(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: They never discussed with us anything with respect to the charges that will be brought. So this notion that somehow there would be any attempt to interfere in an independent agency is completely false.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you can say categorically no winks, no heads-up in advance, no signal from anyone -

OBAMA: Categorically.

ORRIN HATCH, R-UT, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE: Isn't that a little odd that all of a sudden right at the height of this legislative period we suddenly have the SEC filing suit against Goldman Sachs?

Goldman Sachs on the deals that they're talking about was dealing with the most sophisticated people in the business. You know, there is something terribly wrong here. The timing is very suspect in my eyes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Well, the president saying today that the White House had no communication with the Security Exchange Commission and their efforts in their charges against Goldman Sachs. In the meantime, a lot of politics surrounding Goldman Sachs, where they have been contributing, Democrats and Republicans. The president took more than $990,000 during in the campaign. The White House is saying that he is not giving any of that up in this environment. We're back with the panel. Nina, what about all of this back- and-forth and Goldman Sachs?

EASTON: Well, the president didn't have to tell the SEC to go after Goldman Sachs. The SEC, the reputation is at the lowest ebb it's been in decades. It missed the Bernie Madoff scandal. And we found out this week it had evidence that Lehman Brothers was careening toward bankruptcy and did nothing.

BAIER: And the Stanford case as well.

EASTON: And the Stanford case as well. This is an agency that has to prove itself, and it was looking for a big fish. Goldman Sachs, big fish, venerated firm, produces treasury secretaries for both parties, by the way, hugely profitable. So they went after, they got the big fish. They went after Goldman Sachs. The problem they have, I think, right now is that the cases is - the case is kind of flimsy. This is a case where it was, you know, everybody is appalled by it, you know, because Goldman as a lot of Wall Street banks are running a casino rather than an investment bank, so it seems. But to actually make the case, actually hold water, it's not clear that is going to happen. In fact, enforcement cases usually are a consensus by the commission. In this case, the two Republicans voted against it, which is very unusual. So I think it could very well not succeed. I think it will backfire on Obama, because while he is gaining political benefit right now, it's going to hurt him and look like they tried to go after Goldman Sachs and failed. And he already has a problem in the polls. More people now think he is closer to Wall Street than did a year ago.

BAIER: And we should point out that the SEC on day they announced the charges against Goldman Sachs also released an inspector general report about its effort to go after Alan Stanford, who was the $8 billion Ponzi scheme guy. Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: I talk to a few experts on this who tell me the SEC doesn't have to receive directive from the White House. It would be insane if anybody e-mailed and said hit Goldman on Friday when we're in the middle of legislation.

They know what those who appointed them want, and as Nina indicated, this was an unusual partisan decision. Three democratic appointees wanted action, the two Republicans were against it. It's usually consensus. So you didn't have to have a directive. What is odd about this is two other factors. One is that normally when the SEC takes an action against a person or a company, it gives them warning in advance. There was none. Goldman read about it in the press. And secondly, if you take an action against a big company like this, you do it after trading hours. They did it in trading hours and Goldman lost about $12 billion of the value almost instantly as the news broke. So it does look a bit fishy but I think the SEC knows which side the bread is buttered on and acted on the interest of the appointers.

BAIER: Fred?

BARNES: I think 90 percent of the civil suits filed by the SEC are done with unanimity among the commissioners on the SEC. This was certainly not the case here where the vote was three to two.

An investigation had been going on, on this, for a year-and-a- half. So did you have to pop it on a Friday midday while financial regulation was being - was the hottest issue in Washington?

Look, that's not only dubious - I'm trying to think of a stronger word - suspicious. I mean it, it's worthy of further examination. I mean obviously, I don't think there is any explanation for the SEC doing it other than it was a partisan decision to help out President Obama and Democrats on financial reform.

And if there is another one, I'd love to hear it.