DKW 86 7,439 Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Link Ex-WorldCom Chief Ebbers Convicted of Fraud email this Story Mar 15, 3:46 PM (ET) By ERIN McCLAM NEW YORK (AP) - Bernard Ebbers, who built WorldCom from a humble Mississippi long-distance firm into one of the nation's biggest telecommunications conglomerates, was convicted Tuesday of engineering the colossal accounting fraud that sank the company. A federal jury in Manhattan deliberated eight days before returning guilty verdicts on all counts - one count of conspiracy, one count of securities fraud and seven counts of false regulatory filings. The crimes carry up to 85 years in prison. ...more... The conviction comes more than two years after an internal auditor began asking questions about curious accounting at WorldCom, touching off a scandal that eventually unearthed $11 billion in cooked books. Prosecution testimony at the six-week trial portrayed Ebbers, 63, as obsessed with keeping WorldCom's stock price high, and panicked about $400 million in personal loans that were backed by his shares in the compan ...more... The conviction completes a staggering fall for Ebbers, who took a small long-distance company in Mississippi and merged with or acquired ever-larger companies, earning him accolades and the nickname Telecom Cowboy. He still faces civil litigation, including from the company, which backed up his $400 million in personal loans when Bank of America demanded more and more collateral as the stock price fell. WorldCom, which was based in Clinton, Miss., was driven into bankruptcy - the largest in U.S. history - in the summer of 2002. It has since re-emerged as MCI Inc. (MCIP), based in Ashburn, Va. ...more... In winning a conviction against Ebbers, federal prosecutors in Manhattan rung up another victory in a remarkable string of white-collar prosecutions that began in the summer of 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 That's nice. Are we gonna have to wait till Bush leaves office too, before they get to convict his donors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,439 Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 That's nice. Are we gonna have to wait till Bush leaves office too, before they get to convict his donors? 151021[/snapback] If any of his donors are ripping off the public to the tune of $11BN, I hope they all get convicted. It is strange to be a Democrat these days. Criminals should be just criminals. But to Dems, if they write a check to the DNC, the criminal is suddenly somehow a good guy I guess... The poke in my original post was really about McAuliffe and his millions from the Global Crossing ripoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 That's nice. Are we gonna have to wait till Bush leaves office too, before they get to convict his donors? 151021[/snapback] If any of his donors are ripping off the public to the tune of $11BN, I hope they all get convicted. It is strange to be a Democrat these days. Criminals should be just criminals. But to Dems, if they write a check to the DNC, the criminal is suddenly somehow a good guy I guess... The poke in my original post was really about McAuliffe and his millions from the Global Crossing ripoff. 151039[/snapback] Ebbers gave to members of both parties, but his biggest recipient was the RNC, not the DNC. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t2000=Y&Order=N It's strange being a Republican these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,439 Posted March 16, 2005 Author Share Posted March 16, 2005 Hey tex, after he was in trouble yes he did give to both parties to CYA. In 1996, you hardly ever saw Clinton give a major speech when Ebbers was not directly behind him on the podium. In 1996-2000, when the crimes were starting to be committed, he was neraly a full fledged Clinton Economic Advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Ebbers gave to members of both parties, but his biggest recipient was the RNC, not the DNC. 151049[/snapback] Guess that answers Piglet's question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Hey tex, after he was in trouble yes he did give to both parties to CYA. In 1996, you hardly ever saw Clinton give a major speech when Ebbers was not directly behind him on the podium. In 1996-2000, when the crimes were starting to be committed, he was neraly a full fledged Clinton Economic Advisor. 151064[/snapback] He always gave to both parties. Many businessmen do. In 1992, he gave $250 to Clinton and $1000 to Bush. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1992=Y&Order=N Here's what he gave in 1998: http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1998=Y&Order=N In 1990, he gave $10,000 to the RNCSC-- his biggest single contributions have been to the RNC, easily. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1990=Y&Order=N But I'm not protraying this as a Republican going down. Your presenting it as a Democrat going down, and then blaming Dems for being partisan on the issue. A bad guy went down, period. Can't we just agree on that and not try to craft it as a partisan attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Hey tex, after he was in trouble yes he did give to both parties to CYA. In 1996, you hardly ever saw Clinton give a major speech when Ebbers was not directly behind him on the podium. In 1996-2000, when the crimes were starting to be committed, he was neraly a full fledged Clinton Economic Advisor. 151064[/snapback] He always gave to both parties. Many businessmen do. In 1992, he gave $250 to Clinton and $1000 to Bush. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1992=Y&Order=N Here's what he gave in 1998: http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1998=Y&Order=N In 1990, he gave $10,000 to the RNCSC-- his biggest single contributions have been to the RNC, easily. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1990=Y&Order=N But I'm not protraying this as a Republican going down. Your presenting it as a Democrat going down, and then blaming Dems for being partisan on the issue. A bad guy went down, period. Can't we just agree on that and not try to craft it as a partisan attack? 151076[/snapback] I don't think DKW was making it a partisan attack. Piglet had to make the comment about waiting for Bush to leave office before we go after his donors. Yet, TT you did a good job of pointing out that he gave money to the Republicans and Democrats. This makes Piglet's answer no longer credible. So DKW wasn't trying to make it a partisan attack. He was responding to someone who was tring to make it a partisan attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Hey tex, after he was in trouble yes he did give to both parties to CYA. In 1996, you hardly ever saw Clinton give a major speech when Ebbers was not directly behind him on the podium. In 1996-2000, when the crimes were starting to be committed, he was neraly a full fledged Clinton Economic Advisor. 151064[/snapback] He always gave to both parties. Many businessmen do. In 1992, he gave $250 to Clinton and $1000 to Bush. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1992=Y&Order=N Here's what he gave in 1998: http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1998=Y&Order=N In 1990, he gave $10,000 to the RNCSC-- his biggest single contributions have been to the RNC, easily. http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?N...t1990=Y&Order=N But I'm not protraying this as a Republican going down. Your presenting it as a Democrat going down, and then blaming Dems for being partisan on the issue. A bad guy went down, period. Can't we just agree on that and not try to craft it as a partisan attack? 151076[/snapback] I don't think DKW was making it a partisan attack. Piglet had to make the comment about waiting for Bush to leave office before we go after his donors. Yet, TT you did a good job of pointing out that he gave money to the Republicans and Democrats. This makes Piglet's answer no longer credible. So DKW wasn't trying to make it a partisan attack. He was responding to someone who was tring to make it a partisan attack. 151080[/snapback] Read the title of the post and try again. That is what Piglet was responding to in the first place. Then there was the McAuliffe remark-- I didn't find any DNC contributions from Ebbers, but his largest contribution was to the RNC and RNCSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Texas, don't waste your time with facts, they just get in the way of the Republican rhetoric. P.S. DKW, why does this have to be a Dem/Rep issue? You clearly posted this with the intent to get a reaction from the Dems on this board. On the surface, this case was clearly about a guy stealing billions, not about politics. I think most people on this board agree that its a good thing that he was convicted. His political donations should have nothing to do with whether or not he is guilty or innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Maybe DKW meant he was a Cinton(Mississippi) donor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,439 Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.html Repulicans returned the money from Ebbers. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...am=Misc&id=1282 Telecoms Meltdown Blamed on "Gang of Four" and Gore. Hollings is a member of the gang now blamed for part of Worldcom disaster. more later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,439 Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Politicians Dump Worldcom Donations The NRSC is giving the money back, committee spokesman Dan Allen said Monday. Granted the statement doesnt say that every single cent sent to every candidate did, but you get the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Today we salute you......... Mr. Technicality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Politicians Dump Worldcom Donations The NRSC is giving the money back, committee spokesman Dan Allen said Monday. Granted the statement doesnt say that every single cent sent to every candidate did, but you get the picture. 151259[/snapback] I get the picture. You obviously don't. The NRSC gave back a specific gift by the corporation in 2002. Ebbers is never mentioned anywhere in the article and his contributions were over several election cycles. Your statement that Republicans gave back his money is flat out wrong and totally unsupported. Totally. If anything, this article is more damning of the GOP than Democrats and this is what you derive from it? Why not just admit your wrong? Oh, yeah, that's not possible. Politicians Dump Worldcom DonationsTuesday, July 02, 2002 BACKGROUND WorldCom WASHINGTON â€â€Ã‚ Several members of Congress and party strategists are refunding WorldCom Inc. campaign contributions or giving them to charity, moving to head off a potential issue in this fall's battle over congressional control. Rep. William Luther, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the panels investigating WorldCom, is donating at least $7,000 in WorldCom campaign money to a state displaced-worker fund. "My point is there needs to be a high standard here," said Luther, D-Minn. "This is outrageous conduct. I wouldn't want my campaign benefiting from any of that kind of conduct." Like Enron, another corporation now mired in scandal, WorldCom and its workers have been prolific donors, contributing close to $1 million for the fall election. The giving continued through last month, when civil fraud charges were filed against the telecommunications company amid revelations it filed inaccurate financial reports. WorldCom donated $100,000 just two weeks ago to the National Republican Senatorial Committee as a sponsor of a fund-raising dinner headlined by President Bush. The NRSC is giving the money back, committee spokesman Dan Allen said Monday. The decision was based on developments with the company, Allen said: "I don't want to speculate on the politics of it." Others are exploring the political possibilities, viewing WorldCom contributions and the broader backdrop of corporate ethics as budding campaign issues. In WorldCom's home state of Mississippi, Democratic Rep. Ronnie Shows, in a contentious House race against Republican Rep. Chip Pickering, plans to give $6,000 in WorldCom donations to a worker relief fund. Shows is criticizing Pickering for refusing to do the same. "Giving it back shows compassion," Shows campaign spokesman Troy Colbert said. "It shows that you're really on the side of the people who are the innocents in this, and that's the investors and that's the employees." Although WorldCom is in Shows' current district, Pickering has been the biggest congressional recipient of campaign money from it and its employees, receiving at least $82,050 since 1989, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found. Pickering's campaign will keep the donations, campaign manager Henry Barbour said, adding that Shows will criticize Pickering whether he gives the money away or not. "Why even look like he's done something wrong?" Barbour said. "We think these are legal contributions from a Mississippi company and Ronnie Shows is grasping for an issue because he doesn't have any to run on." Shows and Pickering both serve on House committees investigating WorldCom -- Shows on Financial Services and Pickering on Energy and Commerce. In a close South Dakota Senate race, Democratic incumbent Tim Johnson and Republican Rep. John Thune are both giving their WorldCom contributions away. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., plan to do the same. WorldCom spokeswoman Julie Moore declined to comment on the political donations or moves to unload them. WorldCom and its workers have contributed to more than half the House members and about 80 percent of the Senate in the past 13 years, the Center for Responsive Politics review found. In the 2000 cycle, they gave roughly $1.8 million -- more than two-thirds to the GOP, which then held the majority in both the House and Senate. WorldCom's overall giving pattern has since changed. It and its employees donated at least $916,000 so far this election, split almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats, whose party now controls the Senate. Some lawmakers have no plans to return their contributions. House Energy and Commerce Committee member Heather Wilson, R-N.M., has received $27,000 in the past four years. WorldCom has a call center in her district with about 1,000 workers, and Wilson appreciates their support, spokesman Enrique Knell said. The $6,300 Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, received from the WorldCom PAC since 1989 has come and gone, spokesman Steve Forde said. "It's not there to return," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Today we salute you......... Mr. Technicality 151263[/snapback] If you read the article and think that is a technicality, you need to see if AUM can offer you a remedial reading course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Are they supposed to give it back in one lump sum? Then ok, less specify for technicality........... The RNC is giving back the $100,000. Last time I check it's a Republican group. Republicans ARE GIVING THE MONEY BACK. Nowhere in the article said that ALL Republicans are giving the money back. But Republicans, not all, are giving the money back. Had they returned the previous donated money, then they would have gave it back with the presumption of guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Today we salute you......... Mr. Technicality 151263[/snapback] Over the course of this thread, David referenced the period before 2002. Framed it as primarily a Clinton issue. Again reiterated about 1996-2000AU . I provided links to show that most of his money during that time was actually given to the RNC. He simply replies: "Republicans returned the money from Ebbers" and cites an article that doesn't mention Ebbers and certainly doesn't support that notion that any money from the period he had previously referenced had been returned from any Republican. Technicality? Okay, dude, delude yourself all you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Today we salute you......... Mr. Technicality 151263[/snapback] Over the course of this thread, David referenced the period before 2002. Framed it as primarily a Clinton issue. Again reiterated about 1996-2000AU . I provided links to show that most of his money during that time was actually given to the RNC. He simply replies: "Republicans returned the money from Ebbers" and cites an article that doesn't mention Ebbers and certainly doesn't support that notion that any money from the period he had previously referenced had been returned from any Republican. Technicality? Okay, dude, delude yourself all you want. 151275[/snapback] David's been reading too much of the NEW YORK TIMES. It's affecting his posts. Yet, the NYT doesn't get called for the majority of the biased crap that they call journalism. Yet , their considered and elite newspaper? Give me a break. Oh, yeah, I'm sure Ebbers wanted that money back, that would have meant no tax break. Maybe that was his downfall.. he was too generous and the books were 11 billion off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Today we salute you......... Mr. Technicality 151263[/snapback] Over the course of this thread, David referenced the period before 2002. Framed it as primarily a Clinton issue. Again reiterated about 1996-2000AU . I provided links to show that most of his money during that time was actually given to the RNC. He simply replies: "Republicans returned the money from Ebbers" and cites an article that doesn't mention Ebbers and certainly doesn't support that notion that any money from the period he had previously referenced had been returned from any Republican. Technicality? Okay, dude, delude yourself all you want. 151275[/snapback] David's been reading too much of the NEW YORK TIMES. It's affecting his posts. Yet, the NYT doesn't get called for the majority of the biased crap that they call journalism. Yet , their considered and elite newspaper? Give me a break. Oh, yeah, I'm sure Ebbers wanted that money back, that would have meant no tax break. Maybe that was his downfall.. he was too generous and the books were 11 billion off 151284[/snapback] When all else fails, bash the NYTs, any Clinton, Teddy Kennedy or Jesse Jackson. Anything to change the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56794,00.htmlRepulicans returned the money from Ebbers. 151247[/snapback] The article doesn't say that. 151252[/snapback] Today we salute you......... Mr. Technicality 151263[/snapback] I didn't change the subject, I still kept to the topic Over the course of this thread, David referenced the period before 2002. Framed it as primarily a Clinton issue. Again reiterated about 1996-2000AU . I provided links to show that most of his money during that time was actually given to the RNC. He simply replies: "Republicans returned the money from Ebbers" and cites an article that doesn't mention Ebbers and certainly doesn't support that notion that any money from the period he had previously referenced had been returned from any Republican. Technicality? Okay, dude, delude yourself all you want. 151275[/snapback] David's been reading too much of the NEW YORK TIMES. It's affecting his posts. Yet, the NYT doesn't get called for the majority of the biased crap that they call journalism. Yet , their considered and elite newspaper? Give me a break. Oh, yeah, I'm sure Ebbers wanted that money back, that would have meant no tax break. Maybe that was his downfall.. he was too generous and the books were 11 billion off 151284[/snapback] When all else fails, bash the NYTs, any Clinton, Teddy Kennedy or Jesse Jackson. Anything to change the subject. 151289[/snapback] I didn't change the subject, I still stuck with the matter at hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 [ If you read the article and think that is a technicality, you need to see if AUM can offer you a remedial reading course. 151268[/snapback] When all else fails, bash my intelligence.Anything to change the subject. I can play that game too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The article says politicians from both parties are returning contributions---now that the guy got caught and he's a political liability. Under the circumstances, returning the money seems more pragmatic than a sign of virtue from either side. I still say it's nice that Ebbers went down. And I'm waiting for Bush's Buddy Ken Lay to get the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 If you read the article and think that is a technicality, you need to see if AUM can offer you a remedial reading course. 151268[/snapback] When all else fails, bash my intelligence.Anything to change the subject. I can play that game too 151293[/snapback] Yes, you can play that game well. In fact, you bash your own intelligence on many of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.