FW: Today's Papers: Endrun

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

from SLATE:
>The [major US] papers report that Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said that
[Enron CEO] Lay asked him to put in a kind word for Enron with a
credit-rating service (he declined). An Enron spokesperson denied that the
request was made and said Lay was just being nice and letting the government
know that Enron might go belly up and thus shock the financial markets.

>The NY [TIMES] is careful to avoid implying that Lay was asking for a
bailout. The [Washington POST], though, states in its subhead, "CEO sought
intervention before bankruptcy." <

Is it possible that this was a pay-off, telling DC insiders that it was time
to sell Enron shares (or even sell them short)? I wonder if the SEC will
investigate. It's possible that some underling saw Lay looking glum and said
"sell."

(BTW, Karl Rove [Dubya's main handler] & others were forced to divest
themselves of stocks early last year. That meant that they sold Enron at a
perfect time.)

>The White House's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said the President
was only made aware of Enron's calls yesterday morning. <

It wouldn't surprise me if this is true. Dubya isn't aware of most things.
US National Public Radio had a long quote from him about how he really cared
about the fate of the Enron stockholders but he cared about the folks who
were locked into Enron stock in their pensions, too, and laid-off workers.
It was (1) totally inarticulate, naturally, and (2) indicated that his main
concern were the stock-holders. In later versions, NPR left out the first,
heart-felt, part about Dubya's concern for the stockholders.

>Fleischer added that the calls were SOP, "It's not uncommon for
people who are in the community, business community or in the
labor community, to talk to a cabinet secretary to tell them
about the financial status of their business." <

I've never heard a DC spokesbum say such a thing (i.e.,  the truth). BTW,
the reference to "labor community" was not stressed.

>The NYT reports, "several congressmen demanded again today that
the White House release records of all its contacts with Enron
executives." The Times then quotes one of the congressional
critics at length. Presumably the administration has articulated
a reason why it won't release the records, but the paper doesn't
include it (or note the lack of a response, if that's the case).

>The NYT asks a good question about the revelation that Enron's
accounting firm recently destroyed some of company's documents:
In order to avoid endless piles of paper, the company has a
policy of destroying old and unneeded  records. Were these
shreddings simply part of that policy? Enron says it's not sure
yet.

>Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the Justice
Department's investigation of Enron because he received $50,000
in campaign donations from the company during his last run for
Senate. The entire U.S. Attorney's office in Houston also recused
itself from the investigation.

>According to the NYT, the Enron fiasco has "reawakened
Washington's now-familiar scandal machinery." The White House is
desperately trying to distance itself from Enron. It won't be
easy. Enron execs have been among the president's largest donors
for years. Bush is also a long-time friend of the company's
chairman.  Still, nobody has suggested that the President did
anything improper. <

except develop an Enron-friendly energy policy?

>Five congressional committees have sent out subpoenas related to
Enron.

>"This is the perfect storm," said one Democratic congressional
staffer. "It's the biggest bankruptcy in American corporate
history, a bankruptcy where a small number of executives enriched
themselves while thousands of employees were left with worthless
stock. And in 2001, Enron is the most influential company in
Washington. When you piece it all together, there are many
questions that need to be answered." <

of course, a lot of Democrats (and other Congresscritters) got $$$ from
Enron.

-- Jim Devine