Enron - Baxter's Suicide Was Murder
Say Top Cops
By David Wright, Kevin Lynch, and Courtney Callahan The National Enquirer
3-4-2
It was murder. That's the stunning verdict of top law enforcement experts
who have independently examined the shooting death of Enron executive Cliff
Baxter, which was hurriedly ruled a suicide by a controversial medical
examiner.
And insiders believe the popular boss' tragic death is linked to the giant
energy company whose shoddy dealings and bankruptcy have shattered the lives
of thousands of employees. "Mr. Baxter's death was NOT a suicide-and nothing
points to a natural death, which leads to the unavoidable conclusion that
foul play was involved," said Peter Levin, a veteran prosecutor in
Philadelphia.
Baxter, a 43-year-old former vice-president of the Houston-based company,
was found dead in his Mercedes just half a mile from his $700,000 home.
He had been steeling himself to testify before congressional committees
about Enron's questionable accounting practices-and just days earlier had
talked to a business associate about "perhaps needing a bodyguard."
"He knew where all the Enron bodies were buried and he was apparently ready
to talk," former congressman John LeBoutillier, who attended Harvard
Business School with former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, told The ENQUIRER.
"The evidence for foul play is pretty strong. Here's a man who had
everything to live for-children he loved and a comfortable future. He's
lying in bed in the middle of the night when he suddenly gets up, dresses,
gets into his car, drives a short distance and blows his brains out. It
doesn't make sense.
"There's billions of dollars missing. If the people involved are capable of
cheating, lying and stealing money, it's not going much further to hire a
hit man and have someone whacked."
Veteran prosecutor Craig Silverman, who nailed dozens of murderers in his 16
years as chief deputy district attorney of Denver, Colo., told The ENQUIRER:
"A trained killer can make a murder look like a suicide. There are hit men
who work for lrge sums of money and do a very efficient job of killing the
the way that suits their clients' purposes." Company insiders say Enron was
a cesspool of greed, inflated egoes and illicit sex. And Baxter's friends
and co-workers have deep doubts about the so-called suicide of a former boss
who knew the inner workings of the firm.
"He wasn't the kind of guy who'd kill himself," his friend Lyndon Taylor
told The ENQUIRER.
"Cliff had a happy disposition and I never really saw him get rattled. If
someone could have walked out of this Enron scandal it would have been
Cliff. He was a survivor." Added another close friend: "Here is a guy with
everything in the world to live for. He still had his money, he had a huge
yacht and a wonderful family. The thought that he would kill himself is
absolutely mind-boggling."
Baxter's body was found at 2:23 a.m. on January 25, Harris County medical
examiner Joye Carter completed the autopsy and decided it was suicide by
that night-unusual speed, according to insiders.
Dr. Carter has a controversial past, an ENQUIRER investigation reveals. In
1993 she was the District of Columbia Chief Medical Examiner when Washington
lawyer Paul David Wilcher was mysteriously found dead in his apartment.
Wilcher had been investigating the events leading up to the Branch Davidian
fire in Waco, Texas. But no cause of death was ever determined and autopsy
reports were never made public.
In February 2001 Carter was fined $1,000 and narrowly escaped being fired
for allowing an unlicensed pathologist to perform roughly 200 autopsies in
the Houston area. And during her time in Houston, the county has paid hefty
damages in two lawsuits brought by whistle- blowers on her staff who alleged
official mis-conduct.
Nine days after Baxter's death, police still hadn't publicly supported the
suicide verdict. "It's highly significant that the police are being so
cautious," a former senior detective told The ENQUIRER. "There are so many
questions here-most importantly, why did he leave the house so suddenly? Was
he lured by a phone call? Had he agreed to meet someone?
"The fact that the police investigation is still going on tells me that
despite what the medical examiner says, the detectives on the ground haven't
ruled out murder."
*****
x ** TOP_VIEW ** x
The Bigger Picture
3.2.02
CBS Poll: Enron Hurting ShrubMob BIGTIME
Hopefully not too little, too late.
The "emperor" is NOT invincible; and he is NOT wearing ANY clothes at all at
this point.
ALL "cover' is BLOWN.
= = = = = = = =
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/28/opinion/printable502464.shtm l
Poll: Enron Hurting White House
CBS News Online
NEW YORK, February 28, 2002
Poll: Enron Hurting White House
NEW YORK, Feb. 28, 2002
The latest CBS News poll shows the fallout from the Enron bankruptcy
continues to haunt the Bush Administration. Majorities of Americans now
think the Bush administration and Vice President Dick Cheney are hiding
something about their dealings with Enron. For the Vice President, the Enron
connection comes in the form of the General Accounting Office lawsuit to
access records from his energy task force meetings with industry executives.
Most Americans believe big business has too much influence on both Congress
and the current Administration.
While the public is skeptical about the Enron situation, those Americans
with 401-K money invested in their company's stock are unworried about the
possibility of losing their own retirement savings, as many Enron employees
did.
Now, three quarters of the public think the Bush Administration is either
hiding something or lying when it comes to its dealings with Enron
executives, up from 67% just a month ago. The number of people who say the
Administration is lying has more than doubled, to one in five now. Only 13%
think members of the Bush Administration are telling the entire truth.
IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR DEALINGS WITH ENRON?
Now
Telling the truth 13%
Hiding something 55
Lying 20
1/02
Telling the truth 17%
Hiding something 58
Lying 9
Moreover, a majority of the public, 56%, says the Bush Administration is
hiding "something the public needs to know" in their dealings with Enron.
Just a month ago, 44% said so.
IS THE ADMINISTRATION HIDING SOMETHING THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW?
Now
Hiding something, public needs to know 56% Hiding something, public doesn't
need to know 19 Not hiding anything 13
1/02
Hiding something, public needs to know 44 Hiding something, public doesn't
need to know 21 Not hiding anything 17
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think the Bush Administration
is being forthcoming, 23% to 4%. Even so, the number of Republicans who say
the Administration is telling the truth has gone down; a month ago, 32% of
Republicans said the Administration was telling the truth.
PROBLEMS FOR CHENEY
There is another potential problem for the Bush Administration. Vice
President Dick Cheney is currently facing a lawsuit by the General
Accounting Office to make public records from meetings his energy task force
held with executives from the energy industry, including some executives
from the now-bankrupt Enron. 53% think Cheney is refusing to hand over
records from those meetings because he has something to hide, and 37% think
he is doing so on principle.
WHY IS CHENEY REFUSING TO DIVULGE RECORDS ON TASK FORCE?
Hiding something 53%
Principle 37
Political affiliation makes a big difference in people's views on this
matter. Nearly two thirds of Republicans think Cheney's refusal to hand over
the records was based on the principle that the executive branch needs to be
able to seek advice freely, while 72% of Democrats say it was because the
Vice President has something to hide.
Opinions about this specific case are different from those about executive
privilege in general, however. Most Americans believe it is the prerogative
of the executive office to withhold such information. 59% say it should be
up to the Administration to decide what to make public, and 31% feel that
records from White House meetings should always be made public.
CORPORATE INTERESTS AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
It's not just the Bush Administration that is thought to be influenced by
big business. While 55% see the Bush Administration as too beholden to
corporate interests, even more, 66%, say that about the House and Senate.
CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT
Bush Administration
Too much 55%
Too little 5
Right amount 26
Congress
Too much 66%
Too little 9
Right amount 15
Nevertheless, both of those figures have declined since last month, perhaps
because the House recently passed campaign finance reform legislation, which
would limit various types of campaign contributions, including contributions
from big corporations.
In addition, the public continues to think Enron executives had closer ties
to Republicans than to Democrats, 44% to 10%.
ENRON EXECS HAD CLOSER TIES TO:
Republicans 44%
Democrats 10
Both equally 13
When it comes to government regulation of business, 35% say the federal
government regulates business too much; 26% say it regulates business too
little, and 25% think the amount of regulation is about right.
ENRON AND YOU
34% of Americans report having portions of their retirement savings invested
in a 401-K plan. Among those people, just over a third say their 401-K has
money invested in their employer's company stock.
Enron may have cast a cloud over the prospect of a financially secure
retirement for some Americans, but most are not worried. 57% of those who
have some of their 401-K in their company's stock are not worried about the
stock's value going down, as happened with Enron. 33% of this group say they
are worried (one in ten are very worried).
Obviously, the effect still remains to be seen.
WORRIED ABOUT COMPANY STOCK GOING DOWN (Among Those Whose 401-K Invests In
Company Stock) Very worried 10%
Somewhat worried 33
Not worried 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 861 adults,
interviewed by telephone February 24-26, 2002. The error due to sampling for
results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage
points. Sampling error for subgroups may be higher.
© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****
Dacor@aol.com
---------------------------------
The Loyal Opposition
The Bush Doctrine:
Ain't Nobody's Business But Our Own
BY DAVID CORN
Every so often, our elected leaders -- or somewhat elected leaders -- get
something exactly wrong. Consider the Bush White House's over-our-
dead-bodies refusal to release records on Vice-President Dick Cheney's
energy task force to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress. Democrats and Republicans across town have been saying for weeks
this is a boner of a move -- from a political vantage. It makes the White
House looks guilty, and it continues to draw attention to the Bush-Enron
connection. There's no one in the capital -- outside of the White House --
who believes this information won't pop out sooner or later.
It's the principle, the principle, the White House keeps bleating.
The Bushies are playing it like a good cop/bad cop routine: "I'd like to
release this material, really I would, but my hard-ass partner here, Mr.
Principle..." So what's the "basic fundamental principle," as Cheny calls
it? Here it is: the White House should not have to tell the American public
with whom it consults, for that would hinder the executive branch's ability
to solicit the advice of outside experts. "I receive advice," George W. Bush
said a few days ago, "and, in order for people to give me sound advice, that
information ought not to be public. Somebody is not going to walk into the
Oval Office thinking that the conversation is going to be public and give me
good, sound advice."
The President was being disingenuous. The GAO lawsuit seeking information on
the Cheney task force only asks the White House to reveal the identities of
the several hundred people who huddled with Cheney's crew as it drew up its
energy plan last year. The GAO is not seeking minutes or transcripts of
those sessions. But back to Bush's explanation of the "principle." Why
assume that somebody who obtains an audience with the President to discuss a
policy matter would be unwilling to supply "good, sound advice" if the
public is notified of the session? Put another way, why would Bush or Cheney
have to meet secretly with someone -- say, a corporate lobbyist -- in order
to receive that person's frank and honest opinions? This sounds more like
the ways of the mob than the conduct of government.
Bush and Cheney are suggesting that an executive from Enron (I just picked
that title randomly) would not feel free to tell them -- or the staff
assistants of an administration task force -- his thoughts about electricity
deregulation, if a newspaper were to note this exec had attended a policy
chat at the White House. Does this make any sense? Most lobbyists would kill
-- or donate millions -- for a minute of face-time with an aide to the Veep,
during which they could plead their case. Would a lobbyist turn down such an
opportunity because the White House had to report to Congress that she had
been on the premises of 1600 Pennsylvania? Would a trade association
official not share his unvarnished views unless he could sneak in and out of
the West Wing? Remember, Bush and Co. are not erecting barricades to keep
the contents of these conversations confidential; they are battling for the
right to say to Congress and the public, who we meet with is our business,
not yours.
Cheney's much-cherished "principle" is bogus. Can Bush tell us why people
won't openly trot into the Oval Office and talk honestly to the president?
What are these would-be president's helpers scared of? One could argue Bush
ought to be suspicious of receiving advice from anyone not willing to be
seen entering the White House through the front door.
There is a principle at stake. It just happens to be the opposite of what
the Bush gang is pitching. Bush and Cheney are forgetting they are public
servants. Their deliberations and decisions are public business. They work
in a public facility (except, perhaps, when Cheney is in an undisclosed
location). The presumption should be that they will reveal as much as
possible to the public -- their bosses -- about what they do to earn their
paychecks. This does not mean the President has to disclose to the public
the sensitive details of diplomatic communications or classified national
security activity. (He might, though, have to tell Congress.) But
transparency should be considered an operating premise, not an inconvenience
to be avoided if possible.
The desire for good advice is a canard. Which leaves two other possible
reasons for why the White House is reluctant to let loose this information.
Either the White House doesn't want people to know specifically who it
relied upon as it drafted its energy plan. (The New York Times reported that
18 of the energy industry's top 25 financial donors to the GOP were
permitted to peddle advice to Cheney's task force.) Or the Bush White House
generally wants to be able to do whatever it damn well pleases with the
minimum of pesky interference from anyone beyond its gates. That's a natural
impulse for most administrations. But the Bush people are setting records in
this area.
A partial list: The President has deployed troops for the war on terrorism
to the Philippines, Yemen and Georgia without consulting Congress. He issued
an order limiting the release of records from previous administrations
(including his pop's). Homeland security czar Tom Ridge refused to appear
before Congress to discuss the anti- terrorism budget. Attorney General John
Ashcroft sent out a memo encouraging federal agencies to be stingy in
responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The administration,
without fully informing Congress, set up a so-called "shadow government" of
high-level bureaucrats stationed in undisclosed bunkers outside of
Washington, who are prepared to take over the federal government should
disaster - - that is, a nuclear explosion -- strike D.C.
There's nothing wrong with such an exercise, but the congressional leaders
who are in the line of presidential succession and who could end up in
charge of this emergency government -- House Speaker Denny Hastert and
Senator Robert Byrd, the Senate president pro tempore -- were not aware of
the set-up. (Flashback: On the awful morning of September 11, I was outside
my office, which is half a block from the Capitol, and in all the confusion
I spotted Byrd seeking assistance from Capital Hill police officers. He had
no clue where to go or what to do. So he decided to leave town quickly. The
cops had to give him traffic directions for the best driving route out of
Washington.)
By the way, the history of COG -- continuity of government -- planning
suggests Congress should take a keen interest in this subject. In 1987,
during the Iran-contra scandal, The Miami Herald reported National Security
Council aide Oliver North had helped draw up a COG plan that called, in the
event of nuclear war, for the suspension of the Constitution and the
imposition of martial law. When a congressman tried to ask North about this
during the Iran- contra hearings, the committee chairman cut off the
question and noted it was too dicey a topic to be handled in public.
The White House's secrets-'r-us stance has taken a few shots in recent
weeks. One federal judge, in response to a Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, ordered the Energy
Department to release documents related to Cheney's energy task force.
Another federal judge, addressing a lawsuit brought by the rightwing
Judicial Watch, instructed several federal agencies to make public thousands
of documents related to Cheney's energy task force. At this rate, there soon
may not be many secrets for Cheney to protect. But there's always that
principle.
In explaining why the Bush White House was entitled to hold closed- door
meetings with energy industry representatives, Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer
quipped, "The Constitution was, of course, drafted in total secrecy." But
those doing the drafting were not a secret. And, more importantly, a chief
concern of the 55 delegates was that the new central government would be too
powerful and, in the words of my old college textbook (coauthored by Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., C. Vann Woodward and other notable historians), "fall into
the hands of a select group of wealthy and clever men who would use it to
their own advantage and to the disadvantage of ordinary men." Hmmmm.
Consequently, the founders concocted those famous checks and balances. But
in the Bush White House, all that delicate constitutional craftsmanship
yields to a higher principle, one that Bush and Cheney are so selflessly
willing to fight for tooth and nail: mind your own business, and we'll mind
ours.
Published: Mar 08 2002
David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation. His first novel, Deep
Background, a political thriller, was published recently by St.
Martin's Press.
|