Here’s How Eliot Spitzer Would Handle The Goldman Sachs Perjury Claims

Eliot Spitzer

What would Eliot Spitzer do if he were handed the Senate Subcomittee’s report on what caused the financial crisis?

“Once the steam stopped coming out of my ears, I’d be dropping so many subpoenas,” Spitzer told Taibbi in this month’s Rolling Stone.

“And I would parse every potential inconsistency between the testimony they gave to Congress and the facts as we now understand them.”

(Background: Some in the Senate believe that Goldman Sachs helped cause the financial crisis. After the Senators released their report on what caused the financial crisis (which revealed tons of sketchy activity among banks), they recommended that Goldman Sachs’ execs be investigated to determine if any of them committed perjury during their testimony before the Senate last year.)

Taibbi then questioned which “inconsistencies jump out at him.”

Spitzer hones in on Goldman’s claim that it wasn’t really shorting the market, when it was:

They keep claiming they were only marginally short, that it was more just servicing their clients. But it sure doesn’t look like that. They were $13 billion short. That’s big — 50 per cent of their risk. It was so completely disproportionate.

On the Hill, according to the Taibbi’s “The People vs. Goldman Sachs” Goldman Sachs employees testified that the weren’t net short.

Spitzer added, “Why should Carl Levin be the one who needs to do this?” asks Spitzer. “Where’s the SEC? Where are any of the regulatory bodies?”

Good question! The SEC is prosecuting insider traders. Like Raj Rajaratnam, a billionaire who was just found guilty.

Don’t miss: Is this phrase the new Vampire Squid?