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.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (1528)	1/29/2002 1:49:40 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

"Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School, said: "Whenever a dispute occurs after a transaction is completed, law firms are always nervous about opinion letters they issued because they themselves could be named in a lawsuit. The Sherron Watkins letter could indicate that Vinson & Elkins has a lot to be nervous about." Karen, this firm also contributed money to George w. Bush's campaign. The firm's connections to Enron have been mentioned in many articles.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (1528)	1/29/2002 2:29:16 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 5185

There is mention of the Vinson & Elkins review in this post: Message 16977993

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (1528)	1/29/2002 3:20:57 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 5185

Keep public business public Denver Post.com Tuesday, January 29, 2002 - In secret, the Bush administration tried to re-write the nation's energy policies. Among the Bush team's original proposals: Moving oil rigs into national monuments. Weakening guidelines that protect the environment during oil drilling and coal mining on public lands. Slashing money for alternative energy research. Giving electric companies a federal right to build power lines on private property over the landowners' objections. Every proposal dealt with a federal action, so should have been open to public comment. But for months, Vice President Dick Cheney obdurately has clung to the fiction that who he talked to in preparing the massive federal policy revisions isn't the public's business. This week, he forced the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, into the uncomfortable position of likely having to sue the executive branch to make the information public. Cheney was excoriated for his closed-door crafting of the Bush energy policy shortly after he announced the plan in May - and long before the Enron pot got shoved onto the front burner of public policy in October. The administration's close ties to the bankrupt Texas energy company only have fueled the criticisms. For example, in January 2001, Bush refused to help California solve its energy crisis, a crisis that, not coincidentally, came about partly because California had embraced the very kind of deregulation that Enron had sought. In March, Bush pushed to allow oil rigs into national monuments and scuttle environmental rules about mining on public lands. Both issues were of intense interest to Colorado and the West, and both got shot down when Congress got wind of them. Then in August, the Department of Energy held just two days of hearings on major proposals to subsidize and benefit energy companies. True public input was systematically excluded, by the very short notice that the meeting would be held, restrictions on who was allowed to speak (the speakers' list consisted almost exclusively of energy company executives), and rules limiting written public comment to answering a narrow list of industry-friendly questions. In nearly every instance, the Bush administration attempted to implement enormous changes through a series of sometimes obscure federal rules, guidelines, budget priorities and other executive actions. Yet Cheney claims that executive privilege should shield him from telling the public whose advice he solicited in writing the energy policy and what part of his plans would have benefited which political interests. The public's interest will be gravely harmed if the courts uphold Cheney's position. On other issues in the future, voters may never learn who has their elected leaders' ear - a prospect that could damage the very idea of transparency in government, and of public policy being made in public. Cheney should be reminded that openness in a democratic government is, after all, far more than a personal virtue. denverpost.com Email a Copy of this Article