response 1 of 16:

Jun 11 03:48 UTC 1994

 This could be the death knell to politics as we know it. That is, if he is
convicted. I, for one, am not a big fan of the grand jury, because it is
slanted in the favor of the prosecution, and defense lawyers are not allowed.
Personally, I think if the prosecution had a real case, specific, and 
direct charges should be levied, and then Rostenkowski should be able to
answer them. The fact that a GJ indicted him, tells me that the prosecution
is doing more fishing than charging. 
   I hate politics. I hate the back room favors, and the supression of the
power that is in these people's hands. We could have so much i
weren for people playing small politcal games.

response 3 of 16:

Jun 11 20:41 UTC 1994

 The part about self incrimination, Aaron?

  Mobsters use that one ad nasuem.

  I am going on the assumption that he is innocent until proven otherwise.
I just stated that I OPPOSE USE OF GRAND JURIES. THEY ARE BIASED IN FAVOR
OF THE PROSECUTION. ARE YOU HEARING ME AARON???? I FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE
BANNED AND OUTLAWED. THEY DON'T FOSTER EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.

response 5 of 16:

Jun 12 03:31 UTC 1994

  I will admit to not being aware of that part of the 5th. My mistake.

 I am stating, no matter how relevent it is, that the grand jury system is
inherently unfair to those whom are accused. Let me explain.

 1. The prosecution holds all the cards. It may call or subpeona ANYONE
 However, the accused does not have that right. The Prosecution can, and
often does hold the procedings in secret. Defense lawyers are not allowed,
so if you are subpeonaed by the Grand Jury, you are not entitled to a defense.
 That is unfair in my book, and I think it needs to be re written.

 Answer me this, o oracle of the Law--- 

  Tell me how one can formulate a credible defense before a GJ.

 Does anyone who becomes the target of a grand jury ever get aquitted?

 Do you have any figures?

 Please ignore the fact that it is a part of out justice system, and weigh
the facts as you are aware of them. I have done some reading on the Grand Jury
system and formulated my opinions from what I read, and from what lawyers 
have told me.

response 7 of 16:

Jun 12 15:53 UTC 1994

 Thanks for opening my somewhat blind eyes. 

 I know that one can be indicted, but that means there is enough evidence
to bring charges, or one the gj can choose not to indict.


OK. carry on. I'm happy.

response 9 of 16:

Jun 12 23:16 UTC 1994

re #7:  The alternative to having a grand jury is... to not have one.
        This sounds like a strange "alternative," but it would bring the
        federal system pretty much in line with the typical state system.
        For the most part, grand juries are a waste of time and resources.
        You are correct -- they can be a very good prosecutorial
        investigative tool -- which is why some states allow for "special
        grand juries."  (Michigan, for one.)  The fact that they aren't
        called very often reflects their lack of utility in the typical
        case.  (The defendant gets an adversarial "preliminary examination,"
        where defense witnesses can be, but usually aren't, presented, and
        where prosecution witnesses can be cross-examined by defense
        counsel.  The goal?  To have the judge determine if there is merit
        to the charges.  Why have a grand jury, also?  Most states haven't
        found a reason outside of a state constitutional provision mirroring
        the federal guarantee.)

re #8:  That is true, even without a grand jury.  The very fact that a
        charge is brought can be very damaging -- it is very hard to prove
        yourself innocent in the court of public opinion.

response 11 of 16:

Jun 17 22:34 UTC 1994

Rosty had already "raised" almost a million dollars for his defense.  It
pays to be on the Ways and Means Committee, and in a position to reclaim
the chair if acquitted.

response 13 of 16:

Aug 23 23:05 UTC 1994

Not that this has any real relevance to Rosty's guilt or innocence, but
about a week and a half ago I was standing in the National Airport in D.C.,
saying good-bye to a friend when who should come trudging down the
corridor!natalk graduate@cat.cce.usp.br

response 15 of 16:

Aug 25 04:39 UTC 1994

Maybe Tim will come back and finish his post.
While we're waiting is a good time for me to point out to anyone who might
be reading this, that if you are entering something, and you get
interrupted by a talk request like that, you can do the following:
Type return to get the > prompt. Type :!ntalk etcetc and have your
conversation. The : is an escape character that the text collector uses
to identify this line as a command and not more text. The ! command
says to treat what follows as a shell command.

When you're done, and you find yourself back at the > prompt, type :p
to see what you've typed so far.