In the trial of Enron's auditors, the argument of Enron's defenders reaches its logical conclusion:
- The cross-examination was particularly unusual in a white-collar case, with the defense effectively arguing that the government's chief witness had never done anything wrong, while the witness countered repeatedly that he was indeed a felon.
Speaking of which, the last refuge of the Enron defender, in response, for instance, to the memos from Enron's lawyers acknowledging price gouging in California, seems to be "they did nothing illegal." I was going to write an extended satire on this, featuring a memo from Lay to Skilling bragging about the success of their lobbyists in getting the California regulations written so that highway robbery was legal, and a follow-up from the usual suspect crowing that Enron's critics still hadn't found any violation of the law.
But I've been overtaken by events. The other day, one of Enron's lawyers confirmed that Enron abandoned its market-gaming tactics after being repeatedly advised by its lawyers that they were against the law.