No I would not have run to her defense.
But, based on her popularity and the dedication of her supporters I would have imagined should could have raised the cash.
On a secondary note, anyone putting themselves in a position where personal liability is possible should know enough (or have people around her that know enough) to move those assets into someone else’s name to avoid EXACTLY what you are writing about.
Those are the dirty little secrets of people in power. They have no “personal” wealth—at least none that can be attached. The people who write the laws know this. I imagine there was a Democratic lawyer somewhere laughing when he found out she had not protected herself.
I am not sure what I find more discomforting: The fact that she did not know how to do that, or the fact that she DID know, and figured she was above the risk. Or worse yet, was she aware and had she protected herself—but decided to bail assuming that the public would have no idea about the process and see her as a sympathetic character.
None of those options look good.
You still don't get it.
The frivolous lawsuits were filed against the Governor of Alaska (who just happened to be Sarah Palin at that time). They were so-called 'ethics complaints' that had to be answered in a court of law.
The state of Alaska has quirks in their law that forbid the usage of state funds or attorneys to defend a sitting governor against such lawsuits.
Sarah needed to retain legal council to fight these lawsuits, and the cost of that nearly destroyed her family to the tune of nearly half a million dollars.
There isn't any way to 'hide' your assets from legal bills.
If you'd taken the time to honestly inform yourself about this incident, you'd probably understand it well enough to save me the time of explaining something that most Freepers sorted out a long time ago.
You reveal yourself to be an uninformed Palin hater by pushing the debunked "quitter" meme.