Ken Lay indicted on Enron scandal

[buggs]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040708/ap_on_bi_ge/enron_lay&cid=509&ncid=716

I remember that alot of liberals told me that Lay was never going to be indicted because he used to be Bush's buddy. And I kept telling them he will go down last as he is the big fish, and they want to get all the info to get him. Welp, time told.

[Cosmo_ac]

Keep in mind though Buggs, being Indicted is a hell of a lot different then being tried, found guilty, apropriatly sentenced and then fullfilling that sentence.

[the_Baron]

i can not approve of corporate executives whose actions mislead the public, and cause the markets to react based on false information.

however, i just don't want to see this get carried away. there seems to be a witchhunt going on. and i hope the sentencing is not disproportionate to the crime, to the extent convictions follow.

[Mitchell]

I agree with cosmo on this issue. An indictment means nothing. Buggs mentioned Lay being "Bush's buddy", and this may be just the point. This whole indictment thing could be political election year fodder for the Republicans, who hope to direct attention away from this issue with an indictment. I feel this is a definite political move designed to help Bush in the polls. As for what happens to Lay, and what impact it all has, only time will tell.

Mitch

[buggs]

Oh man. Everything is some Bush conspiracy. The reason why it took so long to indict Lay is because in cases like this they usually go after the smaller fish first, prosecute them, and offer deals to see what they know. Sometimes one of the smaller fish will start singing everything he or she knows, and that will cement the case against the big guy, as you can see a former federal prosecutor saying here:

Kirby Behre, a former federal prosecutor who is now in private practice in Washington, D.C., said it comes as no surprise that Lay has been charged. "The government seems to have successfully worked its way up the food chain and enlisted the help of senior officers of the company who obviously were cooperating." Taken from here (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/07/news/newsmakers/lay/index.htm?cnn=yes)

You need evidence and testimony to fry a big fish. You need someone to say "I was there and I saw him do this." or "He ordered me to do this." Then they work their way up the chain of command. Also with something as big as this, it takes a while to get all the information, and the prosecutors want to make sure that they have crossed all their t's, and dotted all of their i's before indicting the person. And remember, CEO's have access to better, more ruthless attorneys, so you better know your stuff before going against them.

The other reason is because the deals and stuff that Enron had done were so convoluted, it took a long time to sort out exactly how these guys did what they did, who knew what, and who did what.

It's like what Tom Cruise said in "A Few Good Men":
"In a court of law it doesn't matter what you think you know. It's what you can prove."