Posted on 01/11/2002 7:20:07 AM PST by angkor
At least Enron is an American company run by American citizens. Your buddies Clinton and Gore have to resort to selling secrets to the Communist Chinese to raise money. Kenneth Lay doesn't have the luxury of hiding out in Asia.
John Ashcroft had to recuse himself from the investigation! Do you question this fact? That doesn't seem suspicious to you? What does it take?
You’re a retard. Recusing oneself does not indicate culpability. And the fact that he did it so quickly is indicative of his self-assurance that he did nothing wrong.
What a contrast to that drunken, shakey, child murdering, corrupt bull dyke Attorney General who preceeded him. She did nothing but insert herself as a roadblock into any and all investigations. The truth would have destroyed her.
She was the consigleire for the entire mob of corrupt Clinton cronies.
(zzzzzzz... zzzzzzzz... wake me up when this happens)
so now CONservatives can say "see, dems are guilty too!"
Guilty of what? IF Enron executives or accountants broke the law, they should go to jail. What exactly would political candidates they contributed to have to do with them breaking the law?
nice try. clinton might have met with lay once or twice, or played golf with them--but it's nothing compared to the bush white house, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of enron.
How much of a "wholly owned subsidiary", is it when the White House let them go bankrupt when they asked for help? I mean, if Enron had Bush in their back pocket, why didn't Bush do something, anything to help them out. Further, since there is no quid pro quo, how has anything that Bush has done in regard to Enron been illegal? I mean, teachers unions overwhelmingly support democrats, but last time there was a scandal about where the dues were going, I don't recall republicans whipping out the list of polititians who had been contributed to by that union and accuse them of being an accessory. What law, exactly, did any of the polititians on the list(Republicans or Democrats) break?
Yes? And why did he do that? Did he do that because he accepted campaign contributions? Yes. Was that the correct thing to do? Yes? And? What is your point?
Do you question this fact? That doesn't seem suspicious to you? What does it take?
And? What is your point?
Do you question the fact that enron was bush's biggest campaign contributor? This doesn't mean anything to you? The administration is loaded with former enron officials and stockholders! How many of them were able to cash out and leave the employees holding the bag? What did they know, and when did they know it?
Yes, they were his biggest campaign contributor. And? Employees holding the bag? Hpw? How did that happen? And the other things you mention will come out, but you will be dissapointed with the results. This is so going to backlash on the Dems if they pursue this in the manner they plan on doing.
Cheney admitted that he and his staff had at least six meetings with enron officials. You think that the enron people cared about anything but enriching themselves?
And? He had six meetings. I believe those meetings, depending on what the situation was, and I do not know the particulars of this, should perhaps have been public. I'll leave it to others to discuss that.
You should take note that many former Clinton and Gore officials are lobbyists for Enron. That includes Jack Quinn and and a host of others. Does that bother you? Repubs do not deny taking accpeting campign contributions from Enron and Dems are trying to run from the fact they did, so that they can go after GW. Right?
The fact that enron officials are now bringing their bad business practices to the rest of the country doesn't bother you? i guess not, because Clinton's zipper isn't implicated. If Clinton was so good for enron, then enron certainly has a funny way of showing its gratitude.
Right. When the facts escape you, bring up Clinton's zipper. I do not like Enron's business practices and I do not like the way Arthur Anderson appears to have been clueless. I certainly hope Sen Lieberman has nothing to do with the discussion concerning Enron accounting practices and/or Arthur Anderson, as he was given political contributions from Arthur Anderson. Right?
Your logic is so incredibly faulty. Please go back over to DU and try to make a somewhat more compelling argument.
.. Yep them meetings were very productive for Enron... drove them right into bankruptcy....Matalin disputed claims that the administration had tried to hide its meetings with Enron executives, explaining, "Dick Cheney said in May on PBS that he had met with (Enron CEO) Ken Lay and had a 20-minute meeting with him."
"I remember that meeting very well," the senior White House advisor told Imus. "(Lay) got into the specifics of electricity competition and Cheney's not an expert on that and (Lay) was deferred to the staff. The subsequent meetings were not with the (Energy) Task Force or any Cabinet members - (it was) Enron staff guys with our staff guys.".....
One of the "so-called meetings," said Matalin, "was our head staff guy was giving a presentation to 25 companies and an Enron representative was there. Another so-called meeting was two guys came to talk to the staff about the progress of the energy report and the Enron guy never said anything.
Matalin said Cheney himself had only met with Mr. Lay twice. "He met with him, as he said on PBS, once on April 17 for 20 minutes. And then in June, he and I and the chief of staff, Scooter Libby.... went to an American Enterprise Institute world forum in Beaver Creek. It was one of these think tank things and there were 600 people there and Ken Lay was there.
"So we put that down as a meeting, which I think hardly qualifies," Matalin said. "I think we over-disclosed here."
On the question on whether contacts between Enron and Bush officials in the end benefited the energy giant, Matalin noted that the Bush-Cheney energy plan contained 178 recommendations to improve U.S. energy production and "not one - nada, zip, zero - was in there for Enron or Ken Lay."
Obviously you missed the part about purjury under oath.
In fact, we had several special prosecutors investigating Clinton officials, most of which came up empty--but not after wasting millions more of taxpayers' money, and ruining the lives of many innocent people.
Actually, many people in the Clinton administration were indicted for actual crimes, and some went to jail for a long time. How convenient you choose to forget about them.
The fact that Ashcroft had to recuse himself would make most people think that a special prosecutor is warranted in the enron case, but liAri Flusher says that we don't need any more endless, partisan-motivated witch hunts.
Maybe you are confused about the meaning of "recuse?" I suggest you look it up, since if Ashcroft had not recused himself he would be immendiately called compromised by partisan polititians.
Am I missing something here? You argued above that all the investigations into Clinton were pointless, and wasted lots of money, but now you are calling for more of the same, since it's against someone you don't like? I mean, if you really believed all the Clinton scandal investigations to be a waste of money, then why aren't you against starting the same process over with the new president? Cut out all investigation and give us a tax cut(okay, if you want, and I strongly suspect you do, use the money to pay down the National Debt).
Oops, he just admitted the truth about the Clinton investigations
Again, if that is what you believe, they why are you proposing starting the whole mess over again with a new president? Can't we all just stop investigating until some real obvious, unspinnable sign of wrongdoing occurs?
Izzat right?
Well, I'm right proud of the fact that I have been banned NINE, that's right - 9 - times on your precious Dumbocrat Underglass, for what?
Why, for daring to attempt to post accurate and well-sourced material about Clintoon and Albore, for having the temerity to even question the source of some of the bullshit you idiots spew over there, and once, for even daring to ask why you crapbags get so upset over Hildebeast being called Hildebeast, when you all refer to Laura Bush as "pickles". (Whatever the hell that means.)
Go back from whence you came, liberal.
You people disgust me, your feet stink, your mama dresses you funny and I know you don't love Jesus.
No. You can assume Enron was "in bed with" the Government.
You can also assume Enron, unlike the average Freeper, had the insight to know there is no difference between the two parties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.