who needs to be taught a lesson." I went to the attorney bawling and begging and he did the case for $200- my entire paycheck for a week. I knew enough about PD not to allow them to represent me and fortunately my attorney knew enough about SIS to get it for me; something that I seriously doubt an overworked PD would have done for some minor case like mine was.

There's an enigmatic peak at my sordid past; but I do agree with you, Z. I have read things that say Ms. Stewart was a really difficult person sometimes, but I really do think it sad that she is probably going to lose her company over all of this. I personally thought it ingenius that she repackaged what many women thought they had rejected: the art (and it is an art) of decorating a home; entertaining and hospitality; baking and cooking; gardening and landscaping.

Martha Stewart was convicted of lying. If she had told the truth there wouldn't have been a trial or conviction. Why did she lie? Probably because she thought she had committed a crime, and didn't want to pay the consequences for that. Now she will pay the consequences for the lie. I fail to see the problem.

As far as Clinton goes, saying that no one should ever again be prosecuted for lying because Clinton got his wrist slapped with a soggy noodle, is like saying no black man should ever again be tried for killing a woman, because OJ got off.

Irony of ironies -- if billionaire babe Martha had held on to her stock, rather than trying to foist it on to some poor unsuspecting slob she would have made a profit.

If she were not Martha Stewart, the U.S. Attorney wouldn't have wasted even a second on the case.

Speaking of injustice, Martha got five months in jail, which is five months more than OJ got and five months more than Jason Williams got for killing two people and one person, respectively.

It's not unusual for people to be convicted of reletively minor crimes associated with a major charge which either never is brought, is dropped or they're not convicted. It's the product of how difficult it is to actually convict someone. It's also the nature of investigative and prosecutorial agencies. They've spent time, manpower and money, for good or ill, they'd better come out of it with SOMETHING. Nobody gets brownie points for exonerating someone, though they should.
Look on the bright side, though. Sure this investigation and trial cost millions. How much would it have cost to hire Martha for five months to redecorate the federal prisonns and revamp the menus?
The thing I find amusing is that Martha Stewart is a big Dem and Lib. The people that were happiest to see her downfall are almost all Dems and Libs.