Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is Ken Lay not in prison?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:14 PM
Original message
Why is Ken Lay not in prison?
there is more than sufficient evidence to suggest that he has stolen very large amounts of money, that he broke numerous tax, finance and commerce laws, that he participated in the destruction of evidence, that he participated in conspiracy to defraud, etc., etc., etc.

Why is he not in prison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. He has low friends
in high places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. He has given a lot of money to bush, enough
to buy a get out of jail free card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't mean this naively or rhetorically
Has any rational explanation been put forth by the BFEE Injustice Department explaining why no investigation is happening?

This is outrageous. And the blackouts yesterday amplify the outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quarbis Donating Member (235 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. White collar
criminals buy their way out. Marijauna criminals get 20 years without chance for parole. They hurt no one yetn the WC criminal hurt millions -- go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ameriphile Donating Member (214 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Bingo n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Because GWB still has his personal KY Stash!
:silly: Dubya's "Summer Buzz" ya' know?:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. George Bush and Joe Lieberman
Published in the April 8, 2002 issue of The Nation

Enron Democrats
by William Greider

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

(snip)

Senator Joe Lieberman, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, presides over hearings into what-went-wrong with the air of sorrowful piety that is his specialty. "Gatekeepers weren't keeping the gate, watchdogs weren't watching," he lamented. He neglects to mention that he is one of the faulty watchdogs and also a leading gatekeeper who blocked the timely reform of corporate finance. The Senator has a hypocrisy problem. He frequently sermonizes on the moral failings of others, including other public figures. Meanwhile, he has shilled vigorously, sometimes venomously, for the very players who are new icons of corruption--major auditing firms, corporate executives who cashed stock options early while investors took a bath and, especially, those self-inflating high-tech companies in Silicon Valley that drove the stock-market bubble. As a New Democrat, Lieberman held the door for their escapades.

His most important crusade was protecting the loopy accounting for corporate stock options. Nervous regulators recognized early on that the profusion of stock options had the potential to deceive investors while cheating the tax system--illusions that could drive company stock prices to impossible heights. Tech startup firms, as well as established names like Microsoft, were issuing a growing volume of stock options as a substitute for wage compensation, especially for top executives. These companies did not have to report the billions in new options as an operating cost, thus making their earnings seem much greater than they were. Yet when employees eventually cashed in the options, the companies claimed them as tax deductions. This two-way mirror is symptomatic of the deceptive bookkeeping that permeated corporate affairs during the boom and the bubble.

Back in 1993, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed to stop it, Lieberman went to war. "I believe that the global pre-eminence of America's vital technological industries could be damaged by the proposal," he warned. The FASB, he insinuated, was politically motivated or simply didn't grasp the bright promise of the New Economy. Lieberman organized a series of letters warning the accountants' board to stop its meddling. In the Senate, he mobilized a resolution urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to squelch the reform. It passed 88 to 9. The regulators backed off--and stock prices soared on the inflated earnings reports. Whenever FASB tried to reopen the issue, Lieberman jumped them again. He was well rewarded by Silicon Valley and auditing firms. He is the New Democrats' favorite candidate for 2004.

Lieberman's victory was extraordinarily costly for the economy, not to mention duped investors, unhinging valuations and fostering the overinvestments that now hang over the tech industry. Accounting professor Itzhak Sharav of the Columbia University Business School describes Lieberman's intervention as the first step on "the slippery slope that got us mired in the Enron swamp." Once auditors and corporate managers saw regulators defanged on stock options, Sharav explained, they were emboldened to explore further in the realm of gimmicky profit reports. "How much is two plus two? How much do you want it to be?" Sharav said. "Once you start playing games with the numbers, there's no limit to what you might do." Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have proposed a nifty solution--companies can no longer have it both ways. If they don't account for their stock options as a cost in earnings reports, then they cannot claim them later as tax deductions. Lieberman is opposed--still on the slippery slope.

During the 2000 election, other New Dems organized a direct assault on SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, who was challenging the big five auditing firms on their conflicted interests--consulting with companies on business strategy, then auditing the books with supposed independence. Dozens of politicians piled on Democrats Torricelli, Schumer and Bayh in the Senate; and Jim Moran, Cal Dooley, Ellen Tauscher and other New Dem regulars in the House. The New Democrat Network harvested more than $1 million that year for deserving politicians. Some have now recanted. "We were wrong, you were right," Torricelli told Levitt, though he neglected to mention the money. The luster of Silicon Valley fundraising has not been dimmed by the scandals and bankruptcies. The "economic stimulus" bill passed in March was described as a Democratic victory because it includes a minor dollop for the unemployed. But most of the $43 billion went to business--including a gorgeous tax bonus sought by the needy entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley.

...more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Ah, yes, 'tis a Janus-faced system
Amazing, how guys on "our" side squeal as they up to the trough. Jesus, where has the integrity gone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. if both sides are culpable
how does anything get fixed?

DLC housecleaning?

Public campaign finance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nannygoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. Article about this very subject...
Lawyers: WorldCom, Enron chiefs may never face prosecution

NEW YORK - More than a year after the two biggest corporate frauds in U.S. history wiped out billions of dollars in assets and workers' pensions at WorldCom Inc. and Enron Corp., the chief executives who led those companies remain free of criminal charges.

Bernard Ebbers, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling may never face prosecution, according to former federal prosecutors and securities lawyers.

<snip>
"The reason they haven't been indicted is because the government doesn't have the evidence at this point," Robert S. Litt, a former associate deputy U.S. attorney general, said of Ebbers, Lay and Skilling. Litt is a partner at Arnold & Porter in Washington. Irvin Nathan, also a partner at the firm, is Sullivan's lead defense lawyer.

<snip>

The only publicly available evidence that Ebbers, Skilling and Lay knew of or directed fraudulent activity at Enron and WorldCom is based on e-mail and voice-mail communication, said lawyers including Mintz and Kahan. Without corroboration, they said, it is circumstantial and wouldn't support an indictment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Sounds like the evidence against Zacarias Moussaui

The reason Ken Lay is not in jail is because he is rich, white and a top bush regime henchman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Who figured this out?
"The only publicly available evidence that Ebbers, Skilling and Lay knew of or directed fraudulent activity at Enron and WorldCom is based on e-mail and voice-mail communication, said lawyers including Mintz and Kahan. Without corroboration, they said, it is circumstantial and wouldn't support an indictment."

So, does anyone know why these things are termed circumstantial? Does anyone have a cite to any statutory reference that says "Email your buddies, but don't put it on paper, and we will let you off the hook if you get caught?"

Or something to that effect?

I would so like those bastards to hang. We had a report last week that Lay had to sell one of his four Colorado properties. It only brought $1 million.


:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yeah, right!
Edited on Fri Aug-15-03 12:38 PM by FlaGranny
And they're prosecuting Martha Stewart because she said she was innocent. Makes a lot of sense to me (not).

It's obvious if you're a Dem supporter and say you're innocent, you must be guilty; and if you're a Repug supporter, who was that again now?

It seems to me they could get Lay, et al, the same way they're doing Martha. Didn't these guys make public statements for the sole purpose of protecting their stocks by misleading investors until they could get their money out? It seems the proof is right in front of everyone's eyes, and it's a lot more damning than the evidence against Martha.

Edit - added last sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. this lot are scum
who should be tarred and feathered and run out of the country on a rail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. He's a member with good standing in the inner circles of the gop
and he's a rich white man who contributed, still contributes loads of cash to those who stole the power. Barring total meltdown and revolution, Lay, Skillings, Ebbers, and anyone else I've lost track of will never see justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. there is more solid evidence agains these guys
than there ever was against the Clintons in any of their VRWC-trumped-up "scandals."

Just letting these guys off the hook would be a horrible injustice. How do we keep this in the public eye, demonize these assholes and paint Bush with the brush of their criminality? Is there a way for public outrage to keep this issue from being swept under the rug?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-03 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. Kenny Boy would do too much screaming on Bush/Cheney!
He knows where all the bodies are buried!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC