| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
13 June 2003 - 7:29 am
I'm not really a Martha Stewart apologist, but I agree with William Safire's assessment of the case against her whole-heartedly. Prosecutions that hinge on a crime that you aren't being indicted for and instead try to get you for lying about the crime that you allegedly committed should be thrown out of the court. Although, lest you are confused, I should point out that they aren't charging Ms. Stewart with perjury either. You see, she never actually gave any testimony under oath, so perjury doesn't apply. Instead, the prosecutors are relying on "Section 1001 of the criminal code, which makes it a crime to knowingly and materially mislead federal investigators." I have every expectation that this charge, and most likely all the other charges on the 41-page indictment, will be dismissed. But I think there should be some penalties for prosecutors who twist the law to get convictions.
Posted by on 13 June 2003 at 7:11 AM
Comments