I hadn’t read Taibbi’s reporting about a jaw-dropping series of events in 2004-05 involving White until just now, when I read his article posted today on the Rolling Stone website, summarizing them. Call me naive–which is what I’m calling myself–but the article really shocked me.
I wonder who recommended White to Obama. White surely isn’t in his “in” crowd, and I’ll go out on a limb here and venture that Obama was unaware of the events Taibbi discusses. The idea, I believe, was to pick someone from outside the SEC and from outside Washington–someone with serious major law enforcement cred who also knows the ins and outs of securities law and securities practices–whose nomination would send a signal that enforcement of finance laws would be a priority in Obama’s second term.
I’m certainly no expert in any of the possibly relevant criminal laws, but I do know that the major federal criminal conspiracy law has a 10-year statute of limitations. The time period, I believe, would include any illegal obstruction of justice, which, if there was any, would have occurred, I guess, in 2004 and 2005.
From Taibbi’s article, the extent of White’s involvement is unclear, but, assuming the accuracy of the facts the article states, she did play a role. The most culpable of the players seem to me to be the people involved within the SEC; there is a whiff of subtle bribery involving jobs with the law firm, but it appears that the subject was broached by the SEC lawyers rather than by the firm. But I don’t see how this won’t be a high-publicity issue during her confirmation hearing if the mainstream media picks it up. The Republican senators won’t question her about it, but at least one Dem probably will. At least I hope so. This is really different than just the usual revolving door situation. This concerns facts about a specific case, and it’s seriously damaging, in my opinion.
—-
*I want to append this post to add the following exchange this morning in the Comments thread, between reader Peter and me:
PETER: Is this the same caring, compassionate, liberal, open-minded Matt Taibbi who wrote Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Deuche, threw coffee in the face of someone who had criticized one of his columns, and wrote 52 Funny Things about the Death of the Pope?
Beverly, lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Can’t you find a decent human being to quote?
ME: Peter, the only reason I wrote this post at all is that earlier yesterday, before I read Taibbi’s article but after I read David Sirota’s in Salon, I wrote one saying that I don’t buy into the criticism of White claiming that, because in recent years she has represented large financial institutions and executives of those institutions, including some involved in the events that crashed the economy and would have brought down the banking system had the federal government not intervened with TARP. That post is [here].
I don’t read Rolling Stone regularly. I’m on ReaderSupportedNews’s email listserve, and through them get headlines and links to some of what Taibbi writes, but I rarely click the link and read the article. I’m not familiar with his comments about Breitbart after his death, or about the pope. (Or about much of anything else about his writings.) What matters to me in the Taibbi article about White is the reporting on what happened in the John Mack case and what happened to Gary Aguirre. It is Taiibi’s reports on the Aguirre matter, and the quotes from Aguirre, that caused me to write this post. It is that alone that makes me very uncomfortable.
But I’m glad my post said, “From Taibbi’s article, the extent of White’s involvement is unclear, but, assuming the accuracy of the facts the article states, she did play a role.” That is, I’m glad I made clear that the article doesn’t give enough information to know the extent of White’s involvement–the role she actually played. And I’m glad I made clear that I’m assuming that the facts stated in the article, as far as they go, are accurate, but that I realize that that they may not be.
In my first post, I added a postscript saying that White would have to recuse herself from any matters concerning the past, in which she gained knowledge of specific facts–possible misconduct–through her representation of the bank or executive at issue. That’s a concern, too, I think. I would much prefer a securities-law professor in that post.
She may turn out to be a good choice. She certainly knows how to use the investigative powers of the federal government to gain the information needed to be an effective SEC head.
Is this the same caring, compassionate, liberal, open-minded Matt Taibbi who wrote Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Deuche, threw coffee in the face of someone who had criticized one of his columns, and wrote 52 Funny Things about the Death of the Pope?
Beverly, lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Can’t you find a decent human being to quote?
Most of the really great lawyers I have worked with played hardball on both sides of the street.
Not worried – yet.
Peter, the only reason I wrote this post at all is that earlier yesterday, before I read Taibbi’s article but after I read David Sirota’s in Salon, I wrote one saying that I don’t buy into the criticism of White claiming that, because in recent years she has represented large financial institutions and executives of those institutions, including some involved in the events that crashed the economy and would have brought down the banking system had the federal government not intervened with TARP. That post is at http://www.angrybearblog.com/2013/01/lanny-breuer-and-mary-jo-white-or-is-it.html.
I don’t read Rolling Stone regularly. I’m on ReaderSupportedNews’s email listserve, and through them get headlines and links to some of what Taibbi writes, but I rarely click the link and read the article. I’m not familiar with his comments about Breitbart after his death, or about the pope. (Or about much of anything else about his writings). What matters to me in the Taibbi article about White is the reporting on what happened in the John Mack case and what happened to Gary Aguirre. It is Taiibi’s reports on the Aguirre matter, and the quotes from Aguirre, that caused me to write this post. It is that alone that makes me very uncomfortable.
But I’m glad my post said, “From Taibbi’s article, the extent of White’s involvement is unclear, but, assuming the accuracy of the facts the article states, she did play a role.” That is, I’m glad I made clear that the article doesn’t give enough information to know the extent of White’s involvement–the role she actually played. And I’m glad I made clear that I’m assuming that the facts stated in the article, as far as they go, are accurate, but that I realize that that they may not be.
In my first post, I added a postscript saying that White would have to recuse herself from any matters concerning the past, in which she gained knowledge of specific facts–possible misconduct–through her representation of the bank or executive at issue. That’s a concern, too, I think. I would much prefer a securities-law professor in that post.
She may turn out to be a good choice. She certainly knows how to use the investigative powers of the federal government to gain the information needed to be an effective SEC head.
Lord knows a journalist’s worth should be judged by their personal behavior.
Peter
has given us a classic example of the “ad hominem” fallacy.
folks should take note, because most people anymore don’t use the term correctly.
not, of course, that language doesn’t change. but not all changes are for the better.
Peter, all weak arguments begin by attacking someone’s character.
Absolutely, Hugh!
“Lord knows a journalist’s worth should be judged by their personal behavior.”
Sorry Hugh, but I fail to understand the intended drift of that statement. The Taibbi article is short and to the point. Peter’s complaint seems to be that Matt was insulting to a public figure in the past. Not exactly damaging to the veracity of his current suggestion that Mary Jo White is too much involved with the major players that her new assignment would pit her against. I would certainly question how she can effectively carry out her new responsibilities in an objective and intensive manner. Recuse herself?? That’s absurd. She’ll be in charge of the entire agency. Given the details of her involvement in the case described by Taibbi she can’t help but be seen as a potential obstructionist in any SEC actions to follow.
Peter, Provide some evidence that Taibbi is playing lose with the facts and you’ll be appreciated for your own objectivity. That you may have been personally insulted by something written in an unrelated issue is irrelevant.
Jack
Hugh’s drift was ironic.
Yeah. Sarcastic. Yikes, I hope my “hear, hear!” to his comment was recognized as sarcastic, too.
I.e., Taibbi may or may not be a jerk–I don’t read him often enough to know–but he reported on facts in his article. A lot of conservatives confuse fact and opinion, usually by misrepresenting their opinion as fact. This was the opposite of that; this guy thought Taibbi’s reporting on fact was a statement of opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugh,
“Lord knows a journalist’s worth should be judged by their personal behavior.”
That’s why I judge Taibbi by his professional behavior.
“All weak arguments begin by attacking someone’s character”
and
“Peter has given us an example of ad hominem fallacy”
How ironic, since I am critical of Matt Taibbi for a) attacking people’s character and b) using ad hominem argumentum in order to do it.
You wouldn’t quote, say, Charles Manson on some great philosophical point would you? So why quote a serial slanderer on this issue. I merely suggested that Ms Mann should find a better source.
Taibbi, like Rush Limbaugh, has lost the right to be taken seriously.