Um, you know what? On second thought...

February 4, 2002 8:35 AM

Um, you know what? On second thought... Ken Lay decides not to testify before Congress.
posted by Ty Webb (23 comments total)

Hmph. Not surprised.
posted by jacobw at 8:48 AM on February 4, 2002

someone should arrest his skanky ass. he's a tremendous flight risk.
posted by quonsar at 8:51 AM on February 4, 2002

I think Dorgan and Tauzin blew it by mouthing off like they did. I also think Lay is thanking Christ right now that they gave him an out.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:55 AM on February 4, 2002

What did he expect, a tea party reception at congress? I guess he spent so much money on congress he was expecting something nicer?

Of course he's facing a hostile congress. He scammed billions of dollars, kicked the little guy in the balls, made craploads of money, and left a bunch of really angry voters.

Oh, but we should feel for him. Really. According to his wife, they have no money and are desperate to find liquidity. Riiiiiiight.
posted by aacheson at 8:55 AM on February 4, 2002

I'm not a Lay fan, but the holier-than-thou attitude that congressmen and women always adopt in these situations nauseates me. I kind of like the fact that someone shoved it back in their faces. Of course, they'll just subpoena him, and he'll show up and take the fifth.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:25 AM on February 4, 2002

...congressmen and women always adopt in these situations

if (troll) {
"don't feed"
} else {
"WTF?"
}
posted by puppy kuddles at 9:32 AM on February 4, 2002

puppy kuddles, I'm neither a troll nor a programmer, but I think I've been able to interpret your attempt at humor. What is so trollish or confusing about my post? Is it the word "always" that bothered you? I will agree that I was being hyperbolic; certainly congresspeople are not literally "always" holier-than-thou. But I don't think it's that crazy to suggest that there are times when some are. It's the media grandstanding and the five-minute "questions" that are just snide speeches for the benefit of the constituents that I'm referring to. As a reference, see the Clinton impeachment hearings, Whitewater hearings, and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Sheesh.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:39 AM on February 4, 2002

Surprised that he doesn't want to show up to get his nuts ground up by a bunch of pols? Lay and all his cronies will take the fifth in hopes of being offered immunity, which in most cases ends up protecting them from prosecution. Undoubtably, some lesser players will take the brunt of the punishment.
posted by Mack Twain at 9:57 AM on February 4, 2002

They've already started to blame the guy who killed himself. Isn't it nice that he's there to blame and can't speak up for himself?
posted by aacheson at 10:03 AM on February 4, 2002

Pardonyou?,

I'm with you on the congress part, I take exception to the women part.
posted by puppy kuddles at 10:11 AM on February 4, 2002

I'm with you on the congress part, I take exception to the women part.

I'm pretty sure that "congressmen and women" was shorthand for "congressmen and congresswomen", puppy kuddles. That's how I read it, anyway.
posted by anapestic at 10:19 AM on February 4, 2002

I'm pretty sure that "congressmen and women" was shorthand for "congressmen and congresswomen"

Oops. I'm a moron. Apologies all around. Please resume your normal viewing.
posted by puppy kuddles at 10:27 AM on February 4, 2002

Oh, I see the confusion. Yes, anapestic is correct. I could/should have been more careful. No offense intended, none taken.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:37 AM on February 4, 2002

The stock market is taking a nosedive today, after a big one last week. What's to blame? Worries over accounting, driven by Enron. This, after thousands of jobs and billions in pension/retirement funds lost. Folks, the Enron implosion is a neutron bomb dropped on the American economy.

The implosion is, of course, in large part shaking out what was already creaky. It's a worst-case version of what has been going on elsewhere. For this, Congress is certainly to blame tangentially. But I wouldn't begin to sympathize with Ken Lay over anything (empathize, but not sympathize), no matter how much you despise the attitude of certain members of Congress. Under no circumstances would I root for him. Honestly, sometimes you don't have to pick a side. Just be mad about the right things, already.
posted by raysmj at 10:42 AM on February 4, 2002

"The only thing I know, 100% for sure, is that my husband is an honest, decent, moral human being who would do absolutely nothing wrong. That I know 100%."

See, guys? Nothing wrong. Nothing.
posted by amanda at 11:37 AM on February 4, 2002

Ken Lay's wife had such a wonderful press conference. Not too many people that can hire a PR firm to arrange a press conference to announce that they're broke.

But this "turn around" should be no surprise. Lay likely had no intention of showing up at all - his PR managers just told him to volunteer to show up. See - the good press of a few days expecting him to "do the right thing" outweighs any negative press of not actually showing up. Perfect spin control.

But for his lawyer to express indignation at the accusatory tone? Come on folks, its not like Lay is suspected of fudging on a government contract, or some other petty misdemeanor. Get real. Anybody who thought the first question to Lay would be anything other than "What the fuck were you thinking?" has got to be an idiot.

But we should all expect this mess to be treated with kid gloves. Too many in Congress have dirty hands - and they don't really want Lay to spill all the beans. (sorry for being overmetaphorical)
posted by yesster at 12:52 PM on February 4, 2002

This is a dumb move and bad PR. Now he'll be subpoenaed by a pissed-off Congress, instead of appearing voluntarily.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:03 PM on February 4, 2002

So basically, what Congress is doing is wearing kid gloves to protect the spilled beans from being contaminated by their dirty hands?
posted by kindall at 1:40 PM on February 4, 2002

The stock market is taking a nosedive today, after a big one last week. What's to blame? Worries over accounting, driven by Enron.

Well, that's only the most obvious reason, the one Ron Insana is most likely to cite. A really conspiracy minded person would note that the first of the month was last week and hypothesize that last week's rally represented mutual fund window dressing. That would make make today's sell-off at least partly the unwinding of positions. Telecom debt did not help matters today. And to top everything off, people watched all those dumb commercials on the superbowl yesterday and said "My God, they paid money to run that? Call my broker!"
posted by ilsa at 2:13 PM on February 4, 2002

Maybe he would be more willing to testify if they gave him a nice t-shirt:



Anyone know where to get one of these?
posted by homunculus at 3:00 PM on February 4, 2002

ilsa: There was also a massive selloff last week, followed by a two-day rally.
posted by raysmj at 5:25 PM on February 4, 2002

Also, part of the telecom drop was due to the bankruptcy of Global Crossing, which had some Andersen-related accounting problems. Also factored in is the drop of WorldCom, which is overleveraged and has had its credit rating downgraded.
posted by raysmj at 5:31 PM on February 4, 2002

And I 've read that Mr. Hitler loved his little doggies.
Guess that proves HIM innocent!
posted by HTuttle at 8:35 PM on February 4, 2002