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 - Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (1508)	2/12/2002 8:13:09 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 3602

Gee, let's see. Wendy Gramm was on the Board of Directors of ENRON and she did her best to advance the company interests... Wow!! Breaking news... Stop the presses.... When you petty, partisan, whining, demolib pinheads aren't being humorless or obtuse you an be quite amusing.... Here's Texas term for ya: Dry hole..... Do you see, BIA? Yes, of COURSE you do... You keep scrabbling though. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (1508)	2/28/2002 4:52:06 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 3602

Not Guilty By Ramesh Ponnuru February 5, 2002 8:55 a.m. Phil Gramm You may have heard that Phil Gramm, Republican senator from Texas, had done some of Enron's bidding in 2000. Numerous newspapers, relying on a report by the Naderite group Public Citizen, reported that Gramm had slipped through a provision exempting some of Enron's business from regulation. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert put it on January 17, "In December 2000 Mr. Gramm was one of the ringleaders who engineered the stealthlike approval of a bill that exempted energy commodity trading from government regulation and public disclosure. It was a gift tied with a bright ribbon for Enron." This was Herbert's first example in a column dedicated to the proposition that "When Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy danced, it was most often to Enron's tune." Public Citizen had Gramm "muscling through" the offending provision. In fact, Gramm had almost nothing to do with it. He didn't write it: It came to the Senate from the House, where it was part of a bill that passed by a large margin. He didn't usher it through the Senate: It was considered by the Agriculture Committee, of which he was not a member, rather than the Banking Committee, which he chaired. Indeed, Gramm blocked the bill that included the provision for several months because he objected to other provisions. He did, however, eventually vote for the bill, like most congressmen. It included the offending provision, which had hardly been altered during the legislative process. Several publications have had to print corrections for linking Gramm to the provision — notably the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Herbert's column has not been corrected, but the day after it ran the New York Times ran a story by Jeff Gerth and Richard Oppel that noted the inconvenient truth: "[In late 2000] Senator Gramm, for reasons unrelated to Enron, was single-handedly blocking a futures trading bill the company had dearly prized." nationalreview.com