Miss the point? You guys are in serious denial if you really believe that official Enron internal documents aren’t a reliable source of information about secret Enron meetings involving Arnold. That’s what you guys can’t accept. & is it anti-Americanism to just report what internal Enron documents said? You guys make me laugh.
Why is it suddenly controversial that Palast suggests that Enron was and is up to no good?
I thought this was common knowledge.
Remember the teensy weensy scandal down there in Houston?
What I’ve read is that Enron had sold power back to various municipal sources in CA at grossly inflated rates, thus helping along the energy crisis.
And damn right Davis was in it up to his eyeballs, right in Enron’s pocket.
But wait, lets not suggest that our hero Arnie is also in with Enron!!! He’s a Republican and an “actor”- and we know they would never dream of being in cahoots with a corporation right (dripping sarcasm)?
Gee, I wonder where Ken Lay is vacationing this week…
I read your articles. I read the emails on which the articles were based. And I am as yet still convinced that your bizarre conspiracy theories have zero merit.
The emails mention Arnold precisely once, as one attendee among a littany of the top CEOs in CA. The focus of any politics in those emails is giving Mr. Lay the background on Richard Riordan, the then-mayor of L.A.
Therefore, as in most silly conspiracy theories, this is based on the flimsiest of evidence – in this case, the attendance of Arnold Schwartzenegger at a meeting of many of the top CEOs in the country (not just energy-company CEOs, but across a range of industries) is suspect because, GASP, that meeting was called by Enron. As we all know, Enron is evil. And, for good measure, Michael Milken was there too, and he is also evil (never mind he now does philanthropic work and has no connection whatsoever to the energy industry).
Try to use Occam’s Razor in your thinking, and apply the actual facts to this case. The suits were brought by Democrats, based upon theories that, to the best of my knowledge, not one member of the CA Republican Party agreed with. Arnold is elected as a Republican, and, surprise, he wants to get rid of lawsuits that were universally criticized by Republicans when they were filed as being nothing more than political cover for Davis’ missteps in handling the energy crisis (and, actually, for Pete Wilson’s mishandling of structuring de-regulation – he only did it half way – but the Republicans weren’t going to focus on that when they had such a good hammer against Davis). Seems like the simplest explanation.
But no – the conspiracy theorists want to grasp at straws – and say the name Enron a lot, because, you know, Enron is evil. All corporations are evil, but Enron is especially evil – mostly because it was involved with oil of course, but also due to corporate malfeasance having to due with setting up shell corporations and misstating profits (but not having to due with the CA energy crisis – you’ll note that Davis didn’t bring up Enron until after its accounting problems came to light – you’ll also note that, as the facts pointed out in the articles I posted, there was no overcharging, and therefor no damages, irrespective of what Gov. Davis claimed were the damages, so the lawsuits weren’t going anywhere).
It’s obvious that the explanation must be that Arnold, back in 2001, far before the recall was hatched, back when all focus for politics was on Riordan, hatched a secret plot in the middle of a huge meeting with many, many high-level CEOs in attendance, with Enron chief Ken Lay, to take over the governorship of CA in order to dismiss lawsuits against Enron. It only makes it more likely that while Enron is in bankruptcy, with no money to pay these claimed huge damages(which have no factual basis) even if they were to be assessed (that’s right – to pay damages, you have to have money, and Enron has zilch), Schwartzenegger should do his best to advance this conspiracy, for the benefit of a company that basically no longer exists and a man, Ken Lay, who has no power to help him in any way, and who has been publicly disgraced in an unrelated manner. Yeah, that makes sense.
The workings of feeble minds are a wonder to behold. You’re grasping at straws, and it is quite amusing.
By the way, doesn’t it make you just the teeniest bit suspicious that the L.A. Times, which even high-profile Democrats are describing as being a partisan shrill against Schwartzenegger (see here for Susan Estrich’s comments on the L.A. Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-oe-estrich3oct03.story) for running unsubstantiated claims of “groping” against the man hasn’t picked up this gem of a story to run with it. I mean, the allegations of your conspiracy theory, if true (snicker), would far outweight some bad behavior with women. Could it possibly be because there is not enough substance to this fantasy for even a paper willing to run a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations?
“Therefore, as in most silly conspiracy theories, this is based on the flimsiest of evidence – in this case, the attendance of Arnold Schwartzenegger at a meeting of many of the top CEOs in the country (not just energy-company CEOs, but across a range of industries) is suspect because, GASP, that meeting was called by Enron. As we all know, Enron is evil. And, for good measure, Michael Milken was there too, and he is also evil (never mind he now does philanthropic work and has no connection whatsoever to the energy industry).”
Arnold himself confirmed that he was going to drop the lawsuit a couple days before the vote. The FTCR sent Palast copies internal Enron memos. Is that a conspiracy theory?
BostonBarrister, you seem to be saying in so many words that Enron, Ken Lay, and Michael Milken are all worthy of our trust and have somehow been misunderstood over the years (?)
When something is critical of the right its called conspiracy theory,
but when it criticizes someone such as Clinton (blow jobs, murdering 47 people) its regarded in our “liberal” media as serious investigations.
The fact is Arnie met with Lay, and then later when in a position to do so, drops a lawsuit against Lay’s corp.
Now, if they explicitly discussed this I don’t know, but it should at least make one suspicious.
Its Palast’s job to elucidate the details, which he has done a fine job of over the years while reporting for the BBC and The Guardian, giving me reason to trust his work, or at least become curious enough to read more.
Yet we should discount him and instead trust in Enron and Arnie, 'cause dammit, their 'Merican heroes right?
No.
I read everything linked on Palast, and went back to the FTRC site and read its links (the said “Read the Emails Here”). The only “internal memos” I saw were the emails saying Arnold attended that conference. The rest is pure fantasy, and, with that ever-useful tool, Occam’s Razor, I eliminate cockamamie, complicated fantasies that don’t even make sense when one examines the current circumstances.
As stated above, Republican Arnold decided to dismiss lawsuits filed by Dems Davis and Bustamante. The Republicans were on record as being against those suits ever since they were filed. This really isn’t that complicated.
Explain why doesn’t it make sense?
Enron & Lay are hit with a lawsuit seeking to reclaim the $9 Billion they siphoned from California.
Understandably they would rather not pay up. Lay, in seeking how to get the lawsuit dropped meets with players in L.A. & DC. His buddy Bush makes an offer to California to settle for pennies on the dollar.
One of those LA players Lay met with becomes Governor & subsequently states he will drop the lawsuit.
Pretty simple.
OK, let me run through this from the legal perspective, and then the political.
Firstly, as a legal matter, there were no damages to be had in the suit against Enron et al. The reason is two-fold. Firstly, irrespective of their greedy motivation, they did not charge above the market rate – in fact, they charged below market, based on the facts above. Ergo, no damages and no illegal profits for disgorgement. Secondly, as a practical matter, Enron has no money to pay damages, even if they were assessed. Guess what? Ken Lay is not personally liable here – only the company would be liable. The company has no money. So, given that, what would be the motivation for following through with the grand conspiracy?
Second, from the political perspective, from the perspective of Arnold’s own rational self interest, there would be no motivation to help out a corporation that was in no danger (see above) and a person that was not liable (see above). However, there would be great risk, as if such a silly conspiracy were uncovered, he would be in deep doo-doo, as it were. That doesn’t balance out in favor of him acting for any conspiracy.
Third, there is a much more plausible reason to believe he got rid of the lawsuits – and announced he would do so to the entire electorate, before the election: he didn’t agree with the lawsuits, and he and the Republicans wanted to buttress the image that Davis was responsible for the energy crisis. Therefore, he dismissed the suits because: A) The Republicans did not agree with them in the first instance; and B) it was politically a good move for them to do so.
Now, some more common sense. It seems highly improbable that some sort of secret back-room cabal to defraud the state of CA was hatched at a large-scale conference of prominent business leaders. People like that tend to not like taking risks for the benefit of others, and to them, Enron was “others.” I suppose you think Lay just collared Arnold and Riordan, and they spirited off to a secret conference within the conference to hatch their plot? And invited Michael Milken just to increase the “bad guy” factor? This was a big conference, with lots of people – hardly the setting for plotting to defraud the state.
And remember, that is the entire sum of the evidence: that Arnold attended a large conference of CEOs, along with Richard Riordan, put on by Enron. That’s it. Everything else is conjecture.
Seriously, you need to apply some logical thinking skills here. I know that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and when you hate oil, you see its pernicious influence everywhere you look (the journalist who authored the initial report is a prime example), but come now. Try not to embody the phrase, as do so many ph.D.'s in the humanities, “educated beyone your intelligence.”
I’m sorry – that last post ended rudely. I guess this is just kind of frustrating as it appears to me I am explaining basic logic, something I shouldn’t have to do with intelligent people.
Conspiracy theories are almost always bunk (once again, just apply Occam’s Razor), and this one is particurlary poor because it doesn’t even make sense.
q for kuri: Why would the Guardian & the BBC hire someone who would just write about conspiracy theories?
q for BB: I thought you read the Palast stuff. He distincly says (quoting here) “But Bush’s boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt “laundering,” fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).” That’s the problem. It just happens that Enron is Lay’s corporation & Lay is one of Bush’s boys. & stop talking about Occam’s Razor, it sounds like you only just learned about it & want to sound smart or something.
Might as well Give Up BB, You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. These guys heroes could come out and admit they have flawed thinking and that a change is in order, and MQ would still come up with a secret plot theory or brainwashing theory or something. It’s like this, some people are good at math some good at english, different parts of the brain are stronger in different individuals. MQ might have for example a very strong ability to name 30 different species of Cannibus and the THC% in each species. But might not be able to handle simple or complex social issues without getting frightened or confused. Don’t get angry at him it’s not his fault. Like the liberals say, He was born this way.
BB, your baseball team may suck, but your making a lot of sense here making the conspiracy crackheads have to work for their fantasies. Good work.
and might I add, the Guardian is a solid rag…its up there next to the Sun and the Daily Mail in terms of unbiased journalism
You’re right MQ, it does say that. Problem is, that is a contention, for which the author offers not a shred of evidence. He can sit there and level claims until he is blue in the face, but that’s all they are without any evidence: claims.
The only evidence actually cited were those Enron emails, which is why I focused on them.
If you want to read a report on the cause of the power crisis in CA, backed by actual evidence, I refer you again to this link:
Please contrast this scholarly presentation to your article, which is a list of accusations based on no cited evidence.
By the way, you’ll notice when you read that article that Enron was in the CA market for all of 3 weeks after “deregulation,” after which it vacated because consumers had no real incentive to switch providers and it wasn’t generating significant enough business to stay.
And as to Occam’s Razor, I wouldn’t cite it so often if you tried applying it.