[vinceguidry]

> In this case, she apparently does still have enough to pay a high-priced attorney.

Having representation is not the same as being able to pay for a defense. That's just the start.

> Just how expensive an attorney does one need before their Sixth Amendment right is satisfied?

Like you said, this case doesn't involve drugs, it's not petty crime. It's not a simple matter to ascertain guilt based on the facts, because the facts aren't simple. You need expert witnesses, paralegals to comb through the evidence, defending yourself in court against a white-collar crime charge is not something you can do adequately without a war chest.

Unless the government is proposing that they pay for her defense, then they're basically railroading her by not allowing her to fund it herself. The government is going to bring all its unlimited guns to bear on making her look guilty and she won't be able to make her case adequately. It's not a simple matter of looking at a videotape.

[Natsu]

> Unless the government is proposing that they pay for her defense

Yes, they will provide public defenders if someone cannot afford representation.

That's why I've pointed out several times that the better argument here would be for a stronger public defender's office, rather than having a two-tier justice system where the rich (or those who stole a lot of money...) can buy better treatment.

[vinceguidry]

Once again, representation is not defense.

Your sense of justice is ill-placed. The court system is a machine deliberately engineered to destroy lives. It offers no real justice, only political scapegoating. Stripping away the ability of individuals to fight the system in the name of rectifying inequality is a net loss to all of us.

[Natsu]

> Once again, representation is not defense.

And a defense is provided by one's representation.

> The court system is a machine deliberately engineered to destroy lives.

It could stand improvements, but feel free to live in a country without one if you truly feel that way.

> Stripping away the ability of individuals to fight the system in the name of rectifying inequality is a net loss to all of us.

Only in the short-term. Long term, do you not think that those with influence would rectify that if it would affect their ability to buy their way out? I'm a bit worried to see such a strong, negative reaction to equality.