Journalists spar over Goldman Sachs' potential criminal activity

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi and the Atlantic's Megan McArdle argue over whether there should be prosecutions

By Natasha Lennard
May 16, 2011 3:17PM (UTC)
main article image
File - In this May 13, 2010 file photo, Goldman Sachs headquarters is shown in New York. Goldman Sachs' first-quarter income fell 72 percent Tuesday, April 19, 2011, after the bank paid out $1.64 billion in dividends as it redeemed preferred shares it issued to billionaire investor Warren Buffett during the financial crisis. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, file) (AP)

Matt Taibbi argues forcefully in Rolling Stone this month that, following indicting Senate hearings, executives at Goldman Sachs deserve to go on criminal trial for their part in the financial crisis.

On Sunday's "Your Money" on CNN, Taibbi pushes his point against Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Monthly. McArdle, described on as a "Wall Street apologist" essentially suggests that we shouldn't prosecute the bankers, because convictions are too difficult to get and that they probably meant well really. Taibbi is, unsurprisingly, unconvinced:


Natasha Lennard

Natasha Lennard is an assistant news editor at Salon, covering non-electoral politics, general news and rabble-rousing. Follow her on Twitter @natashalennard, email

MORE FROM Natasha LennardFOLLOW natashalennardLIKE Natasha Lennard

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Goldman Sachs Morning Clip Mortgage Crisis