Enron cfo...

[Guest Juvydriver]

I saw that the former (or current) CFO of Enron was testifying in front of Congress today and basically took the 5th.  

 

Now, I understand that he has the right to not incriminate himself, but when you do that, aren't you incriminating yourself?

 

Hopefully, he can take the $30 mil he picked up by making shady deals and give to the employees of Enron that he screwed...and hopefully he rots in jail.

 

Juvy

[Guest Tony149]

This doesn't apply to all cases, but most of the time when somebody takes the 5th, they're probably hiding something.

[Guest Juvydriver]

I think you're right in this case.  The problem is that, it seems to me, the wrongdoing is all very apparent.

 

If you take the 5th, then you are proven to be guilty, is the punsihment harsher?  I would think it would be.  Much like pleading not guilty and being found guilty as opposed to pleading guilty from the get go.

 

Juvy

[Guest Tony149]

I don't know if the punishment is harsher if you take the 5th then found guilty. It might be. Didn't Ken Lay's wife go on Nation wide TV and say they were broke only to have NBC say they still own 10 houses worth $10 million? I get kick out of the fact most of the top brass are trying to cover their asses.

[Guest Juvydriver]

What I find funny is that she thinks anyone cares.  They basically got rich by stealing the money of investors, and I should feel sorry for them?  I don't think so.

 

Juvy

[Guest Sek]

What gets me is employees get screwed every day, yet the press wants us to think Enron is something special. Hell, go to this site to see a list of sites who screwed their workers, updated daily.

[Guest Juvydriver]

True, but are the magnitude of the screwing by Enron is off the charts.

 

Besides, the press feels that they can link the White House to Enron, and maybe, just maybe, the White House will get blamed for everything and we'll have to vote for a Democrat during the next Presidential election.

 

Run on sentences rule!

 

Juvy

[Guest Sek]

*in Chris Farley doing a "The Chris Farley Show" skit from SNL voice*

 

 

remember that time when there was a Democrat in the White House, and he was like...screwing interns and taking money from druglords and communists? and then remember when the Republicans launched a special prosecutor, all the media made it seem like the mean ol' conservatives were abusing their power? yeah, that was cool....

[Guest DrTom]

"Now, I understand that he has the right to not incriminate himself, but when you do that, aren't you incriminating yourself?"

 

Legally?  No.  In the court of public opinion?  Hell yes.  Taking the Fifth, in the eyes of most people, is an admission of guilt without admitting guilt.  It is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, though, and I'm not surprised in the least that the bastards from Enron are invoking it.

 

For those concerned about Enron damaging Bush, don't be.  I don't see this one touching him, despite the protests of the Democrats and the reaching by the press.

[Guest Juvydriver]

For those concerned about Enron damaging Bush, don't be.  I don't see this one touching him, despite the protests of the Democrats and the reaching by the press.

 

You know what I think will help GW out a lot?  The fact that his mother (in-law?) lost money on the deal.  If I was in on the dirty dealing, I certainly wouldn't let a member of my family lose money while the execs were walking off with millions.

 

So what do you think will come of this?  Will anyone of the people in charge do hard time?  They damn sure should.

 

And is there an empty CEO position that will be less likely to be filled than Enron?  I think I would rather be the President of Argentina right now.

 

Juvy

[Guest J*ingus]

Now, I understand that he has the right to not incriminate himself, but when you do that, aren't you incriminating yourself?"

 

Not really.  By taking the 5th, you're saying that SOMETHING  within all of your testimony MIGHT incriminate you in ANY way.  In court, taking the 5th isn't considered evidence towards guilt; it's basically the same as "I abstain", and the only way to do so legally in court.  

 

remember that time when there was a Democrat in the White House, and he was like...screwing interns and taking money from druglords and communists? and then remember when the Republicans launched a special prosecutor, all the media made it seem like the mean ol' conservatives were abusing their power?

 

Drug lords?  What's that about?  

 

As for the rest, it was legal for the most part.  There's no law against taking money from a Communist or screwing an intern, though the latter could get you in trouble if a divorce occured.  Ethically shaky, sure, but nothing illegal.  

 

I certainly think Starr abused his power.  He was the special prosecutor for a case which involved suspect real-estate deals in Arkansas, which took place before Clinton ever became president.  He really had no business asking about current-day sexual improprieties.  It could be argued that it was the public's right to know if their President was being unethical, but Starr had no real legal right to be the one to grill him on it.  

 

And yeah, the media does tend to slant more towards the left than the right, although I think it's simply that more liberals tend to become journalists than conservatives in the first place than any Big Media Conspiracy.

[Guest KingOfMen]

The reason the media is hounding Dubya and the administration about this is because he had more money flowing in from Enron than any other corporation that supported his campaign.  Cheney and O'neil also worked for Enron at different times.  Enron made calls to the administration asking for help while the investment world was clueless to their financial woes.  Whether they did anything wrong, I don't know.  The media is doing their job by asking questions though.

[Guest Sek]

Drug lords?  What's that about?

 

 

The Clintons socialized with known drug lords while in the White House, there are even photos of them together.

[Guest KingOfMen]

The Clintons socialized with known drug lords while in the White House, there are even photos of them together.

 

Where?  In the Weekly World News?  With the picture of Hillary Clinton dumping Vince Foster's body?  Pathetic.

[Guest DrTom]

"So what do you think will come of this?  Will anyone of the people in charge do hard time?  They damn sure should."

 

Of course they should, but in America, justice can still be bought by the rich.  I don't think they'll get any help from Washington on this one, though.  I think one person from Enron will spend time in a country club-style jail, and the rest will get off with fluff community service, fines, and some form of restitution.

[Guest DrTom]

"I certainly think Starr abused his power.  He was the special prosecutor for a case which involved suspect real-estate deals in Arkansas, which took place before Clinton ever became president.  He really had no business asking about current-day sexual improprieties."

 

Starr got the realm of his investigation expanded by Congress.  He tried to tie the Lewinsky matter to the subornation or perjury via Vernon Jodan.  It wasn't related to Whitewater directly, but it did show the president allegedly suborning perjury, and perjuring himself in his own testimony.  Starr shot himself in the foot by acting like the most fanatical of zealots, and by releasing a report that focused on presidential blow jobs and little else.

[Guest AaronMarco]

He did it to avoid a witchhunt. The Congress would have taken ANYONE they could find to be a scapegoat for Enron (not that he shouldn't be, but nevertheless).

[Guest the Goon]

How is it that Americans always elect criminals? Is it just accepted these days? Or is a bigger defense budget, capital punishment and prayer in schools more important than having a leader who ISNT putting the people who elected him out of house and home. I'm worried this "we're evil and get away with it because we keep our scandals boring" thing might spread up north, if it hasnt already.

[Guest the Goon]

"Besides, the press feels that they can link the White House to Enron, and maybe, just maybe, the White House will get blamed for everything and we'll have to vote for a Democrat during the next Presidential election"

 

thats because the White House IS linked to Enron, and Barbara Bush barely lost anything, esp. when you compare her losses to those of the avg. investor and to the loss the employees will feel.

 

as mentioned, yes, Clinton is a criminal as well. Its worth mentioning, but I think you mustn't bring it up as a way to excuse Bush as if two wrongs make a right. Enron is now, Bush is now, and its damned evil. Something has to be done.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

How is it that Americans always elect criminals?

 

 

What has Bush done that is criminal? Since the topic of this thread is Enron, I have to assume you're referring to Enron---but Bush has done nothing illegal, unethical, or even moderately improper in regards to Enron.

 

 

Is it just accepted these days? Or is a bigger defense budget, capital punishment and prayer in schools more important than having a leader who ISNT putting the people who elected him out of house and home.

 

 

Again, what has Bush done like this?

 

 

I'm worried this "we're evil and get away with it because we keep our scandals boring" thing might spread up north, if it hasnt already.

 

 

 

Well, we might have scandals---but we don't nearly have states seceding because we can't agree on a language. :-)

                       -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"Besides, the press feels that they can link the White House to Enron, and maybe, just maybe, the White House will get blamed for everything and we'll have to vote for a Democrat during the next Presidential election"

 

thats because the White House IS linked to Enron

 

 

Sad fact---Clinton's White House helped Enron FAR more than Bush did. Bush took several actions that Enron opposed.

 

Bush pulled us out of the Kyoto Accords---hurt Enron badly.

When Enron called the WH to beg for a bailout---nobody gave it to them.

 

Truth is, nobody can point to any special priveleges Enron got for their contributions to Bush. Nobody has made anything resembling a charge of ANY sort against GW in regards to Enron.

 

Enron does not hurt Bush because Bush did nothing illegal, wrong, unethical, or untowards on their behalf.

 

, and Barbara Bush barely lost anything, esp. when you compare her losses to those of the avg. investor and to the loss the employees will feel.

 

 

It was Laura's mother---but George's--who lost money.

 

And, unless I'm COMPETELY off on my knowledge of 401(k) plans, the employees could have diversified their portfolios considerably better than they did.

 

 

as mentioned, yes, Clinton is a criminal as well. Its worth mentioning, but I think you mustn't bring it up as a way to excuse Bush as if two wrongs make a right. Enron is now, Bush is now, and its damned evil. Something has to be done.

 

 

 

Nothing is to be done.

 

You cannot point to a single thing Bush did wrong----much less anything he did that was illegal.

 

Enron failed because the management of the company lied to investors as to their financial situation and had Arthur Andersen back them up on it.

 

The WH is on the clear here---and Bush shows that you don't campaign finance laws to keep government honest.

 

You just need honest politicians.

                             -=Mike

[Guest the Goon]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Da...nron011210.html

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Using a column written when the story first hit and before anybody ACTUALLY investigated anything?

 

Well, when you have nothing, I guess you go with that.

 

Again, list one single thing that Enron got from Bush.

 

They were a part of the deliberations for the Energy Policy Commission. Of course, several other companies were ALSO part of it. Of course, Bush's energy policy didn't really go along with what Enron wanted, but hey, that isn't relevant, is it?

 

AND, at the time, Enron was the 7th largest corporation in America and a highly-regarded energy company. To NOT include them in those meetings would be like having meetings about massive changes to automotive manufacturing and not having anybody from GM there.

 

Enron gave considerable amounts of money to Bush and got zilch for it.

                            -=Mike

[Guest Some Guy]

Enron gave money to everyone Republican and Democrats alike.  The media and the Dems are using this to push Campaign Finance Reform and to try to unhinge a very popular Prez.  So far it hasn't worked and it probably won't because there is no proof that Bush did anything wrong, there is however proof that his administration did something right, in refusing a corparate bail out.

[Guest the Goon]

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/697801.asp

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0204/ridgeway.php

http://www.uaw.org/atissue/02/021302funke.html

 

some more recent ones... the smoking gun is there. its like they say in the Hudsucker Proxy, "its not who you fire, its who you hire"

[Guest TheMikeSC]

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/697801.asp

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0204/ridgeway.php

http://www.uaw.org/atissue/02/021302funke.html

 

some more recent ones... the smoking gun is there. its like they say in the Hudsucker Proxy, "its not who you fire, its who you hire"

 

OK, let's look at the articles.

 

The UAW one:

 

<<It's bad enough that Enron's bosses lied, prevented their workers from selling Enron stock and made $1.1 billion dumping their own stock. Some 12,000 Enron employees — including many at Enron's PGE subsidiary in Portland — saw their 401(k) savings disappear while their bosses got richer. That's morally reprehensible.

 

But calling for mere corporate accountability in the wake of Enron's freefall into bankruptcy and disrepute is not enough from a president who promised a "new era of personal responsibility" in the White House. Personal responsibility starts with telling the truth. George W. Bush is serving up whoppers.

 

The Bush Administration says Enron got nothing for the $494,875 its officers, employees and PAC contributed to Bush-Cheney in 2000, and Enron's accounting firm Arthur Andersen got zilch for its $146,650.

 

The president says people who moved from Enron's payroll to the White House — like economic adviser Larry Lindsay, Sec. of the Army Thomas E. White and Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick — did nothing for Enron. He says Enron didn't influence even one of the 35 administration officials holding Enron stock.

 

Vice President Cheney claims Enron didn't participate in secret White House meetings to formulate a corporate-friendly energy policy that gouges consumers, ravages the environment and propels us towards a permanent military presence in the oil-rich regions of the world.

 

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill there are 259 members of Congress — including 158 Republicans — who say Enron and Arthur Andersen also get zilch for the combined $3.6 million given them the past 12 years.

 

The Center for Responsive Politics (source for all campaign contributions data) reports that Enron contributed $6 million to candidates, PACs and political parties since 1989 — 74 percent of it to Republicans — and Arthur Andersen chipped in $5.2 million — 61 percent to Republicans.

 

Money for nothing, we're told.

 

"If they came to this administration looking for help, they didn't get any," says Bush. Serve me another whopper, George.

 

Bush's energy policy echoes corporate desires spelled out in a memo Enron CEO Ken Lay handed Cheney last April, says the San Francisco Chronicle. Bush's energy plan further deregulated the electricity market, making it easier for Enron to sell energy and make paper profits. It forced many local utilities to buy from Enron — which Enron called its "single most important initiative" in 1999.>>

 

Hmm, no mention of pulling out of the Kyoto Accords, which hurt natural gas---Enron's big cash cow.

 

What do you expect from a political rag?

 

<<Cheney pushed for exactly what Lay sought in the memo as Enron and others manipulated California's energy market and jacked up the price of electricity for Bonneville Power Administration, costing taxpayers and consumers billions. >>

 

CA's deregulation was messed up badly to begin with.

 

<<Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who later profited from the sale of his own Enron stock, helped develop this energy policy. >>

 

Yet, still no mention of no bailout and the removal of the US from the Kyoto Accords.

 

Shocking.

 

You know who helped Enron get deals made?

 

Clinton--but let's keep that quiet, 'K?

 

<<Bush named Patrick Wood III chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the request of Lay, who had failed to convince the former FERC chairman to back Enron's deregulation ideas. When Bush was Governor of Texas, Lay told him to name Wood head of the state's public utility commission, where Wood promptly delivered deregulation. Now Wood tells us he'll investigate charges of Enron profiteering in the Pacific Northwest energy market.

 

Lay called Bush Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. just before Enron declared bankruptcy, anxious for passage of Bush's economic stimulus package. The plan passed by the House included a tax provision that would have given Enron a $254 million rebate. (Enron got a $381 million refund on $1.8 billion in profits between 1996 and 2000, largely through 3,000 subsidiaries and partnerships, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.)

 

Bush picked Harvey Pitt, an Arthur Anderson lawyer, to head the Securities Exchange Commission. Ralph Estes, president of Accountants for the Public Interest, says Pitt promotes self-regulation that won't change anything in the accounting industry.>>

 

Of course, no claim that any of those men were UNQUALIFIED for their position. Just that Lay suggested them. I suppose if Bush named a UAW-supported nominee as Secretary of Labor, UAW would complain, huh?

 

Lay offered candidate suggestions. Bush took them and decided to use them.

 

No scandal at all.

 

<<"Enron, accompanied by a supporting cast from banking, accounting, and Washington politics, is a virtual piñata of corrupt practices and betrayed obligations to investors, taxpayers and voters," writes William Greider in The Nation magazine. "The rot in America's financial system is structural and systematic. It consists of lying, cheating and stealing on a grand scale. . .Enron ought to be seen as a casebook for fundamental reform."

 

Investigate the hell out of them, I say. Demand an independent counsel with the power to get the job done. Let's find out if Bush is lying or if Enron and Arthur Andersen just threw all that money away.>>

 

They've tried that.

 

They've not found a thing to even indicate that anybody in Bush's administration did anything unethical or illegal.

 

<<Then let's see what else we can do, and let's think big:

 

Campaign finance reform — public financing, period.>>

 

Oh yeah, a REAL winner of an idea. Let me guess, unions would be exempt from it though, right? I knew they were in the early drafts of McCain/Feingold.

 

<<Stop energy deregulation — public ownership of power companies.>>

 

Energy deregulation isn't the problem. Poorly done deregulation is.

 

<<Real tax reform — make corporations pay their fair share.>>

 

Corporations don't pay taxes. They just increse the cost of goods to make up for it. Their call is known as biting your nose to spite your face.

 

<<Retirement fund reform — defined-benefit pension plans where workers only have 401(k)s; hands off Social Security.>>

 

Because, lord knows, even the most conservative investment plans generate considerably more money than Social Security currently does.

 

<<Auditing and banking reform — more regulation, less chicanery. >>

 

Agreed.

 

<<File lawsuits — for people who lost their life savings and consumers who have been gouged by Enron greed. >>

 

Agreed.

 

<<Build a movement — we can't compete dollar for dollar with the corporations, but we can apply pressure at town meetings, in e-mails, letters and phone calls, in meetings with elected officials, in our communities, in the streets, etc.>>

 

Do that all you want.

No shocker that unions are held in so low regard.

 

<<Take heart — Richard Nixon didn't mention Watergate in his 1973 State of the Union speech and look what happened to him.>>

 

Ah, when you have no point, make irrelevant ones.

 

NOW, the Village Voice:

 

<<While the Bush administration is seemingly open to finding out what happened with Enron, its disclosures are selective, omitting Cheney's energy task force and the role Enron played in framing White House energy policies, which depended largely on the increased production of natural gas at home and abroad. Natural gas is an underlying economic factor in Central Asia, for starters, and U.S. pipelines for the fuel were one of Enron's biggest hard assets.>>

 

And, again, the departure from the Kyoto Accords HURT natural gas and Enron vigorously opposed it.

 

<<One unexplored approach to unraveling the Enron scandal may lie in the company's use of offshore tax havens, which have scant banking-disclosure laws. The company had over 2800 subsidiaries, some 800 of which were headquartered in nations officially designated as tax havens, including the Cayman Islands. In its lengthy study of Enron, the watchdog Public Citizen argues that by stashing money in this myriad of subsidiaries, Enron could conceivably hide from a growing list of creditors as well as U.S. tax investigators. Indeed, Enron appears not only to have paid no taxes for four of the past five years, but also may have been eligible for hundreds of millions in refunds.

 

It's an intriguing story. Under Clinton, the feds made an effort to gain more information about how these tax havens operate by joining with other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which wanted to clamp down on lax banking laws. At first, the Clinton Treasury Department just named the offending countries, hoping to embarasss them into changing. After Osama bin Laden's 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, there was a new urgency to tracking Al Qaeda's money. Two years later, the U.S. was able to negotiate deals with the Cayman Islands and others to work on tightening their rules. And Clinton threatened economic sanctions if they didn't move.>>

 

Of course, no mention that Clinton HELPED Enron get several int'l deals (a $100M contract to build a 150 MW plant in Bosnia/Serbia; nearly $400M in US government assistance: Export-Import Bank gave them $298M; Overses Private Investment Corporation gave them $100M to build a plant in Bombay). Total, Enron received roughly $4B from OPIC and the Export/Import Bank under Clinton.

 

Yet, Bush is the dirty one?

 

Interesting---but it's the Village Voice. Not exactly a believable source.

 

<<With Bush, everything changed. Less than a month after his inauguration last year, his Treasury announced the Clinton deals had been placed under review>>

 

As well they should have been. Clinton was nothing if not corrupt.

 

<<Last spring the administration told OECD that it wouldn't be going along with the Clinton agreements. Instead, on November 27 of last year, in the midst of the gathering Enron scandal and a few days before the company formally filed for bankruptcy, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said the Cayman Islands had agreed to start cooperating with U.S. investigators in 2004. That might sound tough, but it actually gives Enron and other companies a 25-month breather to clear the decks and find somewhere else to stash their money. Even then, as Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau charged, the Cayman Islands could back out of an agreement with three months' notice and suffer no repercussions.>>

 

What right do WE have to tell other governments how to handle their banking systems? A collapse of the Cayman Islands banking system won't cripple us, so it's not our concern.

 

<<The question, of course, is whether Bush undertook this change in offshore banking policy with Enron in mind. That could be answered by a congressional investigation, but with Enron at the center of a partisan battle, such a prospect is problematic at best. The situation is clouded futher by Attorney General John Ashcroft having recusing himself, Congress resting in Enron's pocket, and members of the administration suffering stock losses from plummeting Enron stocks. It may take an investigation by a special independent counsel—Whitewater, anyone?>>

 

Should we mention that the ONLY person acting properly in this investigation IS Ashcroft? Did any Democrat who was given money recuse themselves?

 

No? Amazing.

 

<<Turning the matter over to an outside investigator may be our only hope, but it will cost millions of dollars and, as the Clinton inquiries demonstrated, take forever and ever.

 

The biggest problem in the Enron scandal is making sense out of a blizzard of statistics used by different sides to back up their arguments. For example, last week, Public Citizen reported that Senator Phil Gramm got more than $260,000 in campaign financing from Enron—information picked up by media, including this column (see "Phil Gramm's Enron Favor,"). When questioned by reporters, the watchdog did a recount and came up with a figure of $98,000. It's important to note that without the work of groups like Public Citizen, few would ever draw the direct, subtle connections between contributions given to politicians and the legislative favors they return.>>

 

Of course, no mention of any favors are given.

Shocking.

 

<<Even as the nation strains to understand this scandal, the top echelon is counting the millions they've made.>>

 

And the left is trying to find SOMETHING to pin on Bush---and failing at it. Got to chuckle at it, though.

 

FINALLY, the MSNBC column:

 

<<LAY GAVE the list of names to Clay Johnson, Bush’s personnel director, White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said Thursday. Among the eight or so names were Pat Wood, now chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Nora Brownell, a member of the commission.

      “It was one of many, many recommendations that he (Johnson) received” from industry executives, members of Congress and state officials, Womack said in an interview.

      Disclosure of Lay’s recommendations to the White House last spring comes as congressional panels investigate the relationship between Houston-based Enron Corp., which filed for bankruptcy Dec. 2, and the Bush administration.            

      The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Enron’s complex accounting and what role its auditor, Arthur Andersen, played in the Houston-based company’s collapse. Andersen has acknowledged destroying Enron-related documents.

      As head of a major campaign donor, Enron, wielding significant influence in Washington, Lay enjoyed access to top government officials of both parties. The White House has acknowledged that Lay met once privately last year with Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed a task force that formulated the administration’s national energy policy.

      Lay disclosed the existence of the list of Enron favorites in an interview being broadcast Friday on PBS’s “NOW with Bill Moyers.”    

      “I brought a list, we certainly presented a list. ... As I recall, I signed a letter which in fact had some recommendations as to people that we thought would be good (FERC) commissioners,” Lay said in the interview, which was taped in May but never aired.

      Bush, as Texas governor, had appointed Wood in 1995 as head of the state’s Public Utilities Commission. Wood has been an advocate of market-oriented regulation of utilities, a position espoused by Enron, a big, aggressive energy trader that had become a favorite of Wall Street.

      Bush appointed Wood as FERC chairman in August, replacing Curt Hebert.

      Hebert said in the PBS interview that Lay “has asked me to take certain positions, but I’ve had those conversations with Ken Lay for a long time. And have disagreed with him for a long time.”  

       Brownell, a member of Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Commission, was nominated by Bush in March. During her time on the state commission, Brownell helped oversee Pennsylvania’s electricity deregulation.

      Lay will be the star witness next week as a blizzard of hearings by several congressional panels put the Enron collapse under intense public scrutiny.>>

 

Again, you mention an article that doesn't even make an allegation.

 

Was Enron part of the deliberations for the Energy Policy? Absolutely---they SHOULD have been involved.

 

Did they give Bush suggestions for nominees? OF COURSE THEY DID. Every group on Earth did.

 

Unless somebody can say that the nominees were unqualified, there is no scandal.

 

Keep trying, though.

                         -=Mike