So the Feds setup Martha Stewart. And were involved in the Brinks Bank robbery and the think tank behind Jack Ruby and a myriad of other schemes including assassinations and civil unrest around the world! No, my friend, poor Martha walked into a room with her hands out for that green stuff that came so easily to her over the years. It was her deceptive attitude and lies that set up her present dilemna. The Justice Department has enough home-work to do without pilfering for dirty laundry on their own.

I think the argument is not that the Feds used entrapment, but that in order to prosecute her, they are defining “criminal conduct” in whatever way allows them to get her.

My previous post was in response to Mr. Vogt, I’m not denying she was “Set up,” I’m just clarifying what Messrs. Auster and Reynolds mean by that.

Sorry, I posted this entry on the fly, and the phrase “set up” denotes a frame-up, which was not what I meant. I meant that prosecutors have improperly made a federal case (pun intended) out of Stewart’s relatively minor or non-existent violations. This is Alan Reynold’s view.

Mr. Auster, et al.
Our nation is approaching anarchy. These word exercises in philosophic and political discussion are fine after dinner but we need to awake to the persisting dangers facing all Americans. There is a greater terror confronting us and it lies within the way we conduct our National Elections. It has just been reported , via the O’Reilly Factor, that both major parties have hired ‘hit-men’ for dirty-tricks in the months preceding the November balloting. We have a task ahead of us that can truly save the elective process. I propose the following:
To implement by law, Congressional passage, certain rules of ethical conduct to be adopted by both national parties which would, in compliance, put an end to smears and unfounded distortions of the truth which has , without clearance, found its way into the media and to the detriment of candidates who now must spend more time defending themselves against the lies perpetrated by hired hooligans. In short, the code of ethics would force both parties and their candidates to stick to the major issues in the campaign for office and that anything less than this, allegations of one sort or another, must be first proven prior to release to the media. Unless we do this Mr. Auster, no person in their right mind would ever choose to run for higher office under the present circumstances. We will end up with only evil people running for positions of power knowing that one of them at least will occupy the reins of government. Good, qualified and decent individuals will hesitate before making the run. What say you, gentlemen, on this?

How sad. The hundreds of thousands she donated to various campaigns was clearly intended to direct this treatment toward others.

At least the justice will be poetic.

Mr. Vogt raises an issue which my own brother raises as well. There was a Supreme Court decision from 8-10 years ago which basically opened the door for political candidates and office holders to lie with utter impunity. When combined with the kind of media coverage available in this day and age, and the overwhelmingly leftist nature of the media and its employees, it creates a tremendous opportunity to advance the ultimately totalitarian agenda of liberalsim.

Re: Dirty Tricks
The State of New York actually adopted a law whereby candidates can be subjected to punitive damages for using smear tactics which, in substance, proves to be unfounded. Will report later on its sponsors and give full detail of its language.

And yet the doctrine of preemptive strike is a mark of despotism. So is anarchy better or is despotism better? Anarchy has never been totalitarianism. Ironically, this conservative administration has worked opposite to laissez faire government in increasing the power of the federal government over that of the states. To say that we are “approaching anarchy” is not accurate at all if government control and moral policing is reaching unprecedented levels.

Any law allowing for government officials to lie or deceive is not a law, but despotism that is neither liberal or conservative. To label the law as liberal is untruth as the Supreme Court is obviously slanted to the right in its decisions. If this issue was widely known, I have no doubt that all true Americans would protest this law; however, the protests themselves might lead to anarchy if Americans feel they have been lied to by so many incumbents.

Character is not policy, yet to push a conservative agenda, conservatives would have us believe that contradicting Bush’s policy is to impugn his character.

While musing about the law which holds sanctions against smear tactics and which was adopted by the bicameral legislature of New York, the titling jumped out at me and I believe it substantially deals with Fair Campaign Practices. Suggest your readership contact own legislators on this one.

There are slander laws on the books already. Beware new laws if the new law itself can be used by politicians to slander their opponent. What better way to derail an opponent than to accuse him of slander and then attempt to prosecute him before an election? I merely warn that any such law must be very very strict in definition or elections under that law may result in a morass of government regulation.

We are getting far from the Martha Stewart article so I’ll just comment that she will probably win her case since witness testimony is not legal for a portion of her case. As such, Faneuil (sp?) cannot testify to a major part of the case.
The timing of the Martha Stewart case is also too coincidental to the timing of other cases on big business that quickly got lost in the shuffle of a celebrity trial. Though I admit there is no proof, I just find it annoying that celebrity trials are more important to the media than ones that significantly affect American business.

I suppose I”m in the right church but the wrong pew. I should adhere to the topic at hand (Stewart). But I must first wiggle out quietly from my seat and post this little comment to the one above: The Fair Campaign Practices Law does not, to my understanding of it, deal with slander in itself. It concerns making charges which are totally false or misleading. For example, an opponent stating that his rival voted consistently against programs benefitting senior citizens but which such charges are erroneous or completely fabricated. Campaign assertions of this kind, released to the media, can be cahallenged for its falsehoods.Derailing a candidate, as conjectured above, does not come into play here. Documents and records of one kind or another can be introduced to show that the falsehood is a proven fact. It would be the obligation of the editor to point out the charges are untrue. As far as derailing is concerned here, just look at the modus operandi in the conduct of elections today. No one bothers to refute the lies but merely go after the another with lies of their own!

Ha ha, okay now that it was defined, it makes more sense. Yet somehow I keep thinking of a certain commercial in which there was a mushroom cloud. It doesn’t apply under the law you described, but it’s something that came to mind.

It is a sad commentary to our elective system of governing when so-called combatants from both sides will resort to the worst kind of conduct so as to deceive the voter and make the opponent too wretched to be trusted for whatever position applied for. The voters really have no choice in the matter. The lesser of two evils seems to be the only appeasement. Whence comes this need for mud-slinging? The answer: No viable candidates with leadership or statesmanship skills.Look at the roster of Democratic candidates for the highest and most powerful office in the world. They act as if they were applying for the position of Director of a local YMCA. On moral questions of personal conviction, they dance around their replies with as much caution as a mouse in a house with ten cats. The American public expects a clear and concise statement of beliefs. If one is opposed to gay marraiages, of which no such term has any foundation , then simply say so and leave the judgement to the voters. Running the nation does not depend on whether or not you are for or against most social issues. These are private matters for the most part and should have no place in the arena of public discussion. But again, when the topic is introduced in debate, flinch not and fear not to make your convictions known. If you are in favor of such and such, assert it without compromise. The true candidate may be slurred for hid stand, but the public will know the difference and bring honor to his or her name.