Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Monday, April 26, 2010

SEC IG to Investigate Goldman Sachs Investigation Timing

This is what Republicans have been clamoring for.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigative office said Sunday it had begun an investigation into whether charges against Goldman Sachs were politically timed.

SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz wrote Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) on Sunday to notify the lawmaker that he had opened an investigation, at the congressman's request, into whether the commission's civil charges against the Wall Street giant were coordinated in order to boost the case for the Wall Street reform legislation before Congress.

The timing of the investigation has always been curious. Just as curious, the decision to investigate was decided along party lines. The three Democrats voted to formally charge Goldman Sachs while the two Republicans voted against it. Now that these charges are being investigated formally, if there is any truth to them the Obama administration is in serious trouble.


AG said...

A sign of the times: you think there's something suspicious about the timing of the case, I think there's something suspicious about the Republican SEC commissioners voting no.

I know that Darrel Issa made an allegation about the timing, but he was later shown to have no evidence.

Anonymous said...

I would be very surprised, GS had been notified months in advance they were receiving a Wells notice. IF anything, I think that the SEC panel vote is coincident instead of the other way around.

Each day it looks more and more like GS is guilty and tomorrow at 10est we'll know even more. But there seems to be more and more information each day that makes the case look very damning for GS.

Anonymous said...

Why did the Republicans vote no?

This should also be investigated.

John said...

To anon #2.

Personally I think it was a split decision to prevent a flood of lawsuits from coming out against marketeers, ratings agencies, bond sellers etc.. By keeping the vote split there isn't a rush to judge, but it also means the SEC is taking it seriously enough to move ahead.