3 ms·
Except that the article uses the Enron collapse and scandal as an example of prosecutors going after top executives, and that happened during the "Bush admin"
by jostmey 8y ago
Except that the article uses the Enron collapse and scandal as an example of prosecutors going after top executives, and that happened during the "Bush admin"
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoDidn't Enron go down before 9/11?
- TylerE 8y agoSort of. The stock started to go down in the Summer of 2001, but they didn't actually declare bankruptcy until December 2001. The Enron scandal became widesread news in October 2001. So, 9/11 was actually first, at least in terms of the public consciousness. Much of Enron's fraud had happened before then but it wasn't really known. The indictments of the CEO, etc, didn't actually happen until 2004.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoI'm pretty sure Bush and Cheney were hurting during the Enron scandal, then all that hurt basically disappeared after 9/11. At that point, if there was anything else to be heard about Enron, it wasn't going to be front page anymore.
- TylerE 8y agoAgain, the scandal didn't really break until AFTER 9/11. The SEC didn't announce it was probing Enron until October 22nd, 2001.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoUgh, my memories back then are really garbled then. Sorry about that.
- TylerE 8y agoMemory is funny, isn't it? I would have sworn, before I wiki'ed it, that the Enron scandal broke YEARS before 9/11, certainly not just over a month after.
- grigjd3 8y agoI remember the Arther Anderson case finishing up in 2002 because of the way some people I was working with that summer reacted.
- monetus 8y agoIf I recall correctly, that momentum was lost by the end of the Arthur Anderson case, which was immediately after Enron.
- paulie_a 8y agoHaving Arthur Anderson on your resume should automatically result in that resume being thrown in the trash. No exception. I would rather entirely leave that off my resume and say I was homeless grifter than admit working for that firm