TL: In the book you quote Mark Palmer, Enron’s spokesman, saying to Ken Lay, “I’ll tell you what’s going on, Ken! The Wall Street Journal knows more about what’s going on at your company than you do!” You also often refer to the Journal reporters whose stories propelled Enron’s downfall. As a New York Times business reporter, how did you feel about writing so positively about your competitors? Where was the Times on all this?


KE: It’s funny, this is the second time I’ve been asked this question. Once, by somebody at the Times. It never even occurred to me that it was an issue because, again, I’m not looking at these things from the viewpoint of how does this make me feel, or how does this make so-and-so appear. I never consider that. It’s what happened. That’s what Mark Palmer said, so that’s what I wrote. It’s what the Journal reporters did, so that’s what I wrote. It actually is the great upside of this kind of writing style — that it is emotionless. What happened, happened, and I can’t get in the way. So if the Wall Street Journal reporters come off looking really good, well that’s because what they did was really good. If I in any way hesitate, or hedge, because I don’t want to make a competitor look good, then what kind of reporter am I? I’m changing facts, influencing facts because of how I feel. That to me is the height of irresponsibility. They came out the way they came out because that is what they did, and good for them.


Where was the Times on all this? The Journal had been ahead on the Enron story, they did get their leg in first. Their initial stories did have an impact on what was happening inside the company. That was how I judged which stories I was going to talk about. Those stories that had an impact. There was a point when the Times did start to come in and one of their stories had an impact. That story is mentioned. The period through 2002 I don’t really mention a lot, the story ends pretty much on January 24 of 2002. I like to think through 2002 that the Times [was] much more competitive with the Journal on this story.


TL: I want to talk about another way someone comes off in the book. A New York Times book review by Charles R. Morris applauded your account, but quibbled with your portrayal of Kenneth Lay as a “kind of amiable simpleton, glad-handing his way through Houston’s moneyed upper crust.” Morris notes that Lay has a Ph.D. in economics and was a former deputy undersecretary of energy, and suggests that he must have been more aware of the financial flim-flammery all around him than your book indicates. How do you respond to that?


KE: First of all, Mr. Morris’ review was unbelievably generous. Also, his statement that Lay must have been more deeply involved in the accounting fraud than the book portrays is not … an unusual comment. … What’s so amusing is that I don’t think people know that Ken Lay hasn’t been charged with the accounting fraud. He hasn’t been charged with involvement with anything prior to August 15, 2001. In fact, the first true overt act of the criminal charges against [him] is September 26, 2001, just weeks before the bankruptcy of December 2, 2001. His charges are almost exclusively about statements he made while Enron was collapsing, which the government says were upbeat, positive statements which he knew were false. Every one of those instances is detailed in this book. Every single element that surrounds Ken Lay’s case is detailed in this book. Do I not link him to the accounting manipulations that took place in the period before that? No, he is not shown as a participant in those events.


I find it hilarious that people think that if the government couldn’t find sufficient evidence to bring a grand jury indictment that somehow or another I should be able to prove it. Bear in mind that I’ve had access to a lot of the material from the government investigation. My rendition is of Ken Lay prior to his indictment. He was indicted in July, the manuscript was finished in August. I was really, really happy because everything I looked at that that said this is an issue, this is a problem, ends up being in the indictment. And everything where I just took a flyer, and said I can’t find him involved in anything prior to 2001, I can’t find an issue, the government came out in the same place.


What’s so funny to me in this criticism is that people are criticizing the government case. They are saying, why didn’t the government find him more involved in the accounting machinations? Because the evidence isn’t there. Now, does that mean he wasn’t? That just means there isn’t sufficient evidence to prove it. Given all the government witnesses, given all the government evidence. they have chosen not to bring a criminal case [against Lay] relating to the accounting frauds involving the off-the-books partnerships. There is one accounting charge against Lay which is glossed over in the book. It’s a very complicated charge, and truthfully I could not figure it out one way or another. There are several things that happened and I simply couldn’t nail down the reality of what happened. …


People have not taken a close enough look at what the case against Ken Lay actually involves. Because my book lays out the case against Ken Lay. It does not lay out the case that people imagine is there.