Announcement of Kevin Hannon and Greg Whalley’s New Positions

This is a document announcing the Kevin Hannon’s and Greg Whalley’s new positions inside Enron.

Stupidity Run Amok: Ken Rice and Kevin Hannon Slandered In Crazy Book

The other day I was waxing poetic about how awesome it would be for James Spader to play Jeff Skilling in a movie about Enron. I actually got the idea from watching the trailer for Brian Cruver’s “Enron: The Unshredded Truth”, which was just fantastical and crazy. It was like Corporate America on peyote. Just so outrageous. Here’s the trailer:

Cruver’s book and movie didn’t even touch Enron. It was way too crazy to be believed, and even those who wanted to believe it didn’t – it just didn’t line up with the facts.

So tonight I was googling for something unrelated and came across some more crazysauce in the vein of Cruver’s book. I actually owned the book Broadbandits at one time but I never got around to read it, which was probably a good thing. Check out the crazy here:

I’ve spoken to people who know Ken Rice, and I can assure you, they do not think of him as a six year old in a forty-year old’s body. He is as self-possessed as the moon. Secondly, he watched cartoons during meetings? Nobody has ever mentioned this to me before, and let’s face it, if it were true, that would be awesome and thus, I’d have heard about it by now. Third, I’m not sure what’s wrong with wearing jeans and cowboy boots if that’s what the man wants to wear. Is this person appalled that Ken Rice wasn’t in a tux? That he dressed like a farmer? What? What’s the problem here? Fourth, it is true he went to work whenever he felt like it. He had been there for twenty years and had made Enron a ton of money. He was a little burned out, and wanted to play. Can’t blame him for that. Fifth, he did not marry Amanda Martin. Sixth, I hate this subject; it is so not our business. And by the way, I am sure he is the only person in the whole history of corporate America to fall for a coworker. Anyone who mentions this is just being a lascivious fucktard. Seventh, Kevin Hannon by all accounts is a very smart guy. I have no idea if he’s a know-it-all (I don’t think so, I’ve never heard that accusation before) but what bugs me is that every conversation about “know it alls” requires someone to NOT know it all. And that is usually the person making the accusation. Just saying. Eighth, I’m not sure how this moron can make the argument that Ken Rice and Kevin Hannon’s presence at Broadband would ensure it was a colossal mess because when they were in Wholesale, it was on fire. Both their careers had been one success after another. So maybe if you publish a book with real people in it – people with families and children and peers – you might want to be a little more careful about throwing around careless accusations. Ninth, the motorcycles. Lord have mercy. Why people get their panties in a twist about the motorcycles I will never know. First of all, the architect who built out the space suggested a metaphor for speed, thus the motorcycles were bought. Ken Rice did not buy them on his AmEx, the way some people have suggested. The architect did and Enron reimbursed them with a check. They cost $20,000 which was far less than other departments were spending on art. And tenth, that stuff about his cars just reeks of class envy. What business is it of anyone’s if he liked Ferraris? It always amuses me that people who don’t have money always think they would have spent someone else’s money better. No Ferraris! Just nice sensible Buicks. Whatever, dickface. This whole passage is just garbage — class envy, lies, and stuff that is none of your beeswax.

But the truth isn’t even relevant in this book. They’re on the warpath to create a narrative about Enron. Ken Rice is supposed to be a certain way, and if in real life he isn’t that way, well who’s gonna know about it, right?

UPDATE

Omigod, y’all, it gets even more ridiculous. Check this:

His Asian connections? I have no doubt that Ken Rice knows people all over the freaking world, but “his Asian connections”? Where would he have Asian connections? His whole life was spent at Enron in the Wholesale division. There weren’t any great big Asian assets – even Dahbol was in India and he had nothing to do with that. His Asian connections? This was really driving me nuts. Plus “SynerG” doesn’t sound like Ken Rice. I don’t know why but that just doesn’t seem right. He’s the dude who named “Enron Broadband Services”. He’d spell it out at least, and I don’t think he’d use the word “synergy” – a vague word – in the name of a new company.

So I googled.

Of course, Ken Rice is not using his vast “Asian connections”. This kindly looking gentleman from Minnesota who shares the name “Ken Rice” is President/CEO of “International SynerG Communications”.

That’s how awesome this book is. LinkedIn has busted him. Oh my god, I’m having so much fun with this, I might just keep reading and correcting that freaking book of lies all night.

Update 2
The Ken Rice from Minnesota has been president/CEO of the SynerG company since 1994. DO THE MATH. I’m enjoying this way too much.

David Reece’s Separation Agreement

This is David Reece’s separation agreement signed by Kevin Hannon and David Reece.

Judge Vanessa Gilmore Pre-Trial Conference Notes

Judge Gilmore notes that “Deft Hannon” (Kevin Hannon) will file a Bill of Particulars – which is here. However, I have it as a Word document, which leads me to believe it is a draft and not the final. In any case, I made it a PDF and you can check it out.

What If EBS Had Survived?

What If EBS had not been pulled down by the Enron bankruptcy?

There would have been a big clash between the bandwidth traders who thought that was the future and the apps over the Net group who believed that was the future — Kevin Hannon, the consummate trader, and Scott Yeager, the prime evangelist for apps over the Net, would be at each other’s throat. Rex Shelby would attend the meetings, suggest EBS spin the apps over the Net into a separate business unit (which he really did). When the traders refused, Rex would leave EBS (cordially and on good terms), contract to use the EIN to launch an apps over the Net business, and become disgustingly successful.

(Note: The Modulus people actually developed a presentation to ECI in 1998 [before the acquisition] titled “Changing the Rules of the Industry: It’s the Applications, Stupid!”. So my “what if” scenario for Rex is really not so far-fetched.)

John Bloomer would have gotten fired and then prosecuted for stealing EBS technology (which he actually tried to do). Bill Collins would have gotten fired and ended up in an asylum when EBS turned out so successful. Joe Hirko would have become the CFO when Johnathan Schwartz of Sun was offered the CEO job. Larry Ciscon would be offered the CTO job, but would leave to create an Android-like operating system for Rexoogle.

Rexoogle being the name of Rex Shelby’s venture.

David Berberian and Mark Palmer would launch Rexoogle smartphones long before the iPhone. Ellis Giles would work with Ciscon to create the first fully functional tablets, called the RexTab.

Rexoogle headquarters would be located outside Fredericksburg, TX along a large flowing creek. The office space would be a strange combination of the sublime and the bizarre. The employees have a lot of say in what goes on, so the interior is quite eclectic. The carpet in the huge open, meandering lobby (which has lots of places to sit and drink coffee) is a shade of blue so beautiful that people are starting to spend too much time there without consciously knowing why.

Larry has a huge photo of his souped-up Mini Cooper on his door. The car contains the slogan, “Rexdroid Operating System — Lean, Mean, and Blazing Fast!”

During the annual May Day party on the Rexoogle grounds, Rex is showing a visiting reporter the site of a famous Texas Ranger/Comanche battle on the banks of the creek. In his enthusiasm for the topic, Rex slips on an exposed tree root and tumbles head-first into the creek. He pulls himself out, with a big smile on his face. Unfortunately, the reporter snaps a photo which then makes it into newspapers all over the country with “clever” headlines such as:

“Is Rex Shelby Too Wet Behind the Ears to Lead Rexoogle To Industry Domination?”
“Is Rexoogle Swimming Against the Current with their ‘Apps over the Net’ Concept?”
“Can Rex Shelby Keep His Head Above Water as the Competition Lines Up Against Rexoogle?”

And, of course, the gossip blogs:

“Beautiful Reporter Pushes Software Playboy into the Creek!”
“Terrorist Reporter Tries to Drown Texas Entrepreneur!”

How To Launder Money In Three Easy Steps

1. Make a lot of money. It helps if the amounts are in the double or triple digits of millions.

2. Transfer part of that money from the original account to another account.

3. Get indicted.

That’s all there is to it! I learned this from reading the government’s case against the Broadband defendants, all of whom were accused of money laundering. Basically if you touch the money after you earn it, it’s officially a felony.

During the EBS trial, the government brought in a forensic accounting expert who presented elaborate flowcharts depicting the wealth that the seven defendants gained through what he believed were illegal means and then being shuffled from account to account.

The flowcharts failed to account for funds that might have already been in those accounts. And the “illegal” funds were basically guesses. “Educated” guesses, the jury was assured, but guesses nonetheless.

Kevin Hannon was accused of actually paying off his mortgage with a stock sale.

I know, I know. The horror. The government was appalled. (Sidebar: while paying off your mortgage with legitimate money that you’ve actually earned might set you up for a money laundering charge, not paying your mortgage is perfectly fine, and indeed the Obama administration will be counting on your vote in November 2012.)

Rex Shelby never actually spent a penny of what he earned, but moved a portion from one money market fund to another. And yet just moving the funds was enough to convince the government that something nefarious was afoot.

And Scott Yeager had the audacity actually use the money he earned. I refer you to a Great Moment In The EBS Trial when the following exchange took place:

Tony Canales (on direct): And when you sold your stock, what happened — or when you exchanged stock, what did you get in return?

Scott Yeager: I received money.

Canales: And you got, as we say back home, a truckload of money, did you not, sir?

Yeager: Yes I did.

Canales: Now, you were charged with all those violations, correct?

Yeager: Yes. And I guess after that, I’m also charged with, I guess, what they call “money laundering” by spending the money.

With crimes like this being committed in our cities and towns, how can we even sleep at night?

Reacting with facetiousness seems the only rational avenue. One stares perplexedly at these facts, trying to will them into making some kind of sense. But they refuse to make any sense.

The government seemed obsessed with the money more than the actual defendants did. Most of them had made plenty of money before they even heard the name “Enron”. But the government chose to portray them as greedy people, attempting to fool the market. The government didn’t actually care about the so-called victims in this case. They cared about making the victims angry at the defendants, and using defendants wealth as leverage.

The government attempted to restrain funds from the defendants but also cars, homes, and in what was the most petty thing I had ever heard, a necklace. Ken Rice had bought his wife a necklace, and the government forced him to return it. That was done entirely for the show. It was petty and small and stupid. Like the Enron prosecutors themselves.

Kevin Hannon v. John Bloomer

I like this exchange. I like Kevin Hannon’s barely contained tolerance of John Bloomer’s attempts to extort more money out of the company.

Adoring The Bad Guys: Why I Defend Enron Executives

A few years ago, I was on an Andy Fastow Is A-OK kick (here and here for just the tip of the iceberg). I never excused what he did at Enron but I often said there was something else going on there, that he was a good husband, that he was complex because he was this super-rich man married to an heiress who stole money … it just made no sense to me and so I really tried to understand what drove him to take such risks.

Then one executive (who I adore and respect very much), set me down and looked into my eyes and said, “Cara, you’re giving him far too much credit. He was just a thief. That’s it. There’s no more ‘there’ there.”

I had to take that seriously because I did respect his judgement and he saw Andy Fastow every day for years. He knew him. Other friends told stories of his callousness, his arrogance, etc. And slowly I came to see Andy with their eyes, and the eyes of most of the people in the world. I don’t hate Andy Fastow (not at all). But I no longer think he’s some mysterious super-genius/ tortured soul who stole money for some unfathomable reason.

However, he is the rare one in the collection of Enron prosecution witnesses and plea-deal takers who I have such one-dimensional views about. I find the other prosecution witnesses much more fascinating because there is some ‘there’ there.

I’ve written a lot about Ken Rice. I think he would admit to you that he wasn’t a choir boy. But he didn’t go to prison for what he pleaded guilty to. He didn’t do the thing he pleaded to. And Rick Causey? Oh my stars. If there is a true victim in this, it is that good, decent God-fearing man, Rick Causey. My heart breaks for him. His sentence was the third longest one handed down (Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow are, of course, in the first two spots) and he literally did nothing wrong. Even at his sentencing, his attorney said repeatedly that Causey believed he was in compliance with GAAP. That’s a remarkable statement to make when you’re pleading guilty to a crime. But perhaps it is too easy to like Rick Causey; he never testified against anyone elese. Indeed, one will search his plea deal in vain for any names at all other than his own. He only says he conspired with “senior management”:

Ken Rice is a good person to dislike (though I certainly do like him). Any dislike I have for the things he said at trial is instantly transferred to blind hatred for the Enron Task Force who made his actions necessary for his own survival.

Another easy one to dislike is Kevin Hannon. He testified that Jeff said, “they’re on to us” at a meeting and thus, Jeff must have been up to something nefarious. I try to dislike Kevin Hannon and I end up giggling because his ridiculous story is so utterly flimsy and without any kind of seriousness that I actually feel bad that is best he could come up with. I want to shake him and say, “Kevin, you’re a smart guy! Work harder here. Maybe claim that Jeff said, ‘Let’s rape our stakeholders’ or something. Something evil and non-ambiguous.”

I like Kevin Hannon just fine; I think he is a perfect example of the weakness of the government’s case against the Enron executives. Lots of people at EBS did not care for him but I think he was of the Enron caste system: ambitious, perhaps brusque, but ultimately just someone who wanted to make a difference in the world. When I go through files and find his emails and whatnot, I always think he reads a lot like Ken Rice. I like them both.

Michael Kopper is considered a bad guy by many people. And yep, I like him too. Michael Kopper is as fascinating as I wish Andy was. There’s a mystery there about what happened when his personality meshed with Fastow’s, and some people I’ve talked with blame everything on Michael Kopper. They claim he was a Svengali and Fastow was a helpless little puppy under his spell. Baloney. I have no doubt that he has a strong, charming personality, but no, he did not lord over Andy Fastow. Also, I have a personal reason for liking him: I suspect he did a favor for me anonymously.

Mark Koenig, I don’t find him mesmerizing the way I find the others, but he did something truly fascinating on the stand. He cried like a four year old girl. He wept and wept and wept. They had to suspend questioning a few times so he could blow his nose and wipe his eyes. I’m at a loss to explain why. My recollection of the testimony on this point is murky, but I think he said he felt guilty because all he wanted to do was make his children proud and he couldn’t do that anymore.

Obviously he is a man with a very strong conscious and a very strong sense of right and wrong. What I think happened, based on nothing but my own beliefs about the DOJ, is that Berkowitz et al did what the Broadband prosecutors did: presented one set of facts to him, got him to believe those “facts”, and then pointed out that since he was complicit, he could make the best deal for himself by testifying against others. I think it’s a lot like the Ken Rice situation in the Broadband trial when Ken testified that he saw the “Shelby 2″ video, when in fact he did not. Ken Rice was not lying. The government presented that in a way that Ken Rice – and even Rex Shelby! – believed it. Others, such as Bill Collins, later complained that he felt the DOJ was going to indict him if he didn’t testify. If I had to guess, I would say that prosecutors convinced Koenig he was guilty, and he actually felt guilty while testifying against Jeff.

There were three types of prosecution witnesses:

1. Outright liars — These are people who lied before Enron and during Enron, so it is no surprise the government manipulated them into lying at trial — examples are Bill Collins and John Bloomer from EBS, Sherron Watkins from Corporate.

2. Bitter idiots — These are people who were ignorant of the subject matter of the trial, but were bitter and frightened enough to be manipulated by the DOJ into lying at trial — examples are Shawna Meyer and David Reece from EBS.

3. Survivalists — These are people who put their own welfare above other innocent people and were willing to lie to protect themselves. Almost all prosecution witnesses fall into this category.

We like to think we are all so very upstanding and would never do anything morally questionable, but when the stakes are your own life, you do what you have to do. That’s why Kevin Hannon, Ken Rice, Michael Kopper and few others are interesting to me. They’re not evil. They’re not even guilty. They just made the difficult choice to survive at any cost.

Enron Milestones of 2009

We are within Frisbee distance of 2010. As I look backward at 2009, I feel a great deal of satisfaction that some progress has been made, but mostly a great weariness that the Enron prosecutions continue.

At the very top of the list, Scott Yeager won at the Supreme Court and was later completely exonerated by the Fifth Circuit.

Ken Rice completed his prison sentence and rejoined the world. Michael Kopper also finished his sentence. (Fun fact: Ken Rice and Michael Kopper were roommates at the halfway house.)
Kevin Hannon finished his sentence.

The Supreme Court has decided to hear Jeff Skilling’s case.

The NatWest Three are now out of prison and back at home in England.

In the minus column, Joe Hirko took a plea deal and entered prison. Kevin Howard also took a plea deal, and got twelve months of home confinement.

The Nigerian Barge defendants will be heading back to trial in 2010 after the Fifth Circuit rejected their claim of collateral estoppel and double jeopardy – amazingly, since Scott Yeager just clarified collateral estoppel.

Rex Shelby, the last of the Broadband Three, remains enmeshed as he will not accept a plea deal.

2010 promises to be a pivotal year. Jeff Skilling, the Nigerian Barge defendants, and Rex Shelby will ultimately be resolved. For better or worse, it will all be over this year.

Allen Stanford Represented By Kevin Hannon’s Attorney

I don’t know if this bodes well for Allen Stanford or not, but he is using the same federal public defender that Kevin Hannon used when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy (he claimed he misrepresented the value of Enron Broadband Services in the 2001 analyst conference.)

I am curious to see how the Stanford case rolls out. Public sentiment is already very much against him. And Loren Steffy at the Houston Chronicle uses the word “Enron” in every post about Stanford – in Houston, an automatic way to find someone guilty.

Calendar Of Release Dates For Enron Defendants

Michael Kopper, Managing Director Global Equity Markets Group, 01/01/2009

Kenneth D. Rice, CEO Enron Broadband Services, 02/03/2009

Kevin Hannon, COO Enron Broadband Services, 04/20/2009

Gary Mulgrew, Managing Director of Greenwich NatWest, 01/02/2011

Giles Darby, managing director and oil and gas specialist at Greenwich NatWest, 01/09/2011

David Bermingham, Finance Specialist at Greenwich NatWest, 01/11/2011

Andrew Fastow, CFO, Enron Corp., 02/17/2011

Richard Causey, CAO Enron Corp., 10/16/2011

Jeffrey K. Skilling, CEO Enron Corp., 02/21/2028

Failure Disguised As Success: The John Kroger Story

John Kroger is running for Attorney General of Oregon as an Enron prosecutor, someone who is tough on white collar crime and can clean up Oregon’s skyscrapers from the scourge of fraudulent CEOs. But John Kroger hasn’t secured a single Enron conviction. In a comment on the Blue Oregon blog, John Kroger defends himself:

Dear “Not So Fast”:

I am very proud of my career as a prosecutor. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, I obtained convictions of mafia killer Greg Scarpa Jr., mob boss Alphonse Persico, drug kingpin Juan “The Puma” Rodriguez, and hundreds of other drug traffickers, mafia members, and white collar criminals. After the 9/11 attack in New York, I workled [sic] on the nation’s emergency response team. These were important cases, and I am proud of my work.

I worked on the Enron case from 2002 to 2003 during a leave of absence from Lewis & Clark Law School, where I teach. I focussed [sic] on several different parts of the case, but one primary responsibility was to lead an investigation of Enron’s telecommunications division. My team and I sought the indictment of seven executives: the CEO, the COO, and CFO, and four others. The CEO and the COO both pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to mislead investors and testified against Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay at their trial. Without their testimony, Skilling might not have been convicted. Thus, my decision to seek their indictment proved very important.

The CFO was convicted at trial years after I left the case, but his conviction was thrown out because the judge used a flawed jury instruction. One defendant — the lowest guy on the totem pole — was acquited [sic - seriously? The prosecutor can't even spell the word "acquitted" - ed]. The three others still have cases pending.

The crimes committed at Enron were horrible, wiping out thousands of jobs, eliminating the retirement savings of thousands of employees, and jacking up energy costs across the west coast. I think all of us who worked on the case believed it should be investigated and prosecuted aggressively, and that is what we did. The case has not always gone smoothly — the defendants have spent roughly $100 million to pay the world’s best corporate defense lawyers, including some from Portland’s own Stoel Rives firm, and they have fought very hard — obtaining some mistrials and a small number of acquittals. Overall, however, I think the results we achieved were excellent.

I think when anyone runs for office, we should scrutinize their record carefully. I have tried to spend my life fighting for things I believe in, as a US Marine, a democratic activist, a prosecutor, and a teacher.

I’ve got to point out something very important:

The CEO and the COO both pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to mislead investors and testified against Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay at their trial. Without their testimony, Skilling might not have been convicted. Thus, my decision to seek their indictment proved very important.

I can understand puffing up your resume if you have to, so I don’t begrudge Kroger that. However, one must take a sharp eye to the comment that Skilling might not have been convicted without the testimony of Ken Rice (CEO) and Kevin Hannon (COO). In the first place, one might ask: what would be so terrible about a man who is demonstrably innocent being acquitted? And one must ask, is it worth bringing down two men – Rice and Hannon – to secure the “big fish” (ie, Skilling and Dr. Lay)? Is that really the sort of justice we want? But let’s take a closer look at the circumstances of Rice and Hannon.

Ken Rice. He was one of the many executives who were bullied by the prosecution into pleading guilty lest they face 30 year prison sentences. He testified to all the expected things – that he intended to lie to analysts and that Broadband was not making money (Skilling agreed as Broadband was a start-up company and not yet making a profit). Then came the video, which proved he was testifying to something that never happened.

A defense attorney was cross-examining Ken Rice. The defense attorney then offered into evidence video of an analyst conference that Rice had testified about. The defense showed the raw video beside the prosecution’s video (which is the video Rice had testified about.) Well wouldn’t you know it, the prosecution wasn’ t being strictly honest with the video. The raw footage showed Rex Shelby making statements that was not shown to the analysts at the conference. Ken Rice had testified that Shelby made statements that anyone can see he did not make.

From the Houston Chronicle:

The prosecution’s star witness, Ken Rice, testified today that he now realizes the government showed him something other than the actual conference tape. The former CEO of Enron Broadband Services said that led him to incorrectly testify that the controversial segment from defendant Rex Shelby was shown to analysts at the conference.

Prosecutors had introduced the video, with the brief Shelby segment included, to support their claims that executives lied to analysts about the capabilities of EBS’ technology at the conference to inflate the company’s worth. The stock price rose within a day of the conference from $54 a share to $72 a share.

Rice said he’d seen the government’s video before testifying. When prosecutor Ben Campbell showed it to him in court Tuesday, Rice testified then that he was surprised that Shelby was talking about the network operating system as up and running when it wasn’t.

“The government represented that the tape that included (the) Shelby (segment) came from Enron and was played at the analysts conference,” Rice said.

Though the full video of the 2000 EBS presentation to analysts was about two hours, the only segment in question is a couple of minutes from Shelby. The government is contending and Rice has stated there were many other bolstering lies told about the technology during the full length of the conference.

In questioning from defense attorney Tony Canales, Rice said he knew Shelby had taped the segment in question and that it was slated to be shown to the analysts.

Rice told Canales he thought about this a lot of over the weekend and even talked to his Washington, D.C.-based lawyer about whether he’d been shown the wrong tape and convinced himself he did see the Shelby segment shown at the analyst conference.

“He wasn’t any help to you then? Canales asked Rice.

“All that money, no,” Rice said smiling back. It was one of several light moments in the day when Rice acknowledged being somewhat overwhelmed by the circumstances.

Defense attorneys in the case see the government error as a big plus for them, hoping it will create juror doubt about more of the case than just one segment in a video.

“It’s very serious when the government offered something in evidence that turns out to be phony,” said Mike Ramsey, the lawyer for ex-Chairman Ken Lay. Ramsey and Skilling’s lawyer Daniel Petrocelli have been in court watching the Rice testimony, which could be repeated in their clients’ trial next year.

Ramsey said the government has all the raw footage of the conference and it “knew or should have known that their edited version didn’t match reality.”

Prosecutors haven’t yet explained how the false information got before the jury. They are expected to call a witness to the stand who supplied the edited tape to the government with the Shelby segment in it.

So John Kroger’s decision to indict Ken Rice, who would later lie on the stand was “important” to the prosecution of Jeff Skilling. Are you seeing this yet?

Then there’s Kevin Hannon. Kevin Hannon’s big contribution to the conviction of Jeff Skilling is that he testified Jeff Skilling said, “They’re on to us.” The comment was made in response to a report by Off Wall Street Consulting, Inc. which stated Enron’s stock was overpriced. The comment was touched upon at trial while Skilling was being questioned by his attorney, Dan Petrocelli:

A. I may have said that
Q. And if you said that, Mr. Skilling, were you meaning to imply there was something sinister or evil?
A. No.

Petrocelli asked whether Skilling liked to make jokes, and the former CEO said he did. Such japing is well and widely documented, thanks to the Smartest Guys In The Room which used internal Enron video to show Skilling spoofing himself and suggesting “HFV”, hypothetical future value accounting. It also showed him making cracks about leaving whip marks on the shoulders of employees, and let’s not forget his famous bad joke that came back to haunt him:

Q. What’s the difference between California and the Titanic?
A. At least when the Titanic went down, the lights were on.

Baddabing!

Skilling’s a funny guy – and when he said “They’re on to us,” he was, as he explained, doing his Mr. Bill impression. He even went so far as to do it in front of the jury – and the jury laughed.

But Hannon testified that he understood the comment to be nefarious in some way. I’ve often wondered about that. Jeff Skilling was, as he said and everyone agreed with “fucking smart.” So why would such a smart guy, who is busy spooling out these nefarious plots, actually say something like “they’re on to us”, in a room full of people who were ostensibly not in on the scams? He wouldn’t. It was a ridiculous issue, and proves just how desperately the prosecution was dredging for anything to make Skilling and Lay appear guilty.

So those two guys are Kroger’s big wins. Both pleaded guilty. Rice got two years and two months. Hannon got two years. It’s hard to say if Kroger is right – if his “decision to indict” them was the crux upon which Skilling’s conviction lay – but I tend to doubt it. Ken Rice lied under oath and the best Hannon could do was accuse him of saying “they’re on to us.” Not exactly powerful incentive to send a man to prison for 24 years.

So what’s he saying, exactly, when he says that one of his big achievements was being an Enron prosecutor? That he can coerce people to plead guilty? That’s not exactly difficult – any prosecutor can do that. At best, he can promise that he’ll “decide to indict”.