Enron = Whitewater?

National Review ^ | 01/11/2002 | Byron York

[Pokey78]

No, but the White House should welcome a major investigation.

Whatever happens in the coming investigation, Thursday, January 10 will be remembered as the day the Enron issue exploded in Washington. Beyond the headline stories — the calls from Enron chief Kenneth Lay to two Cabinet secretaries, the recusal of Attorney General John Ashcroft from the investigation, and the admission by accounting firm Arthur Andersen that it destroyed a "significant" number of documents in the case — Thursday will also go down as the day two new words entered the debate: special prosecutor.

Less than three years after the independent-counsel law was allowed to expire — unmourned by both political parties — some Democrats are raising the idea that the Bush Justice Department is not capable of investigating Enron. "I think the basic question is: Can this administration investigate its single largest contributor?" former Clinton pollster Mark Penn asked on CNN Thursday night. "Can [people] trust the administration to get the right answers? And would they trust an administration-sponsored investigation? I don't think so."

It's an idea the White House quickly dismissed. "The president has full faith and confidence in the professional prosecutors at the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to do what is right in pursuing this investigation," spokesman Ari Fleischer said at Thursday's Enron-dominated briefing. (Fleischer added that the investigation "must be pursued, to get to the bottom of all of the allegations of criminal wrongdoing by Enron.")

But the special-prosecutor talk is unlikely to go away, because it allows Democrats to press their claim that Enron has become the Bush administration's Whitewater. Long discussed by Democratic activists, the claim is now receiving lots of attention in the press. "Widening Probe Of Texas-Based Enron Could Dog Bush As Whitewater Plagued Clinton," read one Associated Press headline on Thursday. "People are already saying this may be the scandal. Some are saying the Whitewater of the Bush administration," CNN's Judy Woodruff said the same day.

But so far, beyond the strong desire of some Clinton loyalists to suggest equivalencies between the Clinton and Bush administrations, there is scant evidence that Enron equals Whitewater. Yes, they each set off a quickly forming critical mass of Washington media interest, but the same could be said of all sorts of news stories. In contrast to Enron, interest in Whitewater was ignited by events deep inside the White House; the story mushroomed at the end of 1993 and beginning of 1994 after revelations that Clinton aides removed documents from the office of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster on the night of his suicide. That news in turn revived long-dormant press interest in the Whitewater real-estate investment, in which Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared to have received special treatment from their two business partners, both later convicted of felonies. Later, the story involved the investigation of whether the president lied about that special treatment under oath.

None of that seems to be the case in Enron. Yes, there are reports of missing documents, but the Whitewater comparison would become much more apt if those documents were later discovered in the White House residence. So far, the only real similarity to past Clinton scandals is the almost eerie reappearance of Robert Bennett, the former Clinton lawyer who is now representing Enron.

That's not to say there is nothing there. A major corporation that was one of the president's top supporters is under criminal investigation in a case that appears to involve massive fraud and thousands of victimized investors. The White House — and Republicans in Congress — would be crazy to resist an exhaustive investigation, both by the Justice Department and by Capitol Hill committees. And in the course of those investigations, new evidence might come to light that would make the story much more serious for the White House than it appears now.

But so far, the real similarity to Whitewater is not one of substance but one of political utility. Like Whitewater, Enron is a weapon which the president's opponents are eager to use to do him political damage. "The reason this is so potentially devastating to Bush is that it brings to life in very real terms the notion that when push comes to shove, he's for the big business special interests and not for the little guy," former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart told the Associated Press Thursday.

There's some truth to that; certainly Democrats have used the "tool of big business" argument against Bush with some effectiveness in the past. Now, Enron gives them more rhetorical ammunition. But that's not the same as a scandal involving wrongdoing on the part of the president or the people in his administration. Even Joe Lockhart knows that.

[leftiesareloonie]

Old Hickory: I don't wish ill of G.W. or his adminstration, but if you think this is going away you are deluding yourself. The dems sniff a faint scent of blood of a president they can't stand, that they believe stole and elections, but who is otherwise pretty much unassailable. So they are going to go for it, unfortunately.

The potentially awful thing about it is that it plays into the propoganda about the Bush administration being for the "powerful" not for the people.

This may well get ugly folks.

[peruser]

Clearly the Enron fiasco is an audit failure problem and a problem with the integrity of the management at Enron. As a certified accountant I have never seen such confusing and intentionally misleading financial statements in a long while. After the spin doctors have failed to nail the Whitehouse and Arthur anderson has been taken to the bank and maybe to bankruptcy, the political elements of Enron will clearly have been a red herring. Anderson should noted the going concern problems

[over3Owithabrain]

Just wanted to remind everyone of the so-called "unity" that was claimed to now reign in the press and politics after 9/11. Idealists liked to believe all was going to be honky-dory after that tragedy, that even the Dems and the press received a wake-up call. But most of us here knew the truth - from day one, those weasely scumbags have been plotting to destroy Bush, his administration, and the patriotic momentum this country has been experiencing. First they tried to mock the war stategy and whine about civilian casualties - didn't work; next they tried to pin the economic downturn on Bush's tax cuts - that flopped too. Now they're trying to pin some dirty business dealing directly on the prez, even though Enron had more back-room dealing with Clinton throughout the 90's that went unnoticed. The press is salivating, they've been waiting since Nov. 2000 to be able to use the word "scandal" and "Whitewater" on Bush, like they were forced against their will to do daily with their hero the Bill the Reprobate.

[winallcosts]

clinton was elected because of the booming economy-period. scandal schmandals--"it's the economy, stupid". there are numerous ties between the Repubs and Enron, from the oval office on down. were they illegal--doubt it. shady--possibly so. the game gets played both ways, by both parties. the offshoot of this one unfortunately is a boatload of hardworking Americans that lost their life savings while the big boys miraculously cashed in their stock in the nick of time. as these big boys had direct ties to many we all hold dear, it will be news. bank on it. how it's handled will be the first real test, as these episodes can drain valuable resources and focus....

[dead]

So far, the left has the fact that a shady company went bankrupt, and their accountants burned the records.

This company, now defunct, gave money to Republicans and Democrats.

Where's the ugly?

[MeekOneGOP]

Here's the political "hit list" for contributions:

FOX News: Enron Contributions 1989-2001
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42757,00.html

Enron Contributions 1989-2001:

Friday, January 11, 2002 Respond to Editor

The following are the Senate and House members who received the largest contributions from Enron in 1989-2001:

SENATE:
1	Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)	$99,500
2	Phil Gramm (R-Texas)	$97,350
3	Conrad Burns (R-Mont)	$23,200
4	Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)	$21,933
5	Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho)	$18,689
6	Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo)	$18,500
7	Gordon Smith (R-Ore)	$18,000
8	Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)	$14,124
9	Chuck Hagel (R-Neb)	$13,331
10	Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)	$12,000
11	John B. Breaux (D-La)	$11,100
12	John McCain (R-Ariz)	$9,500
13	Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah)	$8,053
14	Pat Roberts (R-Kan)	$8,000
15	Bob Graham (D-Fla)	$8,000
16	John Ensign (R-Nev)	$7,500
17	Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho)	$7,250
18	Craig Thomas (R-Wyo)	$7,000
19	Don Nickles (R-Okla)	$7,000
20	Tom Daschle (D-SD)	$6,000
21	Ben Nelson (D-Neb)	$6,000
HOUSE:
1	Ken Bentsen (D-Texas)	$42,750
2	Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)	$38,000
3	Joe L. Barton (R-Texas)	$28,909
4	Tom DeLay (R-Texas)	$28,900
5	Martin Frost (D-Texas)	$24,250
6	Charles W. Stenholm (D-Texas)	$14,439
7	Chet Edwards (D-Texas)	$10,000
8	Doug Bereuter (R-Neb)	$10,000
9	Larry Combest (R-Texas)	$9,820
10	John D. Dingell (D-Mich)	$9,000
11	Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore)	$8,500
12	Edward J. Markey (D-Mass)	$8,500
13	Kevin Brady (R-Texas)	$8,000
14	Sam Johnson (R-Texas)	$7,750
15	Pete Sessions (R-Texas)	$7,500
16	Dennis Hastert (R-Ill)	$7,432
17	Henry Bonilla (R-Texas)	$7,250
18	E. Clay Shaw Jr (R-Fla)	$7,000
19	Bill Thomas (R-Calif)	$7,000
20	David Dreier (R-Calif)	$7,000

 

[CoolPapaBoze]

The most surprising thing to me in that item is that Daschle is married to a woman. He's so effeminate that I would have expected him to be a single, neat, middle aged guy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Randjuke]

Clearly the Enron fiasco is an audit failure problem and a problem with the integrity of the management at Enron.

I am no accountant, but I agree with you. The press seems to be missing the larger and more important story in an attempt to go after Bush. This is a company who through shady accounting practices has essentially bilked it's own shareholders and employees. If any SEC rules have been broken then I hope the Enron people responsible are severely punished, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Bush had anything to do with this. What is interesting is the Democrats who wailed about "fishing expeditions" any time Clinton was investigated do not hesitate to go fishing themselves, despite any evidence to warrant doing so.

[OneArmtoFreedom]

WHITEWATER? i dont think so
nowhere have i found evidence of a coverup or a less than full investigation on this matter
the move by ashcroft and otehrs to distance themselves from playing an active role in this investigation ensures a TRUE investigation free of tampering and conflicts of interest, unlike whitewater
-oa

[angkor]

Enron’s Campaign Contributions, 1989-2001- Senate & House

[LS]

What York doesn't say (I wonder why?) is that a full-scale investigation of ENRON will likely uncover MORE Bill Clinton dirt than with Bush.

I am troubled by the appearance, now, that the closing of the Clinton-related investigations and the sealing of the documents looks like BUSH has something to hide. I don't think it was planned, but this could be the most supreme irony of all: that the DEMS demand an investigation of ENRON that once and for all destroys Clinton's image with new revelations that Bush, out of decency, sought to keep private.

[moneyrunner]

People who commit fraud should be punished. We both agree. Now, can you tell me the types of fraud that the politicians who received contributions may have committed?

[AppyPappy]

Try a google search on Enron and Clinton. BINGO!

[eureka!]

Re#22 Yes, it is hard to fathom how Anderson let it get to this point. AA will pay big, big bucks to the shareholders much like in Keating's failed S & L. There are some very happy class action lawyers out there. As to the politics, well, the Clymers and Rats will do what they always do--lie like dogs on rugs. BTW, I see you just signed up. Welcome to FreeRepublic....