Lay Indicted In Enron

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by nycflasher
It wasn't MY report. Just one I came across online. Good of you to point out the gap.

I'm not portraying anything by posting that, except chronology.

Yeah, I'm afraid.

Maybe you should check the whole thing before posting it. Posting random information without making sure there is consistent information makes you look despirate to prove your point, in which the actual info that is posted, contradicts you.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
Maybe you should check the whole thing before posting it. Posting random information without making sure there is consistent information makes you look despirate to prove your point, in which the actual info that is posted, contradicts you.

No one had disproven the chronology.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Did you click on my link? The one you posted is biased. I see they left off the $100,000 DNC donations made by Enron/Lay. I also see they left off the donations to Clinton.

Again, as soon as Bush took office, Ken Lay started having problems. All the "bad stuff" was done while Clinton and co was in charge. Why do you conveniently ignore that FACT?

I didn't realize that part of the presidential duties were to monitor accounting practices of the corporate world.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by nycflasher
No one had disproven the chronology.

It's hard to disprove a chronology, and no one is saying that it is inaccurate. But when there is a gap of MORE than 10 years missing, your credibility is shit. If it wasn't for the link, I would go as far as to say that you deleted that yourself, hoping no one would notice, just so you can try to slander Bush more.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I didn't realize that part of the presidential duties were to monitor accounting practices of the corporate world.

Unless they are republicans right?

My point is that people like NYC (and most likely - you) want to attack Bush for his supposed support for Enron yet it is his (Bush's) administration that finally went after all the corporate scandals. You all conveniently ignore Global X'ing, and the other corporate scandals that are directly tied to democrats.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Unless they are republicans right?

My point is that people like NYC (and most likely - you)

what makes you think I'm a bush attacker/hater?

want to attack Bush for his supposed support for Enron yet it is his (Bush's) administration that finally went after all the corporate scandals. You all conveniently ignore Global X'ing, and the other corporate scandals that are directly tied to democrats.

even then, no. I don't think that the issue is which president was in office at the time the dealings were being committed, the issue is supposed to be who, if anyone, is benefitting from it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
even then, no. I don't think that the issue is which president was in office at the time the dealings were being committed, the issue is supposed to be who, if anyone, is benefitting from it.

And as proven, they BOTH (parties) benefitted. But you will probably ignore all the money given to the DNC by Lay/Enron. Again, what about Global X'ing. Don't you find it curious that Terry McAulliffe made $18 million off a $100K investment while head of the DNC? What about the fact that they purposely formed the corp offshore to make sure it was immune from US prosecution? I mean, what is the head of the DNC doing investing in an offshore company? What about the US workers they care so much about??

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
It's hard to disprove a chronology, and no one is saying that it is inaccurate. But when there is a gap of MORE than 10 years missing, your credibility is shit. If it wasn't for the link, I would go as far as to say that you deleted that yourself, hoping no one would notice, just so you can try to slander Bush more.

Fuck off.
You're just trying to pick a fight.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
And as proven, they BOTH (parties) benefitted. But you will probably ignore all the money given to the DNC by Lay/Enron. Again, what about Global X'ing. Don't you find it curious that Terry McAulliffe made $18 million off a $100K investment while head of the DNC? What about the fact that they purposely formed the corp offshore to make sure it was immune from US prosecution? I mean, what is the head of the DNC doing investing in an offshore company? What about the US workers they care so much about??

I don't ignore it, but you tell me whos going to listen to a handful of lonely voiced independents that are trying to clear the air about all the corruption in politics? If I point the finger at both parties then I get ignored by the majority who are in both parties. If I point the finger at the republicans then I have to listen about the democrats OR I have to hear accusations of me having something against capitalism. If I point the finger at democrats then I have to hear about all the complaints about how they are just doing what the republicans are doing and what a hypocrite I am for attacking them, that I must be the obscure part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I don't ignore it, but you tell me whos going to listen to a handful of lonely voiced independents that are trying to clear the air about all the corruption in politics? If I point the finger at both parties then I get ignored by the majority who are in both parties. If I point the finger at the republicans then I have to listen about the democrats OR I have to hear accusations of me having something against capitalism. If I point the finger at democrats then I have to hear about all the complaints about how they are just doing what the republicans are doing and what a hypocrite I am for attacking them, that I must be the obscure part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

I feel your pain!

I was presenting the FACTS I did to point out the hypocracy. The difference between the corruption of the two parties is that one (the Republicans) are mostly corrupt using private money (investors) whereas the democrats want to use the public money. Also, the Republicans tend to keep their mouths shut about corruption because why do they want to draw attention to themselves? Whereas the democrats, while being corrupt, like to think they aren't, so they are always pointing out corruption while ignoring their own. And the media helps them.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Fuck off.

You better come up with a better comeback than that, or you're gonna lose the argument...wait...no I'm sorry...You already DID.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
You better come up with a better comeback than that, or you're gonna lose the argument...wait...no I'm sorry...You already DID.

Um, you're arguing with yourself in case you haven't noticed.

In the beginning of this thread I contended that Enron/Lay could play a bit of a role in the upcoming election due to the chummy(?) history between Lay/Enron and Bush/GOP.

Then I posted a couple of links that I thought might help with the timeline. They may have not been the best, but I at least tried on short notice.

I mean, for Pete's sake, am I wrong that Lay came pretty close to being a part of the Administration? What of his involvement with the Energy Task Force? Why won't Cheney release those records?

Seriously, fuck off.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by nycflasher

Seriously, fuck off.

You seem to be using this term a lot today. Maybe you got up on the wrong side of the bed or whatever, but you don't have a right to think you are the only one authorized to have an opinion here. You totally ignored my counter point (which shows why Lay will not be an issue - both sides are dirtied by him and they don't want it exposed).

You were proven to be a lightweight in a couple of different threads today so you resort to just throwing out shit that you think makes you sound tuff when in reality, it just proves how much of a childish prick you are and how desparate the left is.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
You seem to be using this term a lot today. Maybe you got up on the wrong side of the bed or whatever, but you don't have a right to think you are the only one authorized to have an opinion here. You totally ignored my counter point (which shows why Lay will not be an issue - both sides are dirtied by him and they don't want it exposed).

You were proven to be a lightweight in a couple of different threads today so you resort to just throwing out shit that you think makes you sound tuff when in reality, it just proves how much of a childish prick you are and how desparate the left is.

:clap1:
Thanks for the backup--I can hold my own but it is nice to have others who back you up, and aren't afraid to post it.

He can't seem to do anything other than tell people to fuck off. This must mean he is despirate to maintain his pride that he can't find anything else to say. Honestly, I think he's that upset that he can't win the argument, so he resorts to telling people off.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
:clap1:
Thanks for the backup--I can hold my own but it is nice to have others who back you up, and aren't afraid to post it.

He can't seem to do anything other than tell people to fuck off. This must mean he is despirate to maintain his pride that he can't find anything else to say. Honestly, I think he's that upset that he can't win the argument, so he resorts to telling people off.

You're welcome. I wasn't looking to get into a bitch session with him or anybody else today. I just posted the info I did to show him why the dems can't say much about Lay as to do so will only expose their own culpability in the mess of the 90's corporate scandals. The scandals that are sure to be the legacy of the Clinton years when reviewed a hundred years from now by kids in their U.S. History Class.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
...The scandals that are sure to be the legacy of the Clinton years when reviewed a hundred years from now by kids in their U.S. History Class.

That's wht happens when you play follow the leader! Clinton started it with the sex scandals and that was enough attention off the corporations for them to have at it themselves.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
That's wht happens when you play follow the leader! Clinton started it with the sex scandals and that was enough attention off the corporations for them to have at it themselves.

Exactly. Clinton set the tone for everybody in the country and the "elites" of the country took his lead and ran with it. His laissez-faire economic policies (until the 1998 tax increase during his lame-duck term), allowed corporations to run amok with the money of the taxpayers. His "laissez-faire" moral policy and his lieing to a Grand Jury and getting by with it also set a tone that was taken up by the corporate world. Well, at least he is gone now!

 

[freeandfun1]

Here ya go NYC

Global Crossing Tied to Clinton Defense Secretary
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Feb. 16, 2002

WASHINGTON – A top Clinton administration official, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, sits on the board of Global Crossing. This is the telecom giant that went belly up Jan. 28 in the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, leaving a trail of inflated revenues, top executives enriching themselves, employees and shareholders holding the bag, and Arthur Andersen acting as both consultant and auditor.
If this sounds familiar, it is because this is a replay of the Enron script. However, the Global Crossing scandal has direct political links, whereas unhappy Democrats have failed to find an improper Bush-Enron tie – though Bill Clinton pushed the economy-destroying Kyoto "global warming" treaty, rejected by the Senate 95-0, after Enron gave Democrats $420,000.

A Bigger Player Than Enron

Another curious fact revealed Friday, mentioned in passing by the Associated Press: Since 1999, when Global Crossing became a major campaign contributor, it has given nearly $3.5 million in political donations, more than the $2.9 million handed out by Enron and its executives in the same period. Of course, GC gave more to Democrats, so the media establishment isn't raising a fuss.


The New York Times on Thursday casually dropped into the middle of a story focused mainly on the business side of Global Crossing’s problem the fact that "Global Crossing, which has tried to forge close ties with military organizations, appointed William S. Cohen, a secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, to its board last year.”

Radio talk show hosts have previously mentioned this, although up until now no one has given the Cohen connection much scrutiny.

Now comes a story by the Washington Dispatch, called to our attention by a NewsMax reader.

Though the New York Times says the Global Crossing problems "have delayed the awarding of a prestigious $450 million contract to provide the Defense Department with fast Internet services connecting laboratories and other research locations around the country,” the Dispatch spotlights the fact that the contract in question (sidetracked by the Bush Defense Department) "was initially approved under Clinton.”

Mentioned by the Dispatch, but only hinted at by the establishment New York Times, is that Cohen "could have been influential” in steering defense contracts to Global Crossing.

And the Associated Press reported Friday, "Even as Global's stock price was hovering just above $1 a share in December, the company's political action committee was giving $2,500 apiece to Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Carl Levin of Michigan and $500 to Rep. Robert Ehrlich, R-Md."

Significantly, Levin is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Global Crossing was after that $450 million contract, "rescinded last year amid complaints from competitors that the company may lack the ability to provide secure and fast Internet services and, in any event, should be ineligible because it is based in Bermuda." That's when GC hired a Washington law firm to lobby on defense issues and added Cohen to its board.


The New York Times fails to mention that Democrat national Chairman Terry McAuliffe made a profit of $18 million on an investment of $100,000 investment in Global Crossing. This 18,000 percent killing on the market has raised suspicions of "insider training,” according to Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm, which has launched its own probe.

(It should also be noted that former President George H.W. Bush received a reported $80,000 worth of Global stock options for a speech he made in Tokyo in 1997, a pittance compared to the lecture fees paid to Clinton. At one point, that holding did swell up to $14.4 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, but it is not known whether Bush sold the stock.)

The Times does say "questions” have been raised by a proposal by Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. of Hong Kong and a unit of Singapore Technologies to buy Global Crossing. However, the Old Gray Lady does not mention Hutchison Whampoa’s connection to the communist Chinese army.

As reported earlier by NewsMax.com, the CEO of Hutchison, which controls commerce at both ends of the Panama Canal, is part of the "inner circle” of the Chinese regime. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told NewsMax he is protesting the sale.

Clinton, McAuliffe, Cohen; now Reno, Bingaman

The Dispatch and the Associated Press reported that Global Crossing paid a whopping $2.5 million lobbying fee in cash and stock options to to Anne Bingaman, former Reno Justice Department lawyer, and wife of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

When she sold most of her GC stock in January 2000, she posted a profit of more than $1 million, according to her husband's financial disclosure report.

This flies in the face of then-President Clinton’s vow that his White House would be "the most ethical administration in history” and discourage the revolving-door process. But since Clinton himself did not take his own rhetoric seriously, Mrs. Bingman might have reasoned that neither should she feel bound by it.

In his previous incarnation, Cohen was a Republican senator from Maine. He was a prominent RINO (Republican in Name Only). You may recall that he was very self-righteous during the Iran-Contra hearings and mugged for the cameras right along with his Democrat colleagues who tried, without success, to do in the Reagan administration.

McCain the 'Reformer' Caught

Another RINO, the anti-Bush Sen. John McCain of Arizona, is the No. 1 congressional beneficiary of Global Crossing. Mr. Campaign Finance "Reform" snapped up $31,000 from Global Crossing employees for his failed presidential campaign in March 1999, AP reported Friday. "That same month, McCain, at the company's urging, asked the Federal Communications Commission to encourage the development of undersea cables for transmitting telecommunications signals."


McCain, crowing over the House's passage of unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" legislation, did not respond to AP's requests for an interview.


The NBC-Olympics Connection

Oh, yes and one more thing about the mainstream media’s ignoring or soft-pedaling the Global Crossing scandal: The Dispatch mentions that NBC had announced it had contracted with Global Crossing to transport video feeds from the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City to seven stations around the country. NBC announced the selection of Global Crossing several days after the company’s bankruptcy.

Nothing wrong or improper about that. But does anyone recall NBC giving the Global Crossing scandal anywhere near the coverage it has given the Enron uproar? Just wondering.

 

[NewGuy]

Will someone post the Kyoto treaty in a thread so others can see what disasters we let our presidents do?

 

[Yurt]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
"Kenny Boy" was the all time champion contirbutor to Dubbyuh's political warchest going alll the way back to Texas. That Dubbyuh's leaving him to swing in the wind show's what a back-stabbing little shit he really is.

.

This is the most absolute worst display of liberal BS I have ever heard. Well, maybe not worst, but close. If Bush would have stepped in the fray to help Lay get out of criminal charges, they would have said, "see Bush is crooked, defending his criminal corporate friends."

The fact that he stayed out it, shows what he meant when he said "we are going after corporate thieves." Bush is honest so back off the BS