I see people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and Cenk Uygur are being attacked in a big way

[TiberiusB]

283. Never happened

Taiibbi did not admit he didn't have any evidence that Blankfein perjured himself. He more accurately said that Sorkin's argument over whether Blanfein did perjure himself seems to boil down less to specifics than to parsing minute distinctions between words like "massive" and "big" and other nonsense. More specifically, did Goldman place a "massive" bet on shorting the subprime market or merely a "big" one? That appears to be the entire crux of Sorkin's assertion that Blankfein did not actually perjure himself. Sorkin can hardly be said to be vindicated.

Whether Blankfein perjured himself is all a distraction, however, as the bulk of Sorkin's article is clearly an effort to polish Goldman's reputation. This is where Taibbi takes real issue with the article and where the meat of the debate actually lies. Debating whether Blankfein actually perjured himself is a bit like arguing over things like what your definition of "is" is.

If Matt Taibbi's assertions about Obama are your central concern, then you shouldn't have dragged Sorkin into the discussion. Do you have any link, any at all, to anything that can prove Taibbi is "full blown moonbarking nuts"? I don't need a list, just something to at least start to make the case. Quoting Taibbi over and over again isn't making a good case against him.

The main argument for complicity on the part of the Obama Administration, at least as I think Mr. Taibbi sees it, would appear to be their lack of drive to, and I'm being generous here, actively look into at least the possibility that real wide spread fraud has been committed. The administration's efforts to push through a deal protecting the banks from fraud investigations not only now, but even in the future, doesn't reflect well on the President. Obama's assertion on the legality of Wall Street's actions only gave further ammunition to Taibbi's assertions. Routinely appointing Wall Street friendly advisers to his cabinet doesn't help either. It's all part and parcel of the current push to "look ahead" rather than focus on actually cleaning up any wrongdoing, whether by Wall Street or the previous White House tenants...unless you are a whistle-blower...but that's another thread.

On Obama's assertion that the banks may not have done anything really illegal:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/more-msm-criticism-of-obama-nothing-illegal-here-move-along-stance-on-foreclosure-fraud.html

Dodd-Frank was weak tea at best and it has only been getting weaker. This is hardly a unique perspective on Taibbi's part:

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/21/dodd-frank-made-no-structural-changes-to-banking-system-52276/

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/03/josh-rosner-dodd-frank-is-a-farce-on-too-big-to-fail.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/03/quelle-surprise-geithner-gutting-dodd-frank-via-intent-to-exempt-foreign-exchange.html

http://www.bohemian.com/northbay/reform-molehill/Content?oid=2174835

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/one-year-after-dodd-frank-rules-delayed_n_876898.html

None of this is to say that Dodd-Frank is utterly worthless. Everyone, including Matt Taibbi, acknowledges that some genuine good was left in the final bill. The question is, and remains, how much good, and the evidence is increasingly tilting toward "not much," as Wall Street has immediately returned to it's pre-2008 behavior, even resuming it's old derivatives trading. If Dodd-Frank somehow opens the door to more effective legislation down the road, great, but holding it up as some sort of legendary reform is misleading. No resurrected Glass-Steagal and a severely weakened Volker Rule are bitter disappointments and leave the door open to yet more crisis.

As for the CFPB, that could be somewhat helpful, should it ever actually get up and running. You can make the case that Obama is boxed in by Republican obstructionism, but you can't argue that the CFPB is major reform until it actually exists and is having any affect at all on legislation.

At any rate, it seems this discussion has, to some degree, already happened in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100291663