He presumed Skilling and Lay to be guilty even though he was armed with the fact that Fastow told the DOJ and FBI in the first 302 that they did not know about the Global Galactic agreement. See the Houston Clear Thinkers for more details on the importance of the Fastow's testimony about the Global Galactic Agreement in the Trial. http://blog.kir.com/archives/002975.aspreement

See articles and the Skilling appeal to the court and to the 5th Circuit for more details but this issue of the Government hiding the 302. This withheld evidence by the DOJ, states clearly Fastow said Skilling did not know about the Global Galactic Agreement. This is a disturbing fact about the DOJ that has come out. This means it was known from the beginning by the DOJ/Kroger that Skilling and Lay did not know what Fastow was doing that was illegal.

This was a key piece of information withheld by the DOJ/Kroger during the Skilling/Lay indictment period. Also it was withheld again during trial. How can he act like he had a hard decision to make about this Lea Fastow issue? They broke the law by withholding evidence to get someone they believed was guilty (Skilling and Lay). How can he acts like he knew Skilling and Lay were guilty armed with this kind of knowledge? How can he sit by and watch this abuse of power or participate in it?

If Kroger admits here in this blog that he will put a woman in jail for 1 year (in one of the worst jails in Texas who has kids and a Dad under indictment) and justify it by saying they had to get the bigger fish which they presumed were guilty, why do you think you are safe in his jurisdiction?

This quote from this blog below is totally presumptive of guilt.

MD: Why was the indictment of Lea Fastow more troubling to you than prosecuting Gregory Scarpa, Junior?

JK: Well, Scarpa killed a lot of people, and when you have a case like that, it’s just very easy to prosecute, from an ethical and moral standpoint. I mean, with Scarpa, I had no doubt that he was guilty. I was 100% certain he was guilty. And I was 100% certain that if he was not convicted, it was very, very likely that he would kill someone again. And so, from a prosecution point of view, that’s a case that’s very easy to do, that’s very rewarding to do. The Lea Fastow case was really troubling. She had committed a crime, she had committed tax fraud, and she pled guilty to that crime. But the challenge was, most people who commit tax fraud in the United States are not prosecuted. What happens is that the Internal Revenue Service contacts them, they audit them, say, “Look, you failed to file your taxes,” and they give you a big penalty, and you have to pay your back taxes and the penalty, and that’s it. We just don’t prosecute that many people for tax fraud in this country. And the amount of fraud, in her case, was not that large, and it is most likely that, had she not been married to Andy Fastow, and had just been an ordinary person who had committed tax fraud, she would have paid a fine and that would have been it. And instead, she was being treated differently. She was being criminally prosecuted precisely because the government wanted to put pressure on her husband to get him to cooperate in the case. The book is designed in part at a really simple level, which is, interesting stories about what criminal law is really about, but it’s also about ethical dilemmas that arise in prosecution. And that was a case with an ethical dilemma — do you prosecute someone who normally wouldn’t be prosecuted to put pressure on her spouse to get him to cooperate, knowing that that’s probably essential if you want to win the overall case against Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay? Or, do you treat her like she would be treated if she was an ordinary person, and run the risk that someone like Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling will go free? And there’s not a simple answer to that question, so that’s why that case was more difficult for me, certainly

Amazing admission!!

What if they were innocent and Fastow really did do all of the bad stuff at Enron? Seems like that might have been a question they could have asked themselves. The Government put a woman in prison with children so they could put more pressure on the real guy that did the bad things at Enron. The lower guys in the Mafia are part of an illegal organization. If you work for a company and something happens bad does that mean that you are a criminal for working at the company? Is it OK to go after the wife of someone that did break the law at that company so you can get the CEO and COO who you believe are bigger fish?Does the logic of all organized crime members are guilty of a crime apply to all employees of all companies? Or just companies that go broke? Why is it OK to apply organized crime logic to businesses?

The Blog Houstons Clear Thinkers does a good job of reporting the weak case the Gov had against Skilling and Lay. See http://blog.kir.com/archives/2006/04/layskilling_wee_11.asp

It is evident now that Fastow did lie on the stand because of pressure to reduce his sentence which worked both for the Government and for Fastow. It worked.

Skilling is in prison for 24 years and they put Lea Fastow in jail for something no one else would even have been prosecuted for? How can he sit there and admit to such abuse of power and be the attorney general?

The moral bankruptcy of this individual is frightening when you consider he makes decisions every day to prosecute people. He knows how the system works (to hide evidence as the prosecution) but sits there and presumes people guilty to justify his actions. This is frightening as a citizen.

re-read the quote from your blog and pretend you were Lea Fastow. Also pretend you were Skilling. Then imagine that you were innocent. See how it would feel to be one of those people Kroger was going after. Maybe people in Oregon should be concerned?

.