Enron

[ryson]

Jeffrey K. Skilling

Count 1 (Conspiracy) GUILTY
Count 2 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 14 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 16 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 17 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 18 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 19 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 20 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 22 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 23 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 24 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 25 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 26 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 31 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 32 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 34 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 35 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 36 (False Statements to Auditors) GUILTY
Count 42 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 43 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 44 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 45 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 46 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 47 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 48 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 49 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 50 (Insider Trading) NOT GUILTY
Count 51 (Insider Trading) GUILTY

Kenneth L. Lay

Count 1 (Conspiracy) GUILTY
Count 12 (Wire Fraud) GUILTY
Count 13 (Wire Fraud) GUILTY
Count 27 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 28 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY
Count 29 (Securities Fraud) GUILTY

Count 38 (Bank Fraud) GUILTY
Count 39 (False statements to banks) GUILTY
Count 40 (False statements to banks) GUILTY
Count 41 (False statements to banks) GUILTY

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Since Peloski and Reid are trying to tie this admin to Enron rather then giving them credit for prosecutions--lets examine a little reporting from Washing Post several years ago---

The Washington Times reported Thursday that the Clinton administration coughed up more than $1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized loans to Enron Corp. just when the energy giant was kicking in almost $2 million for Democrat causes. And as we have previously reported, to help persuade then-President Bill Clinton to push the disastrous Kyoto Protocol, Enron gave $420,000 to Democrats.

Times reporter Patrice Hill writes that, according to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the agencies that provided the subsidies, the Clinton administration turned down only one out of 20 Enron projects to build power plants, natural-gas pipelines and other "big-ticket energy facilities" between 1993 and 2000.

Moreover, the Clinton administration, "which lauded Chairman Kenneth L. Lay as an exemplary 'corporate citizen,' granted about $200 million worth of insurance against political risks for nine Enron projects in such politically volatile areas as Argentina, Venezuela and the Gaza Strip, according to documents the agencies provided to the Senate Finance Committee."

"These projects obviously were a tremendous benefit to Enron's operations," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking minority member of the committee, told the Times. The Reagan and Bush administrations approved not a single loan for Enron between 1985 and 1992 and provided insurance for only one Enron power project in Guatemala in 1992, he noted.

On the other hand, the Clinton administration made three loans between 1994 and 1998 to the now-defunct Dabhol power project in India. Ron Brown, Clinton's commerce secretary, bragged about the approval of the Dabhol loans during a trade mission to India in 1995, while Lay stood by his side.

The Times noted that the junket was "one of 11 Clinton trade missions provided at taxpayer expense for corporate executives from Enron and other companies." Moreover, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which sponsored the trips, also coughed up $1 million in funding to study Enron energy projects in Russia, Eastern Europe and former Soviet states.

While Democrats go rooting around trying to find any single indication that Lay was somehow in cahoots with the Bush administration, evidence of his links to the Clinton administration is popping up all over the place.

Another Renter of the Lincoln Bedroom


Lay not only was a golfing partner of Clinton, he even slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Other members of Enron's top executive echelon attended the White House's infamous "coffee klatches" hosted by Clinton, according to published reports.

Lay offered a seat on Enron's board of directors to Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left office, according to an Associated Press report Thursday. It turns out that Rubin, being paid an astonishing $40 million a year by Enron creditor Citigroup, tried to get the Treasury Department to intervene for Enron last fall when the company's credit rating was threatened.

In May 1996, Clinton touted Lay as being a good "corporate citizen" at a White House event because of Enron's alleged enlightened personnel policies, including profit-sharing of Enron stock and generous health and pension benefits. As the Times noted, Enron employees now are suing because those benefits proved as worthless as the bankrupt company's stock.

The Times reported that according to Federal Election Commission records, during the Clinton administration Enron kicked in more than $1 million to the Democrat party, including $600,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore got contributions of $11,000 and $13,750, respectively, for their presidential campaigns.

Enron made a $100,000 contribution to the DNC just before India gave final approval to Enron's Dabhol project in June 1996. According to the Times, Dabhol, the largest and most expensive capital project ever undertaken in India, was of dubious economic value and never went on line.
After looking at the Dabhol project, the World Bank declared said it was not economically viable and of inordinate benefit to Enron, which had a 65 percent stake in the project. Enron still owes $203 million on an Export-Import Bank loan for the project, which the bank says is covered by guarantees provided by five Indian banks.

Congressional aides told the Times it was not clear what the taxpayers' liability will be for that and other loans now that Enron is bankrupt. The Export-Import Bank said its loans were extended to overseas subsidiaries of Enron and not the bankrupt corporation. The overseas investment agency said its exposure was limited to paying any missed premiums on Enron's political risk insurance.


Top Clinton officials lobbied personally to obtain Indian state guarantees for the Dabhol project after it ran into problems in 1995. White House chief of staff Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty made it a top administration priority to keep the project from failing. The Bush administration has continued efforts to salvage the project. After leaving the White House, McLarty did work for Enron.

Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's energy secretary, led a number of missions to India, and Frank Wisner, Clinton's ambassador to India, was ordered to keep the project afloat. After Wisner left government in 1997, he joined the board of directors of a company then controlled by Enron.

---and they whine about corruption in the GOP energy boys :shrug:

Crooked politicians have no party preference!
---and especially watch the ones that had no money going in politics and miraculously are millionaires coming out

 

[IntenseOperator]

OH CHIT!!! Not the "C" word!!! :scared













:mj07:

 

[ctownguy]

And these liberal idiots, djv, chadman, stvied, bfinste, master capper, smurphy, eddie haskell, nick douglas, bobby blue chip, shamrock, marco and all the rest hate cheney soooo much and decry enron that the bush admin was in bed with them.

What a joke, they always conveniently forget history. :142smilie :mj07: :142smilie :mj07:

 

[smurphy]

I'm very happy to see the convictions! Not really sure why this thread becomes a bashing of liberals and supposed liberals, but to each their own.

In response to DTB's very one-sided deflection (as usual - and quite dissappointing), here's a few Enron numbers that give a little better perspective:

Between 1989 and 2001, Enron contributed nearly $6 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds to Republicans. More than $2 million of that money came during the 1999-2000 election cycle alone, when the company became one of the biggest boosters to President Bush?s campaign for the White House. Enron?s PAC and its employees contributed $114,000 to Bush during the 2000 campaign, while former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay served as one of Bush?s Pioneers, individuals who raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.

from
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/enron/index.asp

...Again, happy to see the convictions.

 

[djv]

Ctown careful what you say. Lay is Bush's bud. Maybe they should have had Lay go hunting with Cheney.

 

[Marco]

ctownguy........call me a liberal or Democrat but my stance has never been that of left or right but always been one of anti-government.....

I would have b1tched about Clinton dealings the same as I have ranted about all the under the table deals the current administration has been attached to......

Democrat or Republican, it won't make a difference when there are no rules preventing these relationships and transactions and no accounting pratices in place to flush them out. Corporate America is in bed with the politicians regardless how much flagwaving one does in cheering for their choice of political party.

Both political parties are dirty and will remain that way until serious changes are made in the fields of ethics and finances and the rules an average politician must follow. Police officers are forced to live under a standard completely higher than the people who MAKE the laws.....

So claim whatever you want, but when the next administration either Rep or Dem comes in I will be in usual form pointing out the REALITY of politics and how everyone is dirty while some of you guys choose to play the "blame the other party game" and wave the flag cheering patriotically for the guy who by your account has a halo above his head when in fact the reality is he's just another dirtbag looking out for himself and too afraid or too comfortable to try to bust up the good ole boys network and point this country in a direction it has desperately needed to go in some time.....

Like DTB mentioned, watch the politicians that go in relatively poor and leave as millionaires....

And cynically put: don't forget to vote :mj07:

 

[shamrock]

djv, let ct babble, generally he has no idea what he is talking about like presently.

 

[shamrock]

like Murph said, little closer to the truth
http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/kenneth_lay.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay1.html

 

[ctownguy]

like Murph said, little closer to the truth
http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/kenneth_lay.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay1.html

Oh yea these are great sites to quote against a national newspaper's article about Lay sleeping with the clintons.

Typical left wacko crap once again. :mj07:

 

[shamrock]

Lay s donations were pennies on the dollar Democratic to Republican, do you know anything ct? Secondly I would trust center for public integrity before Washington Post.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Lay s donations were pennies on the dollar Democratic to Republican"
????--surley you jest--you must have skipped over Post Article?

Prob could argue point of who received more--one fact that can't be argued is which admin let them run rampant and which admin prosectuted them

You got to get away from those biased info outlets--

from fact check.org


The latest ad from the Media Fund -- the group headed by former Clinton White House aide Harold Ickes -- shows the White House lawn being given over to corporate logos and a neon sign saying "Corporate Headquarters."

There's no question Bush is pro-business, but this ad goes far over the line on several counts. It implies Bush hasn't acted to protect pensions, fight corporate corruption or provide a "real" prescription drug benefit for retirees, all of which are false. It also implies he personally awarded a contract to Halliburton, which is also false.

It's hard to cram this much distortion into a mere 30 seconds, but Ickes' group is up to the task.
Media Fund ad

"Corporate Headquarters"

Announcer: Instead of protecting pensions, George Bush supported a bill giving Enron huge new tax breaks.

Instead of giving seniors real prescription drug benefits, Bush gave drug companies billions in his Medicare bill.

Instead of fighting corporate corruption, George Bush gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton - a company caught overcharging for fuel and food for our soldiers in Iraq.

Not Protecting Pensions?

The ad says Bush supported tax breaks for Enron "instead of protecting pensions." That's wrong.

Bush has taken action to protect pensions, signing legislation in 2002 that made some technical changes to address weaknesses in 401(k) practices that Enron employees blamed for losses in their retirement accounts. Bush also supports additional legislation to allow employees who get company stock as a retirement benefit to sell it and diversify their investments, and to require companies to offer investment advice to employees from independent outsiders.

As for the claim that Bush supported "giving Enron huge new tax breaks," it's true that Bush supported repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax in 2002 as part of an economic stimulus package, and that Enron led a group of corporations pushing for repeal. But the really big breaks for Enron were not proposed by Bush; they were added by Republican House Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas, who proposed letting corporations redeem AMT credits built up over many years. That would have given $254 million to Enron, and also would have aided several other large corporations. But the whole bill died when the Senate refused to consider it.

A "Real" ** Drug Benefit?

The ad gives a seriously distorted picture of the Medicare prescription drug benefit that Bush pushed through Congress last year, falsely stating that the bill gives billions to drug companies "instead of giving seniors real prescription drug benefits." Democrats may not consider the bill sufficient, but they can't say that this benefit, now estimated to cost $534 billion over the next 10 years, isn't "real."

It is true that Democrats pushed for and failed to get a more generous (and expensive) drug benefit than the one Bush signed into law December 8, 2003. It's also true that the new law contains no government price controls on pharmaceuticals, prohibits importation of price-controlled drugs from Canada, and forbids the federal government to use bargaining pressure to force price concessions from drug makers, and was endorsed by the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying arm.

But as we've pointed out before, millions of seniors will be financially better off when the new law takes effect in 2006. That is particularly true for millions of low-income seniors with few assets, who will be able to get their prescriptions filled for as little as $1 each with no premiums or deductibles.

Furthermore, the new law doesn't pay "billions" directly to the drug companies as the ad implies. In fact, they are payments to subsidize the cost of offering prescription drug coverage to seniors. It's true that drug companies stand to increase their profits when millions of seniors start buying drugs they previously could not afford. But the ad, according to the Media Fund's own documentation , is actually referring to $46 billion that Medicare actuary Richard Foster estimates will be paid over the next 10 years to "Medicare Advantage" plans. That's not money that goes to drug companies, it is payment to HMO's and insurance companies designed to give seniors subsidized, private-market alternatives to Medicare's new drug benefit.

Fighting Corporate Corruption?

The ad says Bush gave contracts to Halliburton "instead of fighting corporate corruption." In fact, the Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal.

As for Halliburton, it's true the company is under investigation (by Bush's Pentagon) for a variety of allegations of possible overcharging in connection with the Iraq war. And it's also true that Vice President Richard Cheney once headed the company. But it is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The "no-bid contract" in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support US troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefitted from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded . . . who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd," Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November.

 

[ctownguy]

Lay s donations were pennies on the dollar Democratic to Republican, do you know anything ct? Secondly I would trust center for public integrity before Washington Post.

Seems like it is you with your head up your :moon:

 

[djv]

DTB Seniors get drugs for 1 buck. They must be in nursing homes and dead broke. I just went through this process with my mother. Thank god she can stay on her Wisconsin drug plan. This new federal plan will cost her $550 more a year when forced to change next year. A drop in the bucked they say. Not with Seniors. And a big gap around the $2800 mark per year. If there real sick and need drugs. They will hit that mark fast.

 

[Chadman]

DTB Seniors get drugs for 1 buck. They must be in nursing homes and dead broke. I just went through this process with my mother. Thank god she can stay on her Wisconsin drug plan. This new federal plan will cost her $550 more a year when forced to change next year. A drop in the bucked they say. Not with Seniors. And a big gap around the $2800 mark per year. If there real sick and need drugs. They will hit that mark fast.

How ironic is it that the Republican party...supposedly the bastions of free enterprise and competition...act to prohibit the government from negotiating for cheaper drugs that would REALLY help those that have to sign up for the plan? Really looking out for seniors, those folks are...