Former Enron executive found dead in apparent suicide

Glynch,

By all means, if any executives sold their shares based on non-public information then their personal assets should be seized. Not only that, it should be viewed upon as a fraud with criminal consequences if enough guilt is found. And what you stated is very illegal for obvious reasons. There is a difference in trying to stablize a company so as not to lose business and further undermine the companies finances and pumping it for personal financial enrichment. That needs to be determined. The laws on insider trading with the SEC are very clear and many of the executives may be more guilty of that versus of actually scheming to hide debt, which I would relinquish blame on a few such as Fastow and Skilling.

I believe Ken Lay was oblivious to much of what was happening until it was late, but still should have come forth much, much earlier and may be guilty of selling stock in that time. He was the CEO, and essentially is responsible for those under him to a strong degree.

Obviously there was a considerable amount of illegality otherwise we would be talking about a company overloaded with debt, instead of a collapsed giant with criminal proceedings emerging.

In regards to your donating to political parties and campaigns, that is a whole different story. I feel that the energy industry as a whole supports the Republican standpoint of deregulation, just as trial lawyers support the Democrats. I have been very vocal about the need for massive changes in the campaign finance reform needed, going back to George Washington's words addressing the danger associated with them. But that is a topic for another day.

And I think those who's actions adversly affected Enron and decieved the public should be held personally accountable and criminally accountable for their actions.

My only point is I refuse to see the disheartening Enron situation turn into a witch hunt against the GOP.

 

He didn't seem depressed in October.

Apparently, he was a whistle-blower........

 

F.D. -- as I understand it, there were financial analysts who write for various publications that were still picking Enron as a good investment earlier in 2001. the argument goes, if these people who are paid to study and analyze these sorts of things didn't know, how could anyone else have?

 

MadMax,

Because of the complexity and tangle of financial webs that Enron was spinning it was extremely difficult for even those financial professionals to understand how Enron was hiding its debt.

That is why I find it amusing to say the least, that George Bush had knowledge of the financial situation when the company's institutional holders like Merrill Lynch, Janus, Goldman, and many others who had financial analysts who were some of the best in the world and could not find out about it. Bush held no Enron shares, so he couldn't have personally profited from the information either.

 

Well, since we are taking the time to let everyone know what certain statements mean to each other, let me take this opportunity to state that your posts remind me of nothing more than blind faith in an illegitimate administration.

Blind faith in anything can get you killed.

Furthernore, why won't the Bush administration release it's information regarding it's meetings with Enron?

FD, since you are standing up for the Bush Administration, perhaps you can tell us what they are hiding?

 

<B>Bush held no Enron shares, so he couldn't have personally profited from the information either.</B>

You're still missing the point ENTIRELY. No one is saying he profited from the disaster. Bush profited by getting massive campaign contributions (nothing wrong with that). The question is whether or not the administration aided or knew about the problems before all hell broke loose. To think it's impossible that they did is silly, especially given that Enron ASKED for assistance (it was denied) while they were saying all was well. You'd think Bush administration would have put two-and-two together ("company needs a bailout" and "company says all is great!") and known something was awry.

Given that many insiders did know about this (Andersen people and Enron people) well before the collapse, and the Bush administration was in direct contact with these people, your logic that "since outsiders didn't know, how would Bush" is flawed.

No one is saying that they DID know, but its very possible that they did, and their behavior hasn't helped the image portrayed. Questions still need to be answered, and that's the point of an investigation. If we already knew everything on day one, there would be no need for investigations.

If you're positive the administration did nothing wrong, then why care if there's an investigation?

 

To formulate policy on ANY industry, whether it be the legal industry, energy industry, the airlines or anything else, the leaders of that industry will be consulted. After the California energy debacle, energy policy was on the forefront of the agenda for questions if not reform. It is common knowledge that Cheney met with energy officials especially Enron, the company with the 7th Largest (Alleged) revenues in the nation.

An Article on Cheney's Position:

Cheney: White House not obliged to turn over information sought by GAO
Sun Jan 27,12:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday he will not give congressional investigators a list of business leaders he met with while formulating the administration's energy policy.

Cheney said providing such a list would harm his ability to receive advice in the future — a stand that could prompt a congressional lawsuit seeking to force disclosure.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called Cheney's stance "unfortunate."

"The American people have a right to know what the facts are," Daschle said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I think the administration needs to open up, to be willing to be forthcoming with all the information regarding these circumstances."

At issue are meetings Cheney or members of his energy task force held with officials of energy firms, including the now-collapsed Enron Corp. while the energy policy was being formed last year. Cheney spoke on the same day a New York Times/CBS News Poll showed a majority of Americans believe the administration is hiding something or lying about its dealings with Enron.

Cheney said his office already has given investigators numerous financial and other records.

What he won't turn over, despite demands by investigators and Democratic congressmen, is "a listing of everybody I meet with, of everything that was discussed, any advice that was received, notes and minutes of those meetings," Cheney told "Fox News Sunday."

"Now, that would be unprecedented in the sense that that's not been done before. It's unprecedented in the sense that it would make it virtually impossible for me to have confidential conversations with anybody," he said.

"You just cannot accept that proposition without putting a chill over the ability of the president and vice president to receive unvarnished advice."


END



Cheney is working within the confines of the law, and when Enron officials tried to contact Him for help, the help was refused.

The more information public the better. I don't have blind faith in anyone, especially a politician, but I do feel that the media is implying much more simply to undermine Bush's administration.
Rocketman Tex's comments are a testament to that media coersion working when no proof of anything has been shown and Cheney and Bush have not done anything outside of their legal boundries and that divulging information on all meetings and notes on all of the meetings with all corporations would be unprecedented, and could adversely affect future ability of the government to consult with firms about forming economically sound governemental policy.

 

<B>To formulate policy on ANY industry, whether it be the legal industry, energy industry, the airlines or anything else, the leaders of that industry will be consulted. After the California energy debacle, energy policy was on the forefront of the agenda for questions if not reform. It is common knowledge that Cheney met with energy officials especially Enron, the company with the 7th Largest (Alleged) revenues in the nation.
</B>

Nice, but again totally irrelevent. No one is arguing that Enron shouldn't have been meeting with Cheney. What influence did they have? Did they push for deregulations that may have assisted the fraud? Did the Enron officials knowingly do this (if so, that's a whole new level of fraud for the Enron people)? What did Enron tell the administration? Did the administation know any of Enron's financial issues?

<B>Cheney is working within the confines of the law, and when Enron officials tried to contact Him for help, the help was refused. </B>

That's nice. OJ said he didn't commit murder, so I guess there shouldn't have been an investigation there either. Anytime that people being investigated say "I didn't do anything wrong", let's just take them at face value and not do any investigation.

<B>divulging information on all meetings and notes on all of the meetings with all corporations would be unprecedented</B>

Of course it would, and no one's asking for that (do you really think Congress wants all that extraneous junk?). ALL corporations didn't commit fraud and aren't involved in criminal investigations. That's why people are really seeking information on Enron's meetings. Generally, when you commit fraud, you lose some of your rights to privacy.

<B>, and could adversely affect future ability of the government to consult with firms about forming economically sound governemental policy.</b>

Riiiiiiight. Or maybe, it will be a signal that if you commit fraud, you're liable to have your clean & dirty laundry aired in public so people can see exactly what kind of fraud you committed. Honest companies are at no risk to have those private meetings divulged. Yeah, that would be a terrible thing to expect.

<B>Rocketman Tex's comments are a testament to that media coersion working </B>

Media <I>coersion</I>? Are you actually that paranoid? I have yet to hear ANY media outlet say that the administration did anything wrong. They have reported that Enron did things wrong, and Congress is investigating, and Congress wants info from the White House, which is exactly what happened. What exactly is coersive or even wrong about that?

 

Ummm, exactly how do I say bullsh*t in a language you would understand, Mr. Khan?

I would highly advise you against using my name while keying in such ridiculous posts. What's that old saying about the word "assume"?

My comments reflect one thing. The fact that I trust nobody, especially politicians, and especially politicians who were selected to office, rather than elected to office.

Any questions?

 

That last comment about "especially politicians who were selected to office, rather than elected to office" shows your bias in itself. Don't state its just an issue of you not trusting politicians when its clear you are using a situation to push a distrust of the Republican party. Your trying to sound like an individual in the middle making comments but your bias' are extremely obvious. And your use of foul language to try to further your point just reinforces my position of your ignorance.

ROCKET MAN TEX's First Response to this thread:
"I wonder how many times he met with Dick Cheney last year.
This was no suicide."

I am not stating that the details of every meeting should not be made public, all I am saying is that statements such as yours in this thread are implying the guilt simply because of your propensity to a political party. Your sarcasm to belittle the current heads of state to further your point has no validity and neither does your language towards me. Then again, I didn't expect much more than that from you, I have many conversations in this BBS without resorting to your level. Now you can take your little scandal's that you read at the magazines while in line at the grocery store and take them somewhere else because I will call you out if your statements are ignorant.


Any questions?