True enough. But we are not so unsophisticated as to believe there's no such thing as a "showcase prosecution," and this one certainly smells like one - no "Eat the Rich" implications about it. Everything I've been able to read about this case tells me that Stewart was prosecuted for lying to the feds about a crime they established she didn't commit - insider trading. Was she guilty of lying? Yes, the jury has spoken. But I'd feel more comfortable knowing just how often and how hard such cases are routinely prosecuted before I wrote the episode off as "just one of those things."
Limbaugh's illegal pill purchases are another example of this kind of thing. Almost universally, prescription drug addicts are given a pass if they cooperate with authorities and seek treatment. Not that there are many good Samaritans to be found among prosecutors, but because there's rarely a chain of evidence or "risk to the community" in such cases to make it worth the while. But give a prosecutor - essentially a lawyer in apprenticeship for public office - a shot at getting his name in the paper for six months, and they would prosecute their own mothers for littering.
I prefer the term "public hangings." So long as the hangee in fact did the evil deed, I do not have a problem with hanging celebrities in the town square, even if there's a fair amount of unpunished evil going on. A big part of why we even have a justice system is deterrence. If people see that even the "rich and powerful" will be hung for doing X, they are much less likely to do X themselves.