The Stros beat the Cards 10-3 at the Juice Box on Monday night behind Roy O‘s solid pitching and a 14 hit attack that included five doubles, a Beltran triple and a Jason Lane pinch hit yak.
Unfortunately, the Cubs won, too. Stros hold serve. Backe starts the Tuesday night game.
I had a hearing on Monday afternoon in federal court, so I went a bit early and sat in on the ongoing trial of the first Enron-related criminal case to go to trial — the Nigerian Barge case. Today was a big day during the trial because one of Andy Fastow‘s most trusted lieutenants — Michael Kopper — took the stand as the Government’s main witness.
The first four days of the trial that took place last week were remarkable only because the testimony of the initial Government witnesses confirmed that there is not all that much dispute between the prosecution and the defense about the salient facts of the case. The big difference is in the interpretation of the facts, and that’s why Kopper is an important witness for the Government.
In effect, Kopper is standing in for Fastow, who the Enron Task Force prosecutors do not want to call in this trial of two low-level Enron executives and four Merrill Lynch executives over a relatively small deal. Kopper is testifying under a plea bargain deal in which the Government has agreed not to prosecute Kopper’s gay lover for profiting off of Enron’s off-balance sheet partnerships and to recommend a minimum prison sentence for Kopper if he testifies in accordance with the government’s theory of the case in this trial and others.
Kopper makes a good impression as a witness — young, handsome, courteous, articulate, bright, and soft-spoken. And apparently, he testified this morning in support of the government’s theory of the case — i.e., Enron induced Merrill Lynch to buy the barges at the end of 1999 by orally guaranteeing through Fastow that Enron would arrange a sale of the barges for Merrill by the end of June 2000 at a pre-arranged profit. If such an Enron guaranty existed, then the Government contends that Enron’s booking of the profit from the deal was improper and the Defendants engaged in a fraud on Enron’s investors.
But if the morning went according to the Government’s form, the afternoon was a different story. Kopper was ravaged during cross-examination, first by Lawrence Zweifach, who represents Merrill Defendant James Brown, and then by David Spears, who represents Merrill Defendant William Fuhs.
Kopper readily admitted to Mr. Zweifach that the barge transaction was such a risky deal that he would not approve it originally as an asset purchase for one of Fastow’s now infamous off balance sheet partnerships that Enron used liberally to buy assets from Enron. Inasmuch as the Government’s theory of the case is based largely on the allegation that Merrill’s purchase of the barges was not a risky deal because of Enron’s guaranty, this line of cross-examination of the Government’s primary witness did not go over well with the prosecution lawyers. They objected often and ineffectively throughout the cross-examination as U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein overruled almost every Government objection.
Then, Mr. Spears took over and Kopper admitted the truth of a mid-2000 memo written by an Enron analyst that openly stated that Enron faced a dilemma with regard to the barges and Merrill — either Enron needed to broker a sale of the barges to an investor to preserve Enron’s client relationship with Merrill or Enron should simply buy the barges back and restate its financial statements to account for the deal as a loan rather than a sale. There was no mention whatsoever in the memo of any Enron “guaranty” to Merrill or that restatement of earnings was all that big of a deal for Enron. Again, you could almost hear the air leaking from the Government’s balloon as Kopper’s cross-examination proceeded.
However, no one really knows how all of this plays out with the jury, which is the only reason that this case is being prosecuted in the first place. The Government figures that it can get convictions on such a flimsy case because most jurors will be biased against anything having to do with the cultural pariah Enron.
Based on what I know about this case and what I witnessed today, if the Government gets convictions in as weak a case as this one, then the Government will have little disincentive to bring equally dubious cases against business executives. Accordingly, if you represent business clients, stay tuned to developments in this trial.
THis long NY Times article about end-of-life decision making provides an excellent overview of the issues that confront families and health care professionals in making those decisions. Check it out.
My sense is that the upcoming Presidential election is going to be a much closer race than many Bush Administration supporters currently think, so this NY Sunday Times article on John Kerry’s management style is timely in that it provides some insight into how a President Kerry would go about making decisions.
Mr. Kerry, who is a former prosecutor, is a four term senator without any meaningful management experience in terms of running a business, so his management style is primarily reflected on how he runs his campaign:
Mr. Kerry is a meticulous, deliberative decision maker, always demanding more information, calling around for advice, reading another document ? acting, in short, as if he were still the Massachusetts prosecutor boning up for a case.
He stayed up late last Sunday night with aides at his home in Beacon Hill, rewriting ? and rearguing ? major passages of his latest Iraq speech, a ritual that aides say occurs even with routine remarks.
In interviews, associates repeatedly described Mr. Kerry as uncommonly bright, informed and curious.
But Mr. Kerry’s curiousity brings with it an indecisiveness borne of a tendency to become deluged in what I refer to as “data dumps:”
But the downside to his deliberative executive style, they said, is a campaign that has often moved slowly against a swift opponent, and a candidate who has struggled to synthesize the information he sweeps up into a clear, concise case against Mr. Bush.
Even his aides concede that Mr. Kerry can be slow in taking action, bogged down in the very details he is so intent on collecting, as suggested by the fact that he never even used the Medicare information he sent his staff chasing.
His attention to detail can serve him well on big projects, as it did when he sent aides scurrying across the country to find long-lost fellow Vietnam veterans who could vouch for his war record. But sometimes, his aides say, it is a distraction, as it was in early 2003, when they say he spent four weeks mulling the design of his campaign logo, consulting associates about what font it should use and whether it should include an American flag. (It does.)
His habit of soliciting one more point of view prompted one close adviser to say he had learned to wait until the last minute before weighing in: Mr. Kerry, he said, is apt to be most influenced by the last person who has his ear.
And whereas President Bush rarely makes management changes in his top circle of advisors, Kerry often does:
Mr. Kerry has also, in this campaign and earlier ones, repeatedly upended his staff, edging longtime advisers aside or dismissing aides outright when things threatened to run off the tracks. As a result, while some stalwarts from Mr. Kerry’s first campaign have stuck with him since 1972, the senior staff of his campaign includes few people who call themselves his friends or are personally loyal to him.
And there is a hint of the Jimmy Carter micromanager management style in Kerry’s approach:
Mr. Kerry’s circle is as wide and changing as Mr. Bush’s is constricted and consistent. He is always calling one more friend, and the campaign lineup has shifted so often that rumors of staff changes have become part of the daily gallows humor at Kerry headquarters on McPherson Square in downtown Washington.
Instead of delegating authority to a single adviser, Mr. Kerry relies on different people for different advice. And, he made a point of saying in the interview, none of them have too much authority. “I am always in charge,” he said.
And though he is constantly seeking out advice, Kerry does not always follow it:
For all his eagerness to seek advice, Mr. Kerry does not always take it.
After he delivered a 35-minute speech at the University of Pittsburgh last spring, Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania gently tried to reinforce a message Mr. Kerry’s aides had been struggling to impart.
“I said I thought it was a little long for an outdoor speech,” Mr. Rendell recalled. “My rule of thumb for an outdoor speech is 15 to 20 minutes.”
That night at the Philadelphia Convention Center, Mr. Rendell prepped Mr. Kerry by saying the crowd was full of party veterans and urging him to keep his speech short. He talked for 32 minutes.
When Mr. Kerry arrived in Allentown early this month for a rally at the fairgrounds, Mr. Rendell did not even mention his 20-minute outdoor rule. “I’ve given up,” Mr. Rendell said. “He listens sometimes, and he doesn’t listen sometimes.”
Mr. Kerry spoke for 38 minutes.