What's their reason for defending her? She's just a media type who someone had a grudge against?
I defend her, too. She wouldn't have gone to prison if she'd have just shut up, like her rights dictate she (and everyone) should. Her charge was lying to investigators. But we've all been round & round this issue.
The goodly and honorable Ms. Norville has the floor now, and I for one am throwing popcorn at the screen.
they defend her because they claim she was only targetted because she is wealthy.
generally speaking, this is the latest "theme" regarding application of justice in the US - that the wealthy are unfairly targeted. so a wealthy preson who is accused of child molestation, can claim the accusers are motivated by money. no proof mind you, simply because you are wealthy, means you "could" be a target of a civil suit, and that invalidates the charges against you. a wealthy CEO who commits corporate fraud, can claim the jury is motivated by jealousy. so basically, the elites are asking for some kind of blanket immunity based on their status.
so where does that leave our justice system, if this were the new standard? do the laws only apply to "regular" people? the son of sam laws prevent criminals from profitting from their crimes after being released from jail - they cannot write or sell books or movies, the money would go to their victims. so why can martha do a TV show? has she yet offered up any compensation to the people who bought her shares of stock that she sold on the tip, when she knew it was going to go down, and those buyers would lose money?