For those pushing the Palast article, this needs to be read as well.

MODS you let this one stay up in full? It was clear snipping did not get the point across.

This is an article describing the actual meeting. This is also excellent reportage and somewhat more objective. I am on edit, reposting the whole thing so it is more clear...

http://newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2003-08-28/essay.asp

Total amnesia
Arnold can’t seem to recall anything about his secret meeting with Enron’s Ken Lay. Perhaps this will refresh his memory.

By Jason Leopold

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ken Lay leave Gray Davis and California ratepayers in the dark.

Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't talking. The Hollywood action-film star and GOP gubernatorial candidate in the state’s recall election has been unusually silent about his plans for running the Golden State. He hasn’t yet offered a solution for the state’s budget deficit, an issue that largely got more than 1 million people to sign a petition to recall Governor Gray Davis.

More importantly, however, Schwarzenegger still won’t respond to questions about why he was at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills two years ago where he, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and junk-bond king Michael Milken met secretly with former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, who was touting a plan for solving the state’s energy crisis. Other luminaries who were invited but didn’t attend the May 24, 2001, meeting included former Los Angeles Laker Earvin “Magic” Johnson and supermarket magnate Ron Burkle.

While Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken listened to Lay’s pitch, Davis pleaded with President George W. Bush to enact much-needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour (four to five times the price it was a year earlier). Davis said that Texas-based energy companies were manipulating California’s power market, charging obscene prices for power and holding consumers hostage. Bush agreed to meet with Davis at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles on May 29 of that year--five days after Lay met with Schwarzenegger--to discuss the California power crisis.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT



http://newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2003-08-28/essay.asp

'In convincing the public that Davis failed to solve the energy crisis' makes it sound as though he really had. But he really hadn't, and hasn't. It remains unsolved, soaking Californians every day. Davis is a very business-oriented leader. Rather than take over the energy suppliers, as many urged him to do at the time, he borrowed money to pay their extortion instead, putting the state in debt. That's not leadership, that's capitulation.

Under California law, can a governor just "take over" energy suppliers whenever he gets in the mood? If so, I'd be very surprised. Governors can't do that sort of thing in most states.

Are Californians completely ignorant of how oil companies like Enron conspired to create phony shortages and drive up prices? If they are, why are they angry at Davis and not Enron?

It was a big question--would Davis declare a state of emergency and take over the power companies. He elected not to do that.

Good question on the ignorance. Probably a mixture.

But asking why they're angry at Davis and not Enron is like asking why is that woman detective likely to get the sack for (allegedly) going on with her shopping during a robbery. Why get angry with her rather than the robbers? Well, because the robbers wouldn't understand the point of view--they're robbers, robbing is what they do! Whereas it's the job of a cop to thwart them. She didn't even try to do her job (if the allegations are true). Similarly, it was Davis's job to thwart the Enron robbers, so people are upset with him for not doing it.

Corporations. If that is the case as I believe it to be I find it very difficult to believe Davis could have "Taken Over" Enron or any of the other energy corporations that were providing the local state electric companies with power. The major Corporations that controlled the "Grid" were not Davis's for the taking. They could only be controlled by Federal power and Bush* and Cheney said no way.

but I believe the crooks were bringing in power (at a high price) from out of state because they claimed they didn't have the capacity in-state. It was that claim that constituted the fraud -- they had plenty capacity in-state (and, iirc, were shipping it out of state so it could be shipped back in at that higher price--it was quite complicated)

The power suppliers had taken several facilities offline for upgrades and repairs that didn't need them. This put a strain on the grid, thereby causing the rolling blackouts.

This was followed by the energy companies claiming to get power from out of state to meet the demand, but it was to (supposedly) going to be very expensive and rates were raised. The energy companies, smelling blood, decided to hold California hostage and shut off the juice if Davis didn't pay them what they asked. Davis complained to the Federal government that California was being gouged, but the chimp ignored him.
For Davis to have siezed the facilities in order to maintain power, he would have had to endure being smeared as a socialist ( there were already Op/eds trying to do that), and the power companies were already prepared to take him to court to block him from doing so. Do you think the chimp administation would not have backed up the power companies? Do you think Davis was not aware of that? He was being extorted and saw no way out but to pay the protection money. This whole thing was engineered from start to finish in order to rape California.
Davis did everything he could get away with, and he lost. He's still fighting to get back what the energy companies stole, but if Enron hadn't collapsed and the other corporate scandals hadn't taken place, he would have just had to drop it.
This is how I remember it while it was happening. I may have missed some stuff, but I remember sitting through the rolling blackouts.
Davis tried to fight, but how can you when the people who can help are on the side of the criminals?

They really have some gall don't they?

I disagree. He should have taken them over and then, if they took him to court, brought out all the dirty laundry. Do you really think a jury wouldn't have come down on his side?

Schwarzenegger was not a disinterested bystander because he had an interest in California policy. He doesn't know anything substantive about California energy policy.

Second, how do you know that _this_ meeting is one being referred to in the Palast article? How do you know that there was not another meeting, more private, as described previously, perhaps on the same day?

Third, none of the above changes the essential charge made in the Palast article, and in other sources--that Schwarzenegger is more attuned to the needs of energy suppliers such as Enron than to the needs of the people, and that, as an anti-regulation, free-market cheerleader, he will eventually cause the people of California to bear the financial brunt of illegalities instigated by energy firms determined to game the energy system in California.

The source you cite doesn't refute Palast's charges. It amplifies them.

Cheers.

I was not trying to refute. I am trying to amplify them.

This reporter has quotes from someone who was there. Please read the whole article. Not just what I have pasted under DU rules. It is much clearer.

Yes, or no? He was at the one _he_ knew about.

Beyond that, this is only _one_ issue, among many. First, Schwarzenegger is another Reagan, and will, given his campaign promises, do _exactly_ to California what Reagan did in his tenure.

If you believe that you are simply furthering the interests of accuracy, you may be furthering the interests of the powerful behind Schwarzenegger.

You have quotes from a reporter who was at _a_ meeting. That may not be the meeting to which Palast refers. If you can't accept that there was one meeting for the public (to which reporters were invited) and one, more private, then I can be of no help to you.

Perhaps it grates on your sense of fair play, but when I encounter people deserving of no trust meeting with each other, I assume the worst--as all voters in California should. Assuming that people worthy of little trust will do the right thing is naive.

Cheers.

This is good reporting. This adds color and background to the Palast story. He interviewed someone who was there. Please read the whole article and not just my snips. It becomes clearer. It really supports Palast's work. That's why I posted it. Maybe I was not clear.

My choice of snips was poor. I hope it is more lucid now I have just posted the whole thing. I think this reporter was on the same track as Palast.

Someone just asked the editor of time magazine on Washington Journal if he heard about the arnold/ken lay story. Claimed not to know about it.

The journalist who wrote this wrote this that is...

He started at Dow Jones Newswires as bureau chief in April 2000. At that time, the California energy crisis was just two months away. His job was covering the energy industry.

In two years at Dow Jones, he wrote 2,000 stories, was credited with being the leader on coverage of the energy crisis and won the company’s journalist of the year award in his first eight months at the company for my coverage of the crisis.

When the Enron debacle began, he was put on a number of investigative stories.

and sent him Palast's article which he said he had not seen.

He replied and says he has more evidence (from the meeting and perhaps on whether Arnold actually has energy shares).

He's working on another article now.

I hope it is a bomb.

Per DU Copyright rules, please do not post more than four paragraphs of copyrighted material.

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator

apologies.

Couldn't have been too secret if it's in the papers. Doubt the people will give a shit about this, just his womanizing. People don't really seem to care about the important things in life.

And, i suspect that the primary reason this story does not have "legs" is that there is no smoking gun. As I understand it, there are no witnesses willing to come forward to accuse Arnold of illegal activity and no other cold, hard evidence of wrongdoing. Like you, I think it shows Republicans who intend to behave in Republican ways and if I were Californian, I would not want that in government.

The journalist who wrote the article, Jason Leopold, emailed me and told me he has one and is working on the story right now. But he can't get it out in time most likely. However, it may be enough to do some serious damage after the recall.

He would not give me too many details, but this guy knows more about Enron than most - he wrote over 2000 articles on the energy crisis for Dow Jones and was Washington Bureau Chief.

He came under fire when he found evidence on Army Secretary Thomas White's role in Enron's demise, specifically, whether he was aware of the financial machinations that went on in the division he ran, Enron Energy Services, and if he took part in a scheme to make the unit look profitable when it wasn't.

And took a beating (see link down below).

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0210/S00052.htm

identified a smoking gun of clear illegality or wrongdoing, and I believe that is a good reason why the media are not reacting more strongly. If your friend does have this evidence and produces it, it will be interesting to see if the media show greater interest.

That's all...

kick