> Do the phrases like `damage control,' `plausible deniability', ring a
> bell?
[snip]
> Justice will re-focus on the business executives, who will all blame
> it on the accounting firm. The accounting executives will blame it all
> on mis-communication with middle managers. Instead of pursuing the
> investigation up the ladders of political power, the FBI/Justice will
> move down the ladder into the business realm. There will be calls for
> legislative reform, but for the sake of bi-partisanship, congressional
> Democrats will do nothing. Hearings will proceed and various boards
> and commission will promise to do better. Calls for a special
> prosecutor will be met with charges of typical Democrat partisan
> bickering.
To back Chuck up, here is an interesting comment buried in a NY Times article "Justice Dept. to Form Task Force to Investigate Collapse of Enron" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/business/10ENRO.html
But some past efforts by the Justice Department to take a more
central role in a criminal investigation of a corporation with
influence in Washington have raised concerns about potential
political influence over the inquiry. For example, in the 1990's,
when part of an inquiry involving the Archer Daniels Midland
Company was assigned to the fraud section, some critics contended
— to the vehement denials of Justice officials — that Washington
was trying to protect Archer, the politically influential grain
company. Enron, whose officers have been close to both President
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, has exercised similar political
influence in the past.
If you own the Justice Dept, that seems like a good organization to investigate something that would otherwise embarrass you.
Archer Daniels Midland is still irritating me to this day with its smarmy ads on PBS.
-- John K. Taber