People are treating the Stewart case as seriously as Enron when it's really over trivia.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The lesson that any thinking person draws from the Stewart saga is that when the government asks questions, run for your lawyer and don't say a word. Had Stewart kept her mouth shut, she'd be OK.
Before Enron, I think people were a bit more naive about the way things worked, and I think Enron pulled the curtain back on unsavoury practices that turned out to be a lot more widespread.
When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.
Early 2000s, we get Enron, which tells us the books are dirty. And what is our repeated response? We just keep pulling the threads out of the regulatory fabric.
What Enron was doing, what caused investors to embrace it in a rapture of baffled awe, was hiding debt.
James Stewart was so kind and considerate and had such personal integrity.
Pete Wilson deregulated energy as a pay out to Enron, and we blamed Gray Davis.
But the most important thing is, Enron did not cause the California crisis.
I've never commented much about my experience at Enron except to say, when I was there, it was a much more pipeline and asset-oriented company.
You can't get all of your news from Jon Stewart, especially since it's a comedy show.
No opposing quotes found.