No One Could Have Foreseen that the Premiums Would Go to Pay Saddam

by emptywheel

I managed to sneak into the Conrad Black trial a few weeks ago, on the first day that Richard Burt testified. Here was Judy Miller's ex-boyfriend and a muckety-muck in his own right, slamming Black and Radler, all the while admitting that he didn't review the board meeting minutes to correct the mistake that named him, Richard Burt, rather than Richard Perle, as the one responsible for implementing one of the corrupt financing schemes. As I understand it, the parade of powerful men who have testified since then have similarly gotten up and admitted they didn't do there job as board members. Jim Thompson, for example, was forced to admit that for $60,000 a year as a board member, he probably was paid to do more than skim financial statements.

And today we find news that Condi was similarly negligent when serving on the board of Chevron.

Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, is preparing to acknowledge that it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein  on oil it bought from Iraq  as part of a defunct United Nations program, according to investigators.

[snip]

At the time, Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, was a member of Chevron’s board and led its public policy committee, which oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company.

Ms. Rice resigned from Chevron’s board on Jan. 16, 2001, after being named national security advisor by President Bush.

Pity Chevron is settling this. Otherwise, we'd be treated to the spectacle of Condi on the witness stand, saying "No one could have foreseen that the oil surcharges would go to pay Saddam." But I guess we've already seen that particular spectacle. And the sequel.

Still, we really need to start holding these board members responsible for their negligence. Condi's neocon buddies spent two years investigating the oil for food program as their surrogate "crime" in the absence of the WMD. Why isn't Condi responsible for that crime? Why isn't Dick Cheney responsible for the bribes paid to Nigeria while he was CEO of Halliburton? If we started holding these guys responsible for the financial malfeasance, we might prevent them from assuming important positions in our government, where they propagate all sorts of malfeasance on the US and the rest of the world.

Comments

[semiot]

I'm still waiting for some prosecutions from the BCCI scandal. I'm a patient sort of guy.

[semiot]

Oh snap! Statute of limitations. Gotta do something about that.

[Sparkles the Iguana]

Clearly, little pictures of the board members need to be inserted in the minutes, for those who only have time to skim. Thus the leonine, aristocratic, gray-maned Richard Burt would smile slyly and be able to distinguish himself from the squat-headed, beady-eyed, combovered Perle.

[freepatriot]

yo, emptywheel:

do you by any chance play chess ???

I'm a potzer, but I know how all the pieces move ...

[Veritas78]

A sunset law for corporations would help. Give 'em 24 years, then close 'em down. Biden and Lieberman would have heart attacks, but it's a small price to pay.

[tekel]

Veritas: nah, they're like zombies. In year 23, you just start a new corp, and transfer all the assets from the old one to the new one, and voila! Meet the new corporate overlord, same as the old corporate overlord. Call it "Altria" instead of "RJ Reynolds" and you're all good.

It's already happening in telecom, and the round-trip time has been only, what, 23 years since AT&T was broken up in 1984? did you just pull that number out of your * ?

[marksb]

If you look upstairs, you'll note that I talk about how company can pay bribes without actually paying bribes. In the story I tell, did the board know that the special projects fund was actually going to pay a series of bribes to close business? Nope. Not presented.

Management doesn't want the board to know more than the summary financials, the project sales, the result of past quarter/yearly sales, and issues that will cause a higher risk or a higher reward in the future.

The board likes it that way, the execs like it that way, and everyone in the food chain stack the boards to allow it to be run that way. The board has deniability if shit happens, the execs have someone higher than themselves they can point at if shit happens, and everyone walks away from the shit that happens. Our business ethics in action.

It's bad business and it's not universal, but it's certainly more often this way than is good for business.

(To be fair, this is Big Business for the most part. Startups often have the VC's actively sitting on the board and they watch the situation like a hawk, sometimes micromanaging the company from their board seats. Of course, shit still happens... And when you get an activist investor sitting on the board, the CEO can sometimes experience a bit of, um, turbulence. If we had a set of regulatory rules that hold board members directly accountable for illegal actions taken by executive management, we'd see a more ethical business environment. [Maybe we do and no one enforces it?] Like I said earlier today, ethics in business today is the art of preventing prosecution. Sad, isn't it?)

[oldtree]

do you think we could get some laws passed where people have to tell the truth? everyone in government, everywhere in our country?
wouldn't that be fascinating

[freepatriot]

yo, oldtree, as I understand it, that's what GITMO is all about

jus sayin, is all

[Jukesgrrl]

And, pray tell, why isn't this story all over the MSM immediately following their lame local whines about the price of gas???

[apishapa]

I kind of wonder why everyone seems so convinced that Condi didn't know what was going on. Because she says so? Of course she knew about Chevron's crooked dealings. That is why it has taken all these years to come to light. She is a liar and a crook who will go to any length to line her pockets and promote her own agenda. She is not just Bush's lackey. She is a bona fide criminal in her own right.

[Cara]

Useful to indict small oil companies making a perfect distraction to the Big American companies involved(government interest). Now explains.

Why was not Chevron indicted as well?

[NeutVerne]

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!