That’s a very different matter from prosecuting a factually innocent person

That’s a very different matter from prosecuting a factually innocent person, and I see nothing wrong

with it. More….

Kleiman wrote that before the indictment, which details just how the White House “cabal” is

responsible for disclosing classified information to their stenographers in the media, came out on

Friday.

It would also be timely to review what actually happened in the Martha Stewart case and why it isn’t

analogous to the Scooter indictment. Butler Shaffer’s article, Martha the Scapegoat, demonstrates why

we should oppose Martha’s treatment at the hands of Federal prosecutors yet consider Scooter Libby’s

indictment as a corrupt system for once getting something right:

The scapegoating purposes of the Martha Stewart trial were apparently evident to at least some of the

jurors. One of them stated, afterwards, that the verdict “sends a message to bigwigs in corporations

they have to abide by the law.” He added that the verdict “was a victory for the little guy who loses

money in the market because of this kind of transaction.” Considering that Martha was convicted only

of obstruction of justice and lying to government investigators – and not for any illegal “transaction

” – it appears that some of the jurors, at least, were responding to what they perceived as systemic

problems within the business community, and not to any acts for which Martha was charged. It is not the

role of juries in criminal cases to “send messages,” but only to determine the guilt or innocence of

the accused. It would seem that, in the eyes of some of the jurors, Martha became a stand-in for the

alleged sins of others.