George W.Bush and "Kenny boy"

[jokerswild]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/020602.html

[Rooster71]

This is a very good article. Regarding another thread, it was mentioned that Bush said he didn't even know who Lay was (after the scandal broke). There is so much evidence that they were very close, but I find the following particularly amusing:

The Bush story:
[ QUOTE ]
With Enron’s ignominious collapse over deceptive accounting, Bush began to act as if he barely knew Lay. On Jan. 11, Bush told reporters that Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994." Bush implied that he had gotten to know Lay as a Richards holdover appointee to a Texas business council. The impression Bush sought to create was untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The truth:
[ QUOTE ]
Bush turned to his father’s old political benefactor, Ken Lay. Enron and Lay contributed $146,500 to the Bush campaign, seven and a half times more than they contributed to the Richards campaign. Lay also publicly endorsed Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

[cardcounter0]

They also served as Co-Chairs on a State Board of Energy or something, a year before George admitted having heard of Key Lay.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of 'know' is, ya know?
[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[adios]

http://www.consortiumnews.com

An unbiased, middle of the road news source? Not. Try left wing propaganda. Hate to confuse you with facts but the Enron fraud was perpetrated on Clinton's watch in a very lax environment for scrutiny of corporate endeavors. Arthur Leavitt, former Clinton SEC chairman blames it on the Republicans in Congress, the Republicans blame it on the Clinton administration. Truth is that during a big stock market runnup everyone was looking the other way. There isn't an iota of evidence that Bush had any knowledge of the fraud engineered by Fastow, the Enron CFO. The indictments against Lay and Skilling are based on the accusation that Lay and Skilling knew what Fastow was doing. In order for Fastow to pull off his fraudulant activities he needed the support of J.P. Morgan and Citigroup in setting up the offshore SPE's as well as aid in the facillitation of the the round trip trading. Robert Rubin, Clinton's first Treasury Secratary, was hired as a top level executive at Citigroup and was working there when Fastow engineered his frauds. Citigroup and J.P. Morgan settled private lawsuits and made a criminal settlement for their complicity in the Enron perpetrated fraud:

Citi, J.P. Morgan Cut Enron Deal With DA

A synopsys of Robert Rubin's role in the Enron fraud:

Robert Rubin - Enron Involvement Synopsys

Name: Robert Rubin
Current job: Chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors of Citigroup

Link to Enron: Mr Rubin, the Treasury Secretary under former President Bill Clinton, is said to have called his old department on behalf of Enron as its financial problems became a crisis.

The Treasury Department says Mr Rubin contacted the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Peter Fisher, on 8 November – a month before Enron’s collapse.

Citigroup is one of Enron’s main creditors, and Mr Rubin is reported to have asked Mr Fisher about the possibility of pressing bond-rating agencies not to downgrade their estimate of Enron bonds to avoid a crisis of confidence in the energy group.

The Treasury Department says Mr Fisher opposed the idea.

It might even be obvious to you whack jobs (I'm starting to like that one) that holding off on downgrading Enron's bonds is very damaging to investors.

Rubin and Citigroups complicity was not lost on others. For example:

Full Investigation of Enron Must Include Citigroup Chairman Robert Rubin

Full Investigation of Enron Must Include Citigroup Chairman Robert Rubin
CSE letter to Senator Lieberman demanding a subpoena of former Treasury Secretary Rubin.

August 1, 2002

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Chairman, Senate Government Oversight Committee

Washington, DC 20002

Dear Senator Liberman,

I write on behalf of nearly 300,000 members of Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (CSE Foundation) to encourage you to subpoena Citigroup Executive Committee Chairman Robert Rubin to appear before your committee for questioning about his role in the Enron affair. It is clear from preliminary evidence that certain transactions between Citigroup and Enron Corp. were used to hide the full extent of Enron’s leverage from the public. While it may be appropriate to allow Chairman and CEO Sanford Weill to explain these transactions as well as the complicated relationship between Travelers Insurance, JP Morgan, and Enron, Secretary Rubin must be questioned about his role in the affair given published reports (The Washington Post, August 1, 2002) about his contact with credit rating agencies and officials at the U.S. Treasury.

It is difficult to understand why credit rating agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s failed to downgrade Enron’s debt rating to junk status until December of 2001. While the equity-backed special purpose entities (SPEs) Enron used to keep leverage off balance sheet were not widely known to the public until October 16, 2001, credit rating agencies knew of them since their inception, as they were responsible for issuing a rating on most, if not all of them.

Later it was discovered that many of Enron’s financial dealings contained repayment clauses to be exercised when Enron’s credit rating fell below a specified grade. Clearly, maintaining an investment grade credit rating was critical for Enron and investment banks, like Citigroup, with large exposure to Enron. With such huge sums at stake, both Enron and its creditors could be expected to use what ever means available to avert financial disaster.

Evidence suggests that Citigroup disguised loans to Enron as forward swap contracts to allow Enron to book the transaction as cash flow instead of debt. At the same time, Citigroup is suspected of having sold credit-linked securities to investors to raise capital to be transferred into the same SPEs that stood to receive delivery on the swap. This, in and of it self, could be an act of fraud if Citigroup did not expect delivery of the oil or gas and considered it a loan.

But more importantly, when did Citigroup executives know that Enron depended on an investment grade credit rating and what steps did it take – both through financial dealings and influence – to help maintain it? If Citigroup used the swap contracts to improve Enron’s appearance to bond raters with the knowledge that a downgrade would not only make Enron less able to attract new bondholders, but also trigger repayment options Enron could not cover, this could be a case of securities fraud.

To make matters worse, a Washington Post article indicates that Secretary Rubin asked Peter R. Fisher at the U.S. Treasury Department to advise bond-rating agencies to “work with,” rather than downgrade Enron. If Secretary Rubin knew of the Citigroup transactions used to hide Enron’s debt when he took steps to influence Enron’s credit rating, his actions could have been conspiratorial. If the Citigroup loans to Enron were properly accounted for, no man as well versed in financial matters as Secretary Rubin would have suggested that Enron deserved an investment grade rating.

Reaction to the possible subpoena of a former Treasury Secretary has been politically charged. Democrats accuse Republicans of forcing Secretary Rubin to testify to score political points and undermine the Democrats’ credibility. Republicans accuse Democrats of conspiring to keep Rubin off the witness list for purely political reasons. While political maneuvering on a sensitive issue is to be expected, it is clear that certain questions – particularly those concerning Secretary Rubin’s own culpability – can only be answered by the former Treasury Secretary himself.

To bring a well-respected and eminently likeable former Treasury Secretary before your committee could also lead to more dispassionate analysis and allow the issue to be fully vetted. Past hearings have been used for political grandstanding, public shaming, and irresponsible charges. This contributed to a rabid political environment where lawmakers felt pressure to support egregious new accounting and corporate reforms instead of allowing the civil and criminal justice systems to address potential illegality.

Secretary Rubin is a Democrat, but he also commands respect outside of his party for his hawkish deficit posture and general cordiality. He is uniquely positioned to explain what happened, why it happened, and what policies could best ensure more transparency. If he played a role in a high level conspiracy to defraud investors, he should be brought to justice. But even if he did not commit any criminal or unethical acts, his testimony could shed light on the complex world of corporate finance and explain the ways corporations diversify risk and raise capital through complex transactions.

Any hearing that deals with the role of underwriters in the Enron scandal that does not call Secretary Rubin as a witness will be inadequate. Investors depend on the unbiased analysis provided by independent credit rating agencies. If creditors can influence these ratings when they fear an unbiased rating would cause a debtor to default, investors should be made aware.

If your committee is to understand fully the scope of Wall Street underwriters’ involvement in the Enron scandal, you must subpoena Secretary Rubin.

Sincerely,
Paul Beckner

Basically what the posters in this thread have done is employed the traditional facist tactic of "guilt by association" regarding Bush and Lay. I expect the usual responses of disinformation from you whack jobs, but it's clear that Bush had no role in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow which the Skilling and Lay indictments resulted from.

[nothumb]

I like the old saying, "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied."

If Bush is so innocent, why would he go out of his way to lie about how well he knew Lay? I believe both administrations were incredibly business friendly (as have been all of them since Reagan, really). I'm sure some of the seeds of deregulation were sewn on Clinton's watch, and the SEC has been a bit of a joke for years. However, there were several former Enron executives in Bush's administration, and with Lay staying at the White House and almost certainly serving on Cheney's energy task force, I think it's a bit silly to pretend there was no connection. This doesn't even go back to any policies Bush made as Governor of Texas.

Call me a whackjob if you like, I don't mind.

NT

[cardcounter0]

You are confused. It doesn't matter what Bush knew or didn't know. It doesn't matter what Bush did or didn't do.

Just like Oral Sex, it doesn't matter what actually happened. (Last time I checked BJs weren't illegal).

WHAT MATTERS: Bush Lied About Knowing Ken Lay. He lied. He stood in front of the American People and told Lies. He said he did not know Kenneth Lay. Never heard of him. That was a lie. LIES! Presidents get impeached over lies.

[J.R.]

Off-topic and irrelevant.

Lets start a new thread to dicuss Rubin and Citicorp instead of trying to divert the focus of this thread.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush is so innocent, why would he go out of his way to lie about how well he knew Lay?

[/ QUOTE ]

So this proves he's guilty of something? If Kerry's elected do you think he'll ever lie? Has Kerry lied already? Have you ever lied about anything? Do you think you'll lie about anything again? The liar, liar pants on fire condemnation is hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe both administrations were incredibly business friendly (as have been all of them since Reagan, really).

[/ QUOTE ]

Economic growth has been phenomonal. Why is this necessarily bad or is it?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure some of the seeds of deregulation were sewn on Clinton's watch, and the SEC has been a bit of a joke for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compare the SEC under Bush with the SEC under Clinton. IMO the record shows that the Bush SEC has been far more vigilant. The problem with the SEC, at least what the SEC claims is, that they're underfunded. I think that's believable. Congress appropriates the money.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there were several former Enron executives in Bush's administration,

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are you specifically referring to. What role did they play in Enron's day to day operations and what was their role in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow?

[ QUOTE ]
and with Lay staying at the White House and almost certainly serving on Cheney's energy task force, I think it's a bit silly to pretend there was no connection.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Bush has an involvment in the fraud perpetrated by Fastow? This is the "guilt by association" arguement I referred to. Do you actually know anything about the fraud that was perpetrated by Fastow? The scheme involved very complicated transactions. If a lot of market participants were deceived then why is it reasonable to assume that Bush knew of the fraud?

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even go back to any policies Bush made as Governor of Texas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were these policies related in anyway to the Lay indictment? Nope.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets start a new thread to dicuss Rubin and Citicorp instead of trying to divert the focus of this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I feel it's relevant is that the implication of the original poster in my mind is that Bush administration created the environment that led to the Enron debacle. I refuted that claim by showing how it actually was brought about in the Clinton administration. Rubin was part of the Clinton administration and used his influence to hurt investors. Rubin was hired away from his job as the head of the Treasury department by one of the entities that helped Enron pull off it's fraud. To me it's proof that the Bush administration did not foster the environment that led to the Enron debacle. Also the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (spelling) was championed by Rubin himself if memory serves. Arguably Citigroup and J.P. Morgan never help pull off the Enron scam without repeal of this act.

[J.R.]

I agree with most of what you write and think that J.P. and CitiGroup/CitiCorp (along with many others) are rip-off artists, as recent settlements on Wall Street partially attest. But I disagree with this:

Rubin was hired away from his job as the head of the Treasury department by one of the entities that helped Enron pull off it's fraud. To me it's proof that the Bush administration did not foster the environment that led to the Enron debacle

This is not a one or the other type of situation- democrats and republicans alike are beholden to corporate interests, and in situations like the Enron debacle, its folly to argue that the culpability of one party excuses the other. Both parties can and likely do have dirty laundry.