May 26, 2006
WAIT, YOU MEAN WE REALLY ARE JERKS?:
Defendants Sunk by Their Testimony (Carol Rust, 5/26/06, The Washington Post)
Jurors in the Enron trial made it clear that it would have been better for former executives Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling if they'd kept their mouths shut and stayed off the witness stand.Speaking shortly after a federal judge read their verdict, jurors said Lay's indignant outbursts while testifying in his own behalf made him seem "that he very much wanted to be in control -- he commanded the courtroom," said Wendy Vaughan, a Houston business owner.
"He was very focused, but he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder that made me question his character," she said.
As for Skilling, who spent days explaining the tedious financial inner workings of the once high-flying energy company, the jurors couldn't understand how he could know so much about that and not be aware of illegal business maneuvering, whether or not he was responsible for it personally.
"Skilling was supposed to be a hands-on individual," said Freddy Delgado, an elementary school principal. "It's hard to believe a hands-on individual wouldn't know what was going on."
"When he got on the stand and knew what a [technically complicated] chart was and how it worked, we knew he was involved," Delgado said.
Elementary school teacher Kathy Harrison said she was glad Lay and Skilling took the stand during their trial. Had they not, "I would have always had questions," she said.
Kind of nice that their being so full of themselves sunk them. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 26, 2006 12:21 PM
Wasn't Bush supposed to get his cronies off scott-free on this one?
Posted by: John at May 26, 2006 12:36 PMI guess they didn't follow the OJ criminal trial. The best thing a guilty man can say is nothing (unless it's "the gloves don't fit").
I haven't read the stories on the conviction but it seemed most articles during the trial went out of their way to stress Bush's connection to "Kenny Boy." The fact that most of the crimes took place during the previous administration went unreported.
Posted by: George at May 26, 2006 3:52 PMThe previous administration didn't take millions of dollars in contributions from Enron
Posted by: apc at May 26, 2006 5:39 PMAny comment from Paul "Enron will be bigger than 9/11, even though I took their $50,000" Krugman?
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 26, 2006 5:54 PMapc:
Of course they did. Businessmen don't care who they buy and Democrats don't care what they sell out:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/21/153014.shtml
Posted by: oj at May 26, 2006 5:58 PMapc:
Well, 60 seconds of research shows
"--Lots of Enron money found its way to Clinton’s accounts. "During the Clinton years, Enron contributed more than $1 million to the Democratic Party, including $600,000 to the Democratic National Committee," the Washington Times’s Patrice Hill recounted on February 21. That’s not as much soft money as was given to the GOP (more than $2 million), but it’s more than enough to get corporate chiefs the "access and influence" that self-appointed reformers find so revolting.
-- Clinton’s administration loaned taxpayer money for Enron deals. Back in the ‘90s, Clinton officials boasted of a foreign policy which focused on getting deals for select U.S. businesses, including Enron. (See box.) Now bad deals, like Enron’s worthless power plant in Dabhol, India, are plaguing taxpayers. Two federal agencies — the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank loaned campaign contributor Enron $1.2 billion during the Clinton years, most of which ($964 million) Enron hasn’t paid back yet, according to a February 21 New York Times story.
-- Former Clinton officials pleaded Enron’s case. Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Elizabeth Moler, joined Enron’s payroll as an anti-regulation lobbyist in 1999. That same year, former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin turned down a seat on Enron’s board, but he called Bush officials on Enron’s behalf last November as the company’s financial woes mounted. Treasury under-secretary Peter Fisher turned Rubin down."
Amazing what you can find out when you go beyond the MSM.
Posted by: Rick T. at May 26, 2006 6:02 PMDon't forget that Enron was the leading corporation supporting steps to combat global warming. For some reason, I haven't seen that reported lately.
What ever happened to the Clinton/McAuliffe Global Crossing scandal? Google it and you'll find articles that segue into Enron with only a passing mention of McAuliffe's $100,000 investment being parlayed into $18 million -- an amazing 18,000% profit and nary a word about, how does apc put it, the former administration. Here's a typical article.
Posted by: erp at May 27, 2006 10:16 AM