Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (22578)	1/29/2002 11:38:03 AM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

They're tossing mud at the wall to see what sticks.

To: sandintoes who wrote (22578)	1/29/2002 1:50:35 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

TOP DEM OPENED THE DOOR by Clinton's old friend, Dick Morris.... January 29, 2002 -- DEMOCRATS seeking to blame President Bush and the GOP for the Enron scandal need to look more closely at their own house - especially at the work done by the former Democratic National chairman, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd. While many candidates of both parties have received campaign contributions from Enron and its "independent auditor" Arthur Andersen, very few have passionately fought their cause in Washington as diligently as Chris Dodd. It was on account of Dodd's tireless efforts that Arthur Andersen was able to act as both "independent auditor" and management consultant to Enron for $100 million a year. That role - so fraught with conflict of interest that it makes a joke of the concept of outside auditors protecting shareholders - has been identified as one of the major causes of the debacle. In 1995, it was Dodd who rammed through legislation, overriding President Clinton's veto, to protect firms like Andersen from lawsuits in cases just like Enron. The Dodd bill limited liability for lawyers and accountants for "aiding and abetting" corporate fraud by their clients, making them liable only for their "proportionate" share of the blame, rather than for the entire fraud. So, if an accounting firm kept secret the true picture of a corporation's finances, it would only be liable for part of the total fraud on the investors. For shareholders, this law is awful - the fraudulent company has usually lost nearly all its value before the shareholder learns about it, so there's nothing left. For the accounting firm, though, it's great - the shareholders can't pin the total losses on you. And from Andersen's point of view, it was really wonderful, because they were already facing thousands of lawsuits for their role in securities fraud. A grateful accounting industry showed its appreciation to Sen. Dodd by contributing $345,903 to his campaign between 1993 and 1997. Every major accounting firm pitched in - Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Peat Marwick, Price Waterhouse. (Dodd has received more money from Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat - $54,843.) From '93 to '97, Dodd also received $523,551 from the securities industry, which was thrilled with other provisions of the '95 law that limited liability from securities lawsuits, notably for firms that failed to live up to their predictions about future earnings. Consumer groups had opposed the legislation - the U.S. Public Interest Research Group labeled it "The Crooks and Swindlers Protection Act." But Dodd's services to Andersen didn't stop there. Every analysis so far of the Enron scandal lays much of the blame on the conflict of interest that Andersen faced in auditing and consulting for Enron at the same time. Auditors must be independent to assure that companies do not report misleading financial data to stockholders. Once Andersen was getting up to $100 million a year in consulting fees from Enron, does anyone really believe that they would have blown the whistle on the firm's shady books? But when the SEC tried to bar this practice, so ridden with conflict of interest, it was Chris Dodd, along with Rep. Billy Tauzin (now R-La., though a Democrat until August 1995), who according to the Associated Press "brokered a deal" to stop the SEC action. As a result of Dodd's intervention, the SEC agreed not to issue a ban on the practice of auditing and consulting for the same client. Such practices have led to what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) called "the kind of hide-the-debt shell game that took place at Enron." In an ultimate act of hypocrisy, Dodd has now actually introduced legislation to ban accounting firms from doing consulting for companies it audits - precisely the same policy he killed when the SEC was considering it. Now that this issue is in the public eye, Dodd is pretending to be an advocate for the shareholders. But the Enron workers who lost their pensions and the Enron shareholders who lost their portfolios know it is too late for them. And Arthur Andersen knows it makes no difference to them now. nypost.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (22578)	1/29/2002 2:02:35 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 59480

Presidents Assert Executive Privilege KLP Note: Since the beginning of America....... By Deb Riechmann Associated Press Writer Tuesday, January 29, 2002; 10:41 AM WASHINGTON –– In refusing to release details of energy policy meetings, President Bush sounds a little like Dwight Eisenhower, whose administration holds the record for asserting executive privilege. "Any man who testifies as to the advice he gave me won't be working for me that night," Eisenhower said in invoking executive privilege 40 times during his two-term presidency. "We're not going to let the ability for us to discuss matters between ourselves to become eroded," Bush said Monday, defending his resolve not to release documents on meetings Vice President Dick Cheney had last year with business executives while developing a national energy policy. The Constitution doesn't mention executive privilege; its meaning has been defined over the years by presidents, judges and government policies. But since George Washington, presidents have used a form of executive privilege to keep information from Congress or the courts. The first battle over executive privilege was about a battle – in the late 1700s – waged and lost against Native Americans in the Northwest Territory. The defeat embarrassed Washington's administration and Congress asked to see the paperwork that led to the attack. Washington eventually compiled with this request, but four years later refused to give the House letters it wanted to see about a controversial treaty with Britain. Andrew Jackson stood up to the House, refusing to hand over lists of federal appointments (plus wages) that had been made without Senate approval. William McKinley withheld information the Senate wanted from a War Department investigation of expenditures of Cuban funds. In the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge withheld details on companies being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service. In postwar America, Eisenhower invoked executive privilege to keep government officials from testifying in Congress at Sen. Joe McCarthy's hearings aimed at hunting communists. "Eisenhower was making the case that in a system of separated powers, Congress' power of investigation is not absolute – that an administration must have the right of confidential deliberations," said Mark Rozell, a political science professor at Catholic University who has written a book on executive privilege. "Eisenhower said I'll fire anyone who talks about the advice he gave me. And Bush is saying 'Nobody is getting any information about the advice that was given to me.'" In 1974, Nixon tried to use executive privilege to avoid turning over his secret White House tapes to the Watergate special prosecutor. The Supreme Court ruled Nixon could not withhold evidence needed in a criminal prosecution. Like the post-Watergate presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, former President Bush avoided the term executive privilege, but not the practice. He invented other names and justifications for withholding information, such as "the secret opinions policy," Rozell said. President Clinton invoked or threatened to assert executive privilege during the Monica Lewinsky investigation, impeachment and other matters. "Future presidents will view President Clinton as something of a constitutional spendthrift who overleveraged executive privilege for personal purposes," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has written extensively on the subject. Clinton invoked executive privilege to block documents sought by the independent counsel investigating Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. During the perjury and obstruction probe of the president that led to his impeachment, Clinton considered and dropped a variety of privilege claims. They were thought unlikely to stand up in court. In February 2001, ex-President Clinton waived claim to the privilege, deciding he would not try to stop former aides from testifying about clemencies he granted before leaving office. Bush invoked executive privilege in December to protect the confidentiality of prosecution documents concerning the FBI's handling of mob informants in Boston in the 1960s and the Clinton-era fund-raising investigation of the 1990s. But it's the meetings Cheney and his energy task force had last year, including six meetings with executives from Enron Corp., that has caused the White House to take on Congress. The head of the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, says he will decide this week whether to sue for the documents. Cheney said on Monday that the White House was ready to go to court. "The collapse of Enron in no way, shape or form affects the basic principles we're trying to protect here," Cheney told CNN. "This is about the ability of future presidents and vice presidents to do their job." washingtonpost.com © 2002 The Associated Press