Guilty!

[ZimZam]

Don't fret they'll receive a presidential pardon.

[mattp]

Considering that Lay, at least, was one of GWB's major donors, you could be right but that'd be a touchy thing to do and the powers that be may not allow it.

[cj001f]

Maybe you think the system is not corrupt?

Of course it isn't matt, it's merely applying a freemarket approach to the legal system

[olyclimber]

and the political system. and the solar system. just ask art bell.

[archenemy]

and the solar system.

Star

bucks

[olyclimber]

 

All of this is going to seem pretty small beans when bird flu hits!!!

[DirtyHarry]

Atleast then we won't have to go to work.

[JayB]

This is an even better opportunity for you, Jay, to learn how the words "pompous" and "asshole" are also closely linked together.

 

Hey - good burn! Surely as an attorney you could have dredged up some more exotic synonyms for "pompous" and/or "asshole" though.

 

Background

 

 

I'm not sure how the Enron trial is an indictment of anything, given the fact that the parties involved have been tried and prosecuted. Ditto for Tyco, Worldcom, etc.

 

These scandals generated a fairly substantial legislative response (Sarbanes-Oxley), which has resulted in some pretty significant changes in the manner in which companies report their financial results - none of which could have happened if the congress was hopelessly enslaved to Corporate Interests. With respect to the options scandal that I'm referring to, the overwhelming majority of abuses occured prior to the inception of the new standards that companies had to abide by when accounting for options grants ('02, I think), so I'd say that it's already resulted in a fairly significant change in governance. Ultimately, though, it's up to Congress to write the rules for how companies disclose their financial information, and up to the oversight agencies that are tasked with enforcement to go after the folks that break the rules - but not to decide how much anyone gets paid. That's between the board and the shareholders, and as things stand there's a layer of middlemen (fund managers) that are supposed to serve as proxies for the millions of retirees, folks contributing to pension funds, etc - that just haven't been doing a very good job of holding board's accountable. That's mostly because they don't really care what the board does so long as the value of the stock is increasing and their investors see a positive return on their quarterly fund statements, and the same goes for the investors themselves. There's no simple mechanism to fix this problem, barring compulsory courses in financial literacy for the entire adult population.

[olyclimber]

Jay, I think you need a new avatar pic:

[Alpinfox]

Yesterday I heard that Bush has granted Negroponte (head of NSA/CIA) the authority to deny the SEC access to corporate accounting records for corporations involved in "government contracts". Apparently the President has had this authority since the Carter era, but this is the first time that authority has ever been delegated to someone else.

 

Result:

Negroponte can decide that the SEC can't investigate the telephone companies regarding the recent phone record data-mining. How much did the government pay them for those records?

 

And what about Haliburton? I'm sure their books are off the table now. How convenient for Bush/Cheney.

 

I'm curious to hear Jay's take on this as he obviously knows more about this stuff than I do.

[olyclimber]

You too Alpinfox:

 

What happened to flowers and rainbows? Oh ya....that was telemarktips.com.

[Alpinfox]

You too Alpinfox:

 

What happened to flowers and rainbows? Oh ya....that was telemarktips.com.

 

OMG!!! I can't believe you would post such insensitive fluff in a post about two people who are going to prison for life! Don't you realize that their FAMILIES might read this???

 

I mean, HAVE A LITTLE FUCKING SYMPATHY FOR THESE CRIMINALS!

 

FUCK!

[JayB]

Yesterday I heard that Bush has granted Negroponte (head of NSA/CIA) the authority to deny the SEC access to corporate accounting records for corporations involved in "government contracts". Apparently the President has had this authority since the Carter era, but this is the first time that authority has ever been delegated to someone else.

 

Result:

Negroponte can decide that the SEC can't investigate the telephone companies regarding the recent phone record data-mining. How much did the government pay them for those records?

 

And what about Haliburton? I'm sure their books are off the table now. How convenient for Bush/Cheney.

 

I'm curious to hear Jay's take on this as he obviously knows more about this stuff than I do.

 

That's all small potatoes in comparison to the cash they're paying me to defend them here on cc.com.

[olyclimber]

A little prison will do them some good! Heck, they might make some intimate friends there.

[Mal_Con]

Don't worry, Chimpy will probably pardon them.

[Alpinfox]

And what about that FBI raid on Congressman Jefferson's office on Saturday night? LINK

 

Executive branch intimidating the Legislative? Congress seems to think so and is not happy.

 

Legal experts were divided on the legality and propriety of the FBI's raid, but many said that it could raise serious evidentiary problems for prosecutors at trial. In scores of cases of alleged congressional wrongdoing, federal prosecutors and FBI agents have most commonly sought to issue subpoenas for documents rather than conducting an impromptu raid on congressional property, experts said.

 

Pretty amazing that at the same time Bush is facilitating the hiding of corporate accounting records dealing with government contracts, he is using FBI stormtroopers to obtain evidence from one of the other branches of government.

 

Balance of power shift anyone?

[olyclimber]

LOL, got to love all the Republicans throwing the administration under the bus at the drop of a hat these days.

 

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

 

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

[Alpinfox]

Don't worry, Chimpy will probably pardon them.

 

I hope he tries. It would be ANOTHER great reason to impeach his criminal ass.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Don't worry, Chimpy will probably pardon them.

 

I hope he tries. It would be ANOTHER great reason to impeach his criminal ass.

 

Pardons would occur in 1/09 - too late to impeach.

 

And, of course Marc Rich's pardon doesn't bother you thoroughly-consistent idealogues

[mattp]

Fox:

For stuff like that, it is traditional for Presidents to issue such pardons on their last couple of days in office. It would not cause or even support impeachment, it would only stink.

[mattp]

Well well. We post the same message at the same time, KK.

 

Question: who here ever said they supported or were not disturbed by a pardon of Marc Rich? Hell, even Congressional Democrats were upset over it.

 

Perhaps the real idealogues here are those taking the cheap shots at the evil liberals on cc.com.

[Alpinfox]

KK,

Yeah, I thought the Mark Rich pardon was pretty shitty, but it is very, very small potatoes compared to the idea of BushCo pardoning Lay.

 

I think if Bush did pardon Lay there would literally be riots and calls for Congressional veto of the pardon (I know that is not currently allowed, but that might be changed if Bush tried sucha boneheaded manuever as pardoning Lay).

 

Maybe I misunderestimate [sic] the capacity for anger by the American people regarding corporate/government corruption/malfesance. It certainly seems like Americans don't give a shit about much of anything as long as Wal-mart is still open.

[willstrickland]

The WSJ is a fantastic newspaper...as long as you shitcan the op-ed page before the overwhelming stench of wingnutty intellectually dishonest bullshit talking points knocks you down with it's foul odour.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well well. We post the same message at the same time, KK.

 

Question: who here ever said they supported or were not disturbed by a pardon of Marc Rich? Hell, even Congressional Democrats were upset over it.

 

Perhaps the real idealogues here are those taking the cheap shots at the evil liberals on cc.com.

 

a dear co-worker of mine, very liberal, gloated when Rich was pardoned (along with the others). he thought it was so cool

 

I heard the same sentiment from lots of talking heads on the media.

 

don't worry, Matt, I'm not talking about you :-)

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK,

Yeah, I thought the Mark Rich pardon was pretty shitty, but it is very, very small potatoes compared to the idea of BushCo pardoning Lay.

 

I think if Bush did pardon Lay there would literally be riots and calls for Congressional veto of the pardon (I know that is not currently allowed, but that might be changed if Bush tried sucha boneheaded manuever as pardoning Lay).

 

Maybe I misunderestimate [sic] the capacity for anger by the American people regarding corporate/government corruption/malfesance. It certainly seems like Americans don't give a shit about much of anything as long as Wal-mart is still open.

 

If Bush pardons Ley or any of these c***suckers, I'll post a huge rant right here. I promise

 

I've got no love for the majority of CEO's out there