Posted on 12/18/2008 5:19:25 AM PST by jmaroneps37
About the time he decided to steal his investor’s money, Bernard Madoff and his family started giving large sums to willing Democrats. Records show the Madoff’s donated to the Democrats who were supposed to be protecting us from predators like Madoff himself.
Donations to politicians who do not directly represent the donor are suspicious. They raise flags. So does “family bundling” where the spouse and children “contribute” as well.
The Madoff’s have given Democrats “suspicious money” since 1998. Bernard gave $85,300 to Democrats from New York to Oregon. Why?
Bernard’s wife Ruth donated $35,500 to Democrats from New Jersey to Oregon. Out of state donations have a reason.
Madoff’s sons Mark and Andrew are big Democrat contributors too.
Since 1998 Mark donated $22,700, to Democrats. These donations were spread out across the country. Since 1998 Andrew sent $18,000 to Democrats around the country.
Bernard’s brother Peter was also generous to Democrats. He contributed $23,650 to Democrats and that was sent to Democrats around the nation; more big red flags.
Geographically spread out donations like these have a certain odor to them.
Everyone of these Madoff’s had to be involved in this swindle. The media only wants to talk about the celebrities who lost money. They don’t want to tell us who looked the other way so this swindle could happen.
Madoff’s niece, Shana, his compliance attorney is married to Eric Swanson a former SEC official who inspected Madoff’s firm in 1999 and 2004. He found nothing? The Swansons should be jailed with Madoff.
Nobody in the media bothered to write this. They want to bury this information and not mention the money these people have stolen amounts to twice what was stolen in the Enron scandal. But of course that was a Republican scandal so we got every single detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at Collinsreport.net ...
Only the left will be surprised by this ... and even then, I doubt if they really care.
There seems to be media consensus building for a bailout regarding these private bigoted investors.
“Nobody in the media bothered to write this. They want to bury this information and not mention the money these people have stolen amounts to twice what was stolen in the Enron scandal”
Here’s more they ignored:
List of Democrats who have taken Abrhamoff money
Posted on 01/04/2006 12:56:07 PM EST by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551786/posts
Abramoff Lobbying & Political Contributions to Democrats, per FEC Records
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000 * Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700
Democratic National Cmte $65,720
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000
Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500
Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250
Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000
Democratic Party of Montana $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500
Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000
Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000
George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500
Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000
Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000
Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Democratic Party of Washington $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500
Any question that Liberals caused this meltdown. It is a combination of a corrupt congress helping a corrupt Wall Street. Capitalism requires honesty and this is proof.
Pray for W and Our Troops
bttt
If he gave away profits from a Ponzi scheme, surely those donations can be sued for?
. . .and/or; could make these rallies a 'green' idea as well, i.e. a message they could love as well. Just offer to use this useless information as an alternate energy source. Perhaps they could be stuffed into a 'bio' engineered fuel tank.
Anything to get this Media the attention they continue to earn; using a 'metaphor' they can relate to. . .to send an 'at-large' messge. . .and a message that counters their oft-disguised failure by their blaming their losses on the paperless internet.
If so, maybe we should consider excommunicating them for being RINOs.
“Nobody in the media bothered to write this. They want to bury this information”
That DemocRATS considered their bribes from Tort Lawyers to be more important than the safety of the American people is another piece of information the MSM want to bury:
Why Torts Trumped Terrorism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021701734.html
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, February 18, 2008; Page A17
A closed-door caucus of House Democrats last Wednesday took a risky political course. By 4 to 1, they instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call President Bush’s bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists. Rather than passing the bill with a minority of the House’s Democratic majority, Pelosi obeyed her caucus and left town for a week-long recess without renewing the government’s eroding intelligence capability.
Pelosi could have exercised leadership prerogatives and called up the FISA bill to pass with unanimous Republican support. Instead, she refused to bring to the floor a bill approved overwhelmingly by the Senate. House Democratic opposition included left-wing members typified by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but they were only a small faction of those opposed. The true reason for blocking the bill was Senate-passed retroactive immunity to protect from lawsuits private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation’s torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.
The recess by House Democrats amounts to a judgment that losing the generous support of trial lawyers, the Democratic Party’s most important financial base, would be more dangerous than losing the anti-terrorist issue to Republicans. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the phone companies for giving individuals’ personal information to intelligence agencies without a warrant. Mike McConnell, the nonpartisan director of national intelligence, says delay in congressional action deters cooperation in detecting terrorism.
Big money is involved. Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash
Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton [D] and Barack Obama [D].
Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiffs’ lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, [D] who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.
The bill passed the Senate 68 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting aye. They included intelligence committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller [D] and three senators who defeated Republican incumbents in the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jim Webb of Virginia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
That opened the door for Pelosi to pass the bill with minority Democratic support. A Jan. 28 letter to the speaker signed by 21 House Blue Dogs (moderate Democrats) urged passage of Rockefeller’s bill containing immunity. Democrats supporting it could exceed 40 in a House vote, easily enough for passage.
Instead, the Democratic leadership Wednesday brought up another bill simply extending FISA authority, this time for 21 days. Republicans refused to go along because it did not provide phone companies with the necessary immunity. It still could have passed with support from Democrats alone, and the leadership surely thought that would happen when it was brought to the floor Wednesday. But it failed, 229 to 191, with 34 Democrats voting no despite pleas for support from their leaders. The opponents included three congressmen who signed the letter to Pelosi advocating immunity from lawsuits, but most were Kucinich Democrats who intuitively oppose any anti-terrorist proposal.
Clearly, opposition to the Rockefeller bill shown in the subsequent House Democratic caucus derived less from Kucinich’s phobia about tough anti-terror countermeasures than obeisance to generous trial lawyers. Pelosi had to decide whether to pass the bill with a minority of her party, which can be dangerous for any leader of a House majority. In October 1998, Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich passed the Clinton administration’s budget with 30 percent Republican support, less than a month before GOP losses in midterm elections forced his resignation from Congress.
Nothing will be done until the House formally returns Feb. 25, and the adjournment resolution was constructed so that Bush cannot summon Congress back into session. Last Friday morning, debating two backbench Republicans on a nearly deserted House floor, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer [D] said there was no danger in letting the FISA legislation lapse temporarily. Democrats hope that will be the reaction of voters, as Republicans attack what happened last week.
¿ 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
*
Obama, Hillary, Dems Take FISA Trial Lawyer Cash
By Amanda Carpenter
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash
As Congress debates giving immunity to phone companies that assisted the government in tracking terrorist communications, trial lawyers prosecuting those phone companies have poured money into the coffers of Democratic senators, representatives and causes.
Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.
All of the trial lawyers combined only contributed $4,250 to Republicans in comparison. Those contributions were made to: Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), Sen. Mel Martinez, and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
One maxed-out lawyer donor, Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats. In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns.
Bergman’s law firm’s website says he also specializes in “identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.” In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm’s asbestos victim clients.
Another lawyer prosecuting the phone companies is Mikal Watts of Corpus Christi, Texas, who has given more than $200,000 to Democrats. Watts has prosecuted Ford Motors over defective tires and attempted to run against Republican Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) for the Senate.
Since the New York Times broke a story in late 2005 that found the Bush administration had engaged in surveillance activities with cooperation from phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth, a debate has erupted, largely on party lines, over whether or not to protect those companies from prosecution under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Activities Act.
President Bush has aggressively called on Congress to do so, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has testified that FISA “is the radar we have for the 21st century to detect attacks before they happen.”
On Wednesday, the Senate held a critical vote on an amendment to the FISA reauthorization that would grant this immunity. It passed, but 29 Democratic senators voted against it. 24 of them have accepted campaign contributions from trial lawyers who are suing the government over those activities.
Two of them are running for President.
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), who is in the running for the Democratic nomination, was given $28,650 from trial lawyers listed as counsel for plaintiffs who are suing those companies becuase they turned over phone records as a part of President Bush’s covert phone surveillance program. $19,150 of that was donated in the last year.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y), the other main contender for the Democratic presidential bid, also accepted money from trial lawyers on the case. Records show those lawyers have poured $34,800 to her and her husband’s campaigns over the years. $12,150 of those donations were made to her within the last year.
The other 22 senators who opposed the amendment and have taken similar donations are: Joe Biden (Del.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (M.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Teddy Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Carl Levin (Mich.) Robert Menendez (N.J.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.) Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).
Clinton did not vote Tuesday because she was campaigning. She has, however, voted against granting telephone companies immunity and other FISA reforms in the past.
Since 1997, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) accepted donations from three lawyers working the FISA case that amount to $10,000. The No.2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, who is charged with whipping votes, has accepted $18,350 from 1996 through 2007 from lawyers listed as counsel against phone companies.
Now that FISA has been reauthorized in the Senate, the bill was sent over to the House where an effort to strip the immunity provision is expected. House Republicans are pressuring House Democrats to pass the Senate version of the bill quickly, as it is scheduled to expire on Saturday.
Records show that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) accepted $3,750 in donations to her campaigns and PACs from these lawyers from 1996-2001.
Amanda Carpenter is National Political Reporter for Townhall.com.
“Nobody in the media bothered to write this. They want to bury this information and not mention the money these people have stolen amounts to twice what was stolen in the Enron scandal. But of course that was a Republican scandal so we got every single detail.”
Wrong. It was a DemocRAT scandal that the MSM ‘RATS tried to turn into a “Republican scandal”.
Enron chairman Kenneth Lay met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office in 1997, prior to the Kyoto energy conference, according to the Washington Times of Jan. 16. The apparent purpose was for Clinton and Gore to get an agreement from Enron that it would support the draconian regulations and higher costs on the industry that would emerge from the conference, in exchange for government guarantees and taxpayer subsidies. This would expand the government’s power within the industry and guarantee handsome political contributions for the Democrats.
Enron would not disappoint. It became the poster corporation for the junk science of global warming, and supported the industry-killing Kyoto Protocol. Enron probably believed that promised taxpayer payouts would make up for its losses in support of unproductive, but politically correct, energy initiatives. The U.S. Senate, however, recognizing Kyoto’s negative impact on the economy at large, foiled Clinton-Gore plans by voting 95-0 to trash the unfair and inequitable Protocol. The Senate action wouldn’t stop Enron, however, from attempting to become the corporation of choice for the Clinton-Gore globalization agenda.
One source has stated that at Hillary Clinton’s prodding, seats were allotted on government trade mission flights to $50,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) donors. Documents related to the practice were later subpoenaed, but were reportedly shredded, Enron-style. Nevertheless, Enron was apparently there with checkbook in hand for the coveted seats. In 1994, chairman Lay accompanied Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on a trade mission to India. An Export-Import bank $302 million loan to build an Enron-controlled Indian plant soon followed. The DNC received a $100,000 check from Enron just four days before India approved the power plant project. Another $100,000 Enron check followed in 1995. Clinton had instructed his chief of staff to help Enron obtain the power plant construction contract in India, and Enron received $398 million in taxpayer assistance. Another $100,000 Enron donation to the DNC in 1996 may have resulted in Regulatory Commission rulings favorable to the firm.
Federal and confidential corporate records show that Enron donated thousands in political soft money beginning in 1995, according to Jerry Seper and the Times. Seper further reports that Clinton energy and EPA officials often made themselves available for Enron executives. A December 1997 Enron memo emphasizes that approval of the Kyoto Protocol would be good for Enron stock. In 1998, Enron called for “restructuring” of legislation to deal with “the problems of global climate change.” Never mind that there was growing skepticism about the seriousness of global warming.
Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is heading the Senate investigation of Enron, has benefited from $250,000 given to his political causes by firms with Enron ties, but has not recused himself. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin now runs Citibank, which is owed $800 million by Enron. Rubin called the Bush Treasury Department to seek an Enron bailout and was turned down cold. So this is the Enron record: They sold out their own stock-holding employees, bought big into the global warming myth to get government handouts, banked on the Kyoto Protocol becoming law even after being drubbed in the Senate, and gave most of their money to Republicans when they were getting all that favoritism and assistance from the Democrats.
Enron Gave Big Bucks to Democrats, Backed ‘Global Warming’ Scam
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Thursday, Jan. 17, 2002
Scandal-plagued Enron Corp., cited by Democrats as a big giver to President Bush and the GOP, gave a cool $420,000 to Democrats when the corporation was desperate to get the Clinton administration’s help in having the potentially disastrous Kyoto treaty made the law of the land.
Senate ratification of the treaty, which foes explained would have cost the U.S. billions and had a deadly effect on the U.S. economy, would have been a bonanza for Enron.
What’s Good for Enron Isn’t Good for America
According to Washington Times reporter Jerry Seper, a December 1997 private internal memo written by Enron executive John Palmisano said the treaty would be “good for Enron stock!!”
“The memo said the Kyoto treaty - later signed by Mr. Clinton and leaders of 166 other countries, but never ratified by the Senate - ‘would do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.’”
Easy Access to Clinton and Gore
Writing in Wednesday’s Times, Seper reports, “Federal and confidential corporate records show that after donating thousands of dollars in soft money and PAC donations beginning in 1995, Enron received easy access to President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.”
Seper revealed that Clinton’s Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency “often made themselves available for Enron executives to discuss the firm’s needs, according to records, even arranging for meetings with key congressional staffers.”
Enron’s drive to get the Kyoto Protocol ratified continued even after the Senate voted 95-0 to set restrictions on any climate negotiations. The Senate resolution warned U.S. diplomats against negotiating any climate treaty in which less developed nations such as communist China would have fewer restrictions imposed on them than the U.S. and other developed countries.
That vote gave clear warning that the Senate would never ratify the treaty, costing Enron potential profits in the billions. As a result, Enron used its open door to the Clinton White House to lobby hard for a treaty that would give it the ability to buy and sell trading credits to emit carbon dioxide as part of a strategy to reduce “greenhouse gases.”
Under the system pushed by Enron, new investments in gas-fired plants and pipelines would be expanded and coal-fired power plants, which emit more carbon dioxide, would be curtailed. Seper noted, “Natural gas, electricity and their delivery systems constitute Enron’s major businesses.”
During a White House meeting in July 1997, Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay prodded Clinton and Gore to support a “market-based” approach to what he described as the problem of “global warming,” a theory discredited by a majority of the world’s climatologists.
In the face of Senate hostility to the Kyoto accords, Enron continued to urge the Clinton administration to seek a “restructuring” of the treaty that would have been a “first step to solving the problems of global climate change.” Seper notes that the company “sought laws that would have favored Enron’s natural gas inventory and reduced competition from coal.”
On Feb. 20, 1998, during a meeting with Energy Secretary Federico Pena, Lay “encouraged the Clinton administration to seek electricity legislation favored by Enron,” outlining for the secretary what the company believed were the “important” pending legislative concerns.
“Today’s meeting between Ken Lay and Energy Secretary Federico Pena to discuss electricity legislation went very well,” said a memo written by Jeff Keller, the company’s Washington governmental affairs chief.
“Secretary Pena indicated that the White House proposed bill is ‘on the president’s desk,’ and that Clinton could be convinced to release the White House proposal in the next few days,” Keller wrote. “He suggested that President Clinton might be motivated by some key contacts from important constituents.”
The records showed that Lay took that advice and sent a letter to Clinton that day, asking him to “move this matter forward.”
Seper writes that Clinton administration officials have denied any wrongdoing, saying they were only responding to constituent requests.
Hypocrisy Alert
But while such Democrats as Rep. Henry Waxman of California attempt to create suspicion that Enron’s contributions to President Bush and other Republicans gave the company undue influence with the administration without a scintilla of evidence to back up their imaginings, more real proof of the cozy ties between Enron and the Clinton administration continues to unfold.
Seper recalls, for example that, the Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India in 1994.
Wrote Seper: “Mr. Clinton took an interest in the deal, asking the U.S. ambassador to that country and his former chief of staff, Thomas F. ‘Mack’ McLarty, then a presidential adviser, to monitor the proposal.
“Mr. McLarty - who later became a paid Enron director - spoke with Mr. Lay on several occasions about the plant. In 1996, four days before India granted approval for Enron’s project, the Houston-based firm contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party.”
2002 http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2002_04/various-enron.html
In this kind of case, money he donated can be clawed back by the Trustee appointed to wind down the Madoff companies’ affairs. I am not sure of the claw back period but I think it is up to 6 years. Can’t wait to hear the pols scream.
More the media ‘RATS like to ignore:
Enron: Putting things into Perspective (Global Warming)
Frontiers of Freedom ^ | January 25, 2002 | George C. Landrith
Posted on 04/06/2007 2:12:26 PM EDT by Shermy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813207/posts
Enron, the once powerful energy trading corporation, is mired in financial ruin and scandal. Thousands of employees lost not only their jobs, but also their retirement accounts which were invested almost entirely in now worthless Enron stock. Others whose retirement accounts held stock in the once robust Fortune 10 company are also among those hit hard by the collapse. On Capitol Hill, it seems that just about everyone is scheduling hearings. Much of the nation and all of Washington, D.C. are agog that as much as $6 billion were lost.
All of this sounds pretty serious, but the reality is that the economic devastation could have been a lot worse. Here’s how. A number of energy companies, including Enron, were strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol (aka Global Warming Treaty) and international emissions trading. Enron and others believed that they would profit handsomely from the Clinton-Gore Administration’s infatuation with the Kyoto treaty’s command and control regulatory regime.
Enron envisioned itself being a key player in the new international trading system. It would make a percentage of every trade it transacted. Additionally, since the Kyoto Protocol would reduce and eventually close down coal-fired power plants and encourage the use of gas-fired plants, Enron saw another chance to profit since much of its business was in natural gas.
In 1997, the U.S. Senate unanimously voted to advise the Clinton-Gore administration that it should not enter into any agreement to ration energy or harm the US economy. It is extraordinarily rare that everyone in the Senate agrees on something. How often do Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Helms and Trent Lott all agree?
That same year — 1997 — Enron officials met with Clinton and Gore at the White House to promote the Kyoto Protocol and emissions trading.
When the negotiations over the global warming treaty were breaking down and it appeared as if no agreement would be reached, Al Gore flew to Japan to personally accede to whatever unreasonable demands were made. The terms he agreed to were worse than most had ever imagined. However, Enron and others who hoped to benefit from this new regulatory scheme were pleased. In fact, an Enron internal memo boasted that the Kyoto Protocol would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative....”
Unfortunately, we live in an era in which many businesses hope to succeed not by producing better products or by being more efficient, but by getting government to impose special interest regulations designed to give them an advantage in the marketplace. The problem with this approach is that someone has to pay the cost. In the case of the Kyoto Protocol, the cost was to be imposed on every American. We would have had to pay more for everything from groceries, to fuel, to clothing, to heating and cooling.
If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimate that Americans could lose between $100 billion and $400 billion — each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year. That is a lot to ask of Americans so that large energy companies could profit from this regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enron’s current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change.
The point is not to minimize the difficulty and economic pain that Enron’s failure has caused — but to highlight that if a one-time loss of $6 billion is worth worrying about, we should be that much more concerned about a loss of $400 billion each year. For the time being, we have avoided these catastrophic costs because the Clinton-Gore Administration was not successful in shoving the global warming treaty down our throats.
We should thank President Bush for steadfastly standing up to the special interests who promoted the Kyoto Treaty. Despite the wishes of those powerful few who hoped to profit from the new regulatory mandates of Kyoto, President Bush did not cave-in. Instead, Bush sided with hardworking Americans who simply could not afford to foot the bill so that a few special interests could profit handsomely.
There are others who continue to push the Kyoto Protocol and energy rationing schemes. They would like to run roughshod over President Bush, take our jobs, and pick our pockets. Beware. If they succeed, our economic pain will be a great deal more profound than anything experienced because of Enron’s current financial collapse.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=enron+kyoto+gore+clinton&btnG=Google+Search
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 206,000 for enron kyoto gore clinton. (0.19 seconds)
Enron Gave Big Bucks to Democrats, Backed ‘Global Warming’ Scam
“The memo said the Kyoto treaty - later signed by Mr. Clinton and leaders of 166 ... Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay prodded Clinton and Gore to support a ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Enron: Courting Clinton and the Environmentalists
In fact in 1997, Enron joined forces with the Clinton administration to defend ... Vice President Al Gore championed the Kyoto Protocol, which would have ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/19/83215.shtml - 30k - Mar 13, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
Christopher C. Horner on Al Gore on National Review Online
Per one internal Enron memo bragging on Kyoto as “precisely what [Enron has] been lobbying ... Enron) hosted by the White House, including Clinton and Gore, ...
www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-horner042302.asp - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
GORE AND ENRON
The Clinton-Gore Administration And The OPIC Helped Enron Finance A Gas ... Drafted by Enron’s Kyoto emissary immediately upon his return from Japan, ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737753/posts - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
American Chronicle: Bill Clinton Revises History in Montreal
And the Enron communique noted that Clinton and Gore’s support of restrictions on ... And Enron wanted Kyoto. In fact, Clinton’s statement’s on December 9, ...
www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4099 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
WorldNetDaily: Enron and Kyoto: Down in flames
In 1993, almost immediately upon taking office, the Clinton-Gore ... And no compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. So, Enron intensified its lobbying efforts ...
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26124 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
AWH
Enron backed global warming and Clinton/Gore ... In the face of Senate hostility to the Kyoto accords, Enron continued to urge the Clinton administration to ...
awesternheart.blogspot.com/2005/11/enron-backed-global-warming-and.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Enron lobbied for Gore’s Kyoto treaty Human Events - Find Articles
Enron lobbied for Gores Kyoto treaty from Human Events in Reference & Education ... former Senator and Clinton Administration official Tim Wirth (Colo. ...
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200201/ai_n9073794 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
Liberty - There Had to Be an Enron
The apparent purpose was for Clinton and Gore to get an agreement from Enron that it ... A December 1997 Enron memo emphasizes that approval of the Kyoto ...
libertyunbound.com/archive/2002_04/various-enron.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Environmental Challenges, Libertarian Solutions
Gore tries to throw Enron on the back of the current administration. But it was Enron Board Chairman Kenneth Lay who sold Clinton-Gore on Kyoto’s cap and ...
freedomkeys.com/envy-iron-mental.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Unfortunately for the last 7 1/2 years they've been running the enforcement mechanisms which should have stoped this fraud, as well as much of the mortgage bubble, in their tracks.
Up to six years at the discretion of the bankruptcy judge, but only "earnings" paid out to former investors. They won't be able to touch the contributions.
The recipients should be publically embarassed to have accepted contribuitions derived from criminal behaivior, but since the media will remain silent, they won't.
ALL DEMOCRATS ARE CROOKS!!!
Those donations spread over all those years are Chump Change
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.