Reply #35: Follow-up, please [View All]

[leveymg]

1) Q. "What stands out, so far:

Page 3, para 3, of your 09/20/2006 letter to Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller:

'After all, a dirty foreign bribe is usually paid with dirty, offshore, untaxed money, right?'

Was that a rhetorical question, or did you actually see reference to such offshore account(s) in any of these e-mails? Did you hear anyone within the company make reference to such? Has any USG officer or elected official or staff, confirmed the existence of such account(s), or that there is an ongoing investigation into the same?"

A. Strictly speaking, it's not a rhetorical question, since a rhetorical question doesn't expect an answer. I know it has an answer - and one that means that Dick Cheney's Halliburton violated more than one set of Federal laws, with his personal knowledge and approval.

The one question that cuts right to the heart of this matter is: "Why was David R. Smith, the VP of Tax for Halliburton, intended to be on the cc: list to begin with?"

To get a sense of just how senior David R. Smith is in the company, please note that he's listed in the annual reports as one of the key officers (see Executive Officers of the Registrant): http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/0000045012...

With Halliburton's damage control team circling the wagons on an ***FCPA*** investigation, why in the world would the head of the ***tax*** group be looped in, if there wasn't concern about the tax status of the money involved? That's not a rhetorical question, either, for the record.

; )

As for the existence of the accounts and the source of the monies paid to bribe foreign officials on Cheney's watch as CEO: stay tuned. Much like the Al Capone case, this one hinges on the book-keeping and record-keeping!

FU: You didn't answer my questions: 1)Did you hear anyone within the company make reference to such? 2) Has any USG officer or elected official or staff, confirmed the existence of such account(s), 3) or that there is an ongoing investigation into the same?"


2) Q. "The e-mails you did read reference bribes allegedly paid by the company to officials in Nigeria. You also reference 'other' countries you believe are involved in the slush fund. What other countries? Is this something you just intuit, or know?"

A. Straight from Halliburton's Halloween filing yesterday (its quarterly report - see the "Legal Proceedings" narrative): http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/0000045012...

See also the BakerBotts-authored registration statements, in which Halliburton is trying to get rid of the politically-radioactive unit, KBR: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=kbr&CIK...

This gets James Addison Baker, III, too. He is the GOP answer to Clark Clifford, and this is his BCCI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Clifford

Baker shoulda listened to his granddaddy's advice: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=james+baker+bo...

FU: Again, sir, you didn't answer my questions: (1)You also reference 'other' countries you believe are involved in the slush fund. What other countries? (2) Is this something you just intuit, or know?"



3) Q. "What has been the reaction of the WV Senators? May we see Rocky and Byrd's written response, if any?"

A. I have every confidence in my home state's Senators. They have justified my faith many, many times over.

FU: Ditto. Non-responsive to the questions posed.



4) Q. "Below is your account of the ground rules you placed on yourself in your dealings with DOJ:

'... when I got that very first phone call from the DOJ on the morning of Friday, July 23, 2004, I told them then:

1. I won't embellish.

2. I won't hesitate to say, 'I don't know.'

3. I won't hesitate to say, 'I don't know, but here's who might just know - and be willing to tell you.'

- Dave

Did you raise the offshore slush fund allegation with DOJ? What was their response?"

A.) As I've written in one of these threads, some investigators are like a one-way mirror. They take information in, and don't share anything back. Accordingly, I am not always (immediately) privy to their follow-up or response. However, it has been the case - more than once - that I suddenly get a follow-up question out of the blue on something that I thought was dormant. From that, I infer that follow-up has happened.

FU: Non-reponsive to my questions: (1)Did you raise the offshore slush fund allegation with DOJ? (2) What was their response?"



5) Q. "Do you have copies of company e-mails that discussed such a slush fund?"

Prudence dictates that I decline to answer that at this point, in this forum.

FU: Feel free to provide them to that when you will, but again you didn't answer the question, sir.

6) "If not, how did you make that leap?"

See above, but also consider: do you think that the Treasurer of Halliburton has an "on-the-books" check for any of the bribes, or an invoice, or a receipt signed by Nigerian thugocrats?

; )

FU: You haven't answered the central question: what evidence do you have, if any, that H was operating an offshore slush fund.

7) Q. (1)"Was it something discussed with others within the company who steered you? (2)Is there anyone else who you are aware of who has also made public similar allegations about offshore slush funds?"

A. Again, prudence cautions that I refrain from answering that in this forum. I will simply say that Congressman Waxman's staff has apparently cultivated the trust and confidence of many Halliburton/KBR whistleblowers - each of whom can produce parts of the puzzle.

FU: You could have at least answered the second part of that question, to the best of your knowledge.


8) Q. "I'm neither a skeptic nor an enthusiast, at this point, but am trying to gauge the solidity of these allegations."

A. Be a hopeful skeptic. You don't know me from Adam, but I think you can safely repose your trust in Congressman Waxman and his gifted staff.

FU: Would you blame me if I say that I'm tilting into the skeptic's column, after hearing your non-responses?

Look, I'm familiar with (and have been a part of) big law firms, press conferences, court depositions, Congressional investigations, etc. I have to say that your non-responsiveness is dismaying, and largely unnecessary from both a legal and practical stand-point.

I urge you to reformulate your answers, if you want to be taken seriously here.

- Mark