Posted on 02/27/2005 10:27:28 AM PST by drt1
That would explain a change in tune... return to one of the old standards...
Possibly. I have always wondered about them going after her while others just as prominent walked.
Most people who obstruct justice and purger themselves go to jail for a lot longer than 6 months. There was nothing unfair about her sentence other than people have been trained to think well known people should get special treatment. You make it sound like she simply told a lie. That's not a crime. When you obstruct justice and lie under oath, however, that's a crime, and anyone else would've have gotten much more than 6 months at a day spa. Nothing to feel sorry for there. There are plenty of cases where people got worse for "lying". Since when should a persons achievements and status be factored into their sentence for a crime? I don't care if she's freaking Mother Theresa. If you do the crime, you pay the consequences. No brownie points for being a successful woman. I'd feel the same way about anyone.
In a perfect world, who would disagree.....
But this is not a perfect world and when the public is so obviously pleased to destroy a person just because she has worked her way to be "on top" so to speak, it is crap...pure and simple.
If this person had been Mary Grub and without wealth, she would never have gone to jail....no matter what the elite MSM instructs the public to the contrary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.