- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
Ken Lay might recall (and if he does not he can refer to old newspaper archives) that it was the market that refuted the Enron corporate model, not prosecutors. Prosecutors just picked up the pieces of a fraud so that victims of the fraud known as Enron could see justice done, and perhaps recoup some losses.
For Ken Lay to make this into prosecutorial terrorism shows just how disconnected from reality he is. This might just be a public relations balloon to defend himself and his colleagues: it is long enough for people to forget the misdeeds; and his appearance of insanity might get his colleagues off the legal hook. His appearance of insanity certainly won't land him at the helm of a corporation larger than a 7-11 franchise for the remainder of his life.
Kenneth Lay, I'd like to introduce you to Richard Scrushy. Maybe he can give you a few pointers.
"Lay asked former employees to come forward"
And did they come running to his rescue?
"Prosecutorial terrorism"? I think that would only apply to the destruction of Arthur Andersen for coming forward and admitting to shredding documents related (but not detrimental) to Enron financial reporting. Enron withheld information from its auditor and perpetrated a fraud, yet they are still in business and Arthur Andersen is not. Who was the scapegoat here? Twenty-eight thousand people were put out of work. Two in that company were found liable for misconduct. Prosecutorial terrorism? As a former Arthur Andersen employee, I think that term would apply to me, not to Ken Lay, who goes home to his mansion every night.
