From people who could easily afford to lose it and who should have known better. None of the people she defrauded have a materially worse quality of life than they did before.
Her biggest crime was making rich people look stupid, and they REALLY don't like that.
It does not matter at all that they could afford to lose it. Her biggest crime was the one she just got convicted of, being a fraud and lying for profit.
One side of this conversation is unnecessarily harsh, I get that, but the other side of this conversation is playing mental gymnastics to try and downplay what she did. Both are wrong.
Who in turn gained their money from trickle-up economics targeting the working and middle classes, in all likelihood.
I don't get this apologetic comment.
The crime she was convicted of isn't a crime you should spend effectively the rest of your life in jail for. It's as simple as that.
Not if you're a young(-ish) and relatively good-looking female billionaire CEO, at least.
Apparently, judging from the fact that I haven't seen all you people spouting this line on the barricades fighting for more lenient sentences for ordinary lowlife ugly middle-aged male fraudsters.
That's how simple it is.