Gasparino Bashes Tavakoli Back, Provides Goldman's Side Of Story "Because That's What He Does" After "Being Tough On Them"

Tyler Durden's picture

In what will likely be the flame war de jour for at least the next 24 hours, Gasparino responds to Tavakoli via Dealbreaker.

"I generally don't respond to people who don't matter on Wall Street.
But any rational, sane person who hasn't been either hitting the bottle
or smoking a joint would watch what I said about Goldman Sachs and come
away with two things. 1) I am very tough on them-- they always complain about what I say.
and 2) In the so-called 'caving' clip I was letting them give their
side of the story because that's what journalists do. If someone named
Janet thinks I'm selling out, she's entitled to her opinion, which I
hate to break it to her, really doesn't matter.

Zero Hedge doesn't want to get in the middle of this, but would like to inquire just what question was it that Charlie had posed to Lucas that was tough on Goldman? Was Charlie specifically inquiring about Goldman's provisioning of liquidity? When is the last time that Charlie even uttered the word liquidity on air, at least when it did not involve vodka? Is Charlie aware that Goldman dominates over 50% of NYSE's principal-based program trading? But like I said, we are not getting involved in this one.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Assetman's picture

I'll drink to that...

Woodshedder's picture

Obviously Janet matters, or Gasbag wouldn't have mentioned her. Jeez, that's pretty stupid Gasparino.

Anonymous's picture

Charlie - YOU. SOLD. OUT. Totally lost your bottle!

slore's picture

shes pretty hot, she matters to me

deadhead's picture

Mr. Gasparino:

How about looking at this as an opportunity for you to start asking additional questions of Goldman?  Certainly Zero Hedge has given a few that would be interesting to many in the financial sphere.



Assetman's picture


Perhaps Charlie should have expressed addititional, perhaps thought-provoking, questions after providing GS an opportunity to have their say on the squawk.

It appears either (a) Charlie wasn't given the time to respond to GS statements, per CNBC producer directives; (b) Charlie had incentive to report Goldman's side-- and only Goldman's side of the story; or (c) Charlie isn't capable of rational thought and doesn't bother asking question after putting 1 and 1 together.

I cannot see how any of the above places Charlie in a positive light... but my bet is Choice A.

Stuart's picture

Tavakoli speaks, people listen.  She's detailed this to PhD level since day 1 and probably why Gasparino doesn't get it. Gasparino speaks, people grimace.  He's been shown to be little more than a pawn.    

ghostfaceinvestah's picture

on my trading floor when gasbags gets on the tube, people heckle.

lizzy36's picture

TD, like my bube, part of your charm is your ability to get smack in the middle of something.

Gasbags, is nothing if not amusing. Clearly it mattered to him. 

DebtorShredder's picture

So, we now have to feed "journalists" the questions they should be asking? Do I get a part of their salary too? Didn't think so....

Anonymous's picture

Charlie Gasps for air. JJJJJust llllllet mmmmmmmmeee ffffinish.

chindit13's picture

I generally do not respond to networks that average 190,000 viewers a day in a country of 306 million, or to networks owned by a company on the public dole, but any journalist who hasn't been on the bottle....oops, never mind Charlie.

Anonymous's picture


She doesnt matter so much to him that he as to engage in the above diatribe....

Nice Try Charlie. She got to you. Alot.

Hondo's picture

It's Charlie that doesn't matter.  I can't think of a thing he's said that I couldn't live without.

Anonymous's picture

The medium is the massage.

Charlie is the medium.

Anonymous's picture

Yessir, Mr. McLuhan sir.

poydras's picture

[I usually don't respond to the little people out there]  What a tool.

Pietro_F's picture

Has anyone ever read his books?  Didn't think neither.

The Deacon's picture

Charlie, what is your buddy Dick Fuld up to these days?  Asking him some tough questions may have got you more than, 'we are going to skullF*** the shorts'.  Thanks for the info on that one.

"But any rational, sane person who hasn't been either hitting the bottle or smoking a joint would watch what I said about Goldman Sachs and come away with two things. 1) I am very tough on them-- they always complain about what I say"

I guess that means I'll have to tell the wife I am insane, and I hit the bottle, and smoked a joint this morning.  I love when people start their arguments by, "Any sane or rational person believes...".  It really demonstrates who has facts and who relies solely on hyperbole and emotion.

Anyone with insider connections to Wall Street's elite is only useful as a pawn.  If they were to be a true news reporter and ask tough questions and report what the source DIDN'T want said would be cut off. Case in point, Steve LIESman - he is a mouthpiece for the gov't.  He doesn't think, he just says what they want him to say.  That is why he gets all the scoops.

Anonymous's picture

Liesman is a joke. The guy still gets on TV and talks about going fly fishing or a trip to nantucket. Psuedo elitism at its finest

bluedobie's picture

Hey Gasparino (aka - jackass), Why not report the facts and let the viewers decide what they mean?  When did it become a journalists job to present someone's "side of the story?" 

Anonymous's picture

I would have liked to seen Charlie ask some questions about this internal memo that Blankfein penned:

chindit13's picture

Interesting thing.  The teleprompter readers on CNBC, when they do have an "original" thought, usually take aim at "some government bureaucrat", and then they go on to espouse their undying belief in free markets.  In particular they champion the "autonomy" of the Fed, that public-private corporation that prints our money, and prints our money, and prints our money...

Oddly, they have no problem with "some government bureaucrat" bailing out their parent company at the taxpayer expense, or bailing out Goldman, JPM, AIG, FNM, FRE, BAC, MER, WFC, STI, C, GM, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps if any of them earned enough to pay some real money in taxes, their views might change.  Without those "government bureaucrats", they'd all be firing resumes off to everyone from al Jazeera to Ziff Publishing.

DebtorShredder's picture

Here Charlie - Go walkover to Morgan Stanley and ask them about this:

How Morgan Stanley sets aside 72% of revenue for employees’ pay when they reported a loss for the quarter? $3.88 billion out of $5.41 billion of revenue, NOT EARNINGS!



Anonymous's picture

Let's dispense with the she said he said stuff and stick to the important issues please.

Milton's picture

You see, Blankenstein needed to explain to Charlie that GS are just a bunch of market makers adding liquidity to the marketplace on behalf of all of us -- benevolently done in order to enhance an efficient market of course. As for Tavakoli, even Buffett knows she's an insane drunken pothead that can't spell CDO.

Anonymous's picture

maybe gasparino is just bummed b/c after 2008, he's the one that doesn't really matter anymore.

NorthenSoul's picture

Wassa mattha Charlie?

Can't take criticism from a razor-smart woman thaat is also pretty? Does it gets to you that bad that you feel the need to insult and demean?

You made a complete asshat of yourself...not that it is the first time, nor will it be the last.


Bottome line: She rocks, you suck!


J'ai dit!!