[jackbill]

Rubin made the call to a treasury official, who refused to do what he asked. No fraud was consummated. Nor was there any conspiracy apparently, since Rubin did not reach agreement with anyone to carry out such a scheme (unless someone could be found at Citibank to say, "yes, we all agreed that he would bring pressure on the rating agencies."

In one of the articles about a week ago (might have been a Washington Times editorial) it was mentioned that Ken Lay had called several people in government (maybe Sec. of Commerce, Sec. of the Treasury, etc.) trying to do the same thing that Rubin did. If memory serves, that was Nov. 8, the same day that Rubin called the guy at the Treasury.

Doesn't that sound like there may have been a conspiracy? One of the first questions to be asked of Rubin: Did Ken Lay or anyone else at Enron call you within the week before you called Treasury?

Second question: If so, did that person suggest to you that you should call Treasury (and Moody's as well)?

If "NO", did you suggest to that person that you might call Treasury and see if they could help?

Etc., etc.. And, by the way, I don't think that you have to commit fraud to be convicted of "conspiracy to commit fraud". If I try to hire you to kill my wife and the cops find out, I'm pretty sure that we would both be charged with "conspiracy to commit murder".

[thucydides]

You are right, conspiracy doesn't require that the related crime be in fact carried out. It just requires an agreement, express or inferred, plus some overt act in furtherance (for example, the phone call). In my opinion, depending on what led Rubin to make the call, there is very serious legal exposure for him, and this is why the democrats will try every way possible to avoid calling him. Imagine if after all their innuendo and insinuation, the only government official to be charged was Rubin?