“Yes, we do refute his assertion that we conflated short-selling with naked short-selling,” a Goldman spokesman, Ed Canaday, told DealBook. “The document we left with legislators is very clear on that point — and is considerably longer than the three pages that Mr. Taibbi posted along with his blog.”

via Goldman Critic Assails Firm on Lobbying Effort – DealBook Blog – NYTimes.com.

So I saw the New York Times piece reporting Goldman’s reaction to the lobbying story. Incidentally, I thought the Times article was balanced and appropriate, so those of you who are sending me letters wondering why the Times reporter didn’t call me should know that I don’t believe they’re obligated to do that. I thought the piece was fine.

I did, however, want to address one thing. The Goldman response makes it seem like I’m the only one drawing the conclusion that they were conflating short-selling with naked short-selling. I have to point out that the only reason I got the documents in the first place is because staffers in the Senate came to the same conclusion. I know for a fact that at least two Senate aides came away from their interaction with Goldman believing that that graph about short interest the bank handed out was supposed to be relevant to the naked short-selling issue.