Sigh. Reposted again.
Also about him still being CEO on SEC after he left:
From FactCheck.org
As Fern, in all due respects and INMO some how says, "So you're saying he's going to sue himself" For being a lying sack of shit is my additional comment.
As I think Fern totally misses the point here, its not a matter of Romney suing himself, its a matter of the SEC putting Mitt Romney in jail for false and fraudulent financial statements.
And earth to Fern, those false and fraudulent statements are felonies under the laws of this nation. Just because the SEC did not know they were fraudulent Statements in the time period 1999-2002, does not disguise the fact, the SEC sure knows it now.
Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesnt necessarily mean that hes responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.
If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldnt be talking about a felony, she said.
Firms 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...nued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/
Mittens has some splainings to do.
Problem is that doesn't jive with what Romney himself has said under sworn testimony in 2002 and what Bain's own press release in 1999 said that Romney was only going to be part-time involved while he was at the Olympics.
SEC filings and comments from Romney and Bain directly contradict each other, so both can not be correct. That is where the allusion to a felony being commited comes from (statute of limitations has apparently expired, plus if government actually pursued this line of attack, Romney could claim he is victim of over-reaching government). It's just a political line of attack, nothing more, nothing less.
Boston Herald, Feb. 12, 1999: Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions. But he will leave running day-to-day operations to Bain’s executive committee.
First, the Obama campaign simply ignores Romney’s stated intent to “leave running day-to-day operations” to others. And in any case, Romney’s statement that he would remain a “part-timer” is merely a statement of intent, issued just as he was leaving for the Olympics job and before he knew how much time it would consume. It is not evidence of what actually happened.
And as to what happened later, the evidence is clear. According to an Associated Press story that ran just two months later, Romney quickly discovered that he was working 16-hour days on the Olympics, leaving no time for Bain (or even his own wedding anniversary).
Bain Capital began circulating offering documents for its seventh private equity fund in June 2000. Those documents include several pages specifying fund management. The section begins:
Set forth below is information regarding the background of the senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital. Also listed are certain investment professionals responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Brookside and Sankaty funds, which are affiliated funds of Fund VII.
It then goes on to list 18 managers of the private equity fund. Mitt Romney is not among them. Same goes for an affiliated co-investment fund, whose private placement memorandum is dated September 2000.
Then there is Bain Capital Venture Fund — the firm’s first dedicated venture capital effort — whose private placement memorandum is dated January 2001. Romney also isn’t listed among its “key investment professionals,” or as part of its day-to-day operations or investment committee.
All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent they day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it).
Um, no. As I vainly tried to explain, what Romney said under oath and what Bain's press release said are in no wise in conflict to anyone with a modicum of business acumen and at least some shred of honesty. Although the poo flinging is getting amusing, please do continue.
As to the origin of allusions to a felony committed, that stems wholly from the left's desperate need to get some dirt on Romney besides he's rich, boring and wears magic underwear - anything at all to let the Messiah make the election about anything besides his own record and the economy.
During this time Romney remained on the boards of Staples and another company in which Bain had invested, LifeLike Co., a company that made dolls. As evidence of his continued ties to Massachusetts, the report states that Romney “returned to Massachusetts from Utah to attend meetings at Staples.” But there’s no mention of Romney attending any business meetings at Bain itself or any of Bain’s investment funds.
We note for the record our disagreement with a July 12 Huffington Post report, which cites Romney’s membership on the LifeLike board as evidence that his claim to have had no active involvement with Bain or any Bain entity is “false.” No so, in our judgment.
We think the term “Bain Capital entity” on Romney’s disclosure forms could only refer to Bain’s various investment funds, not to companies in which it invested. And in the three days that Romney sought to document his continued ties to Massachusetts, so he could run for governor, he made no mention of attending any meetings at Bain itself or any of the various Bain partnerships.
Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.
“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.
Um, no. As I vainly tried to explain, what Romney said under oath and what Bain's press release said are in no wise in conflict to anyone with a modicum of business acumen and at least some shred of honesty. Although the poo flinging is getting amusing, please do continue.Problem is that doesn't jive with what Romney himself has said under sworn testimony in 2002 and what Bain's own press release in 1999 said that Romney was only going to be part-time involved while he was at the Olympics.
SEC filings and comments from Romney and Bain directly contradict each other, so both can not be correct. That is where the allusion to a felony being commited comes from (statute of limitations has apparently expired, plus if government actually pursued this line of attack, Romney could claim Obama is Nixon and trying to use government to destroy his adversaries). It's just a political line of attack, nothing more, nothing less.
Two posts above, thanks, that was good info.
Have to do my own due diligence, but your counterarguments seem plausible.
Whether Romney is getting swift-boated right now or not is hard to tell, because Bain seems like it was just opening salvo trying to force Romney to release all of his tax records (e. g. Global Tech Appliances in 1998 and off shore shell corporations, which may have been perfectly legal and normal for a private citizen engaged in private equity, but can come across as unseemly for someone running for president, especially in the aftermath of a near Depression caused by the financial industry).
Thanks again for the rational, non-emotional counter arguments though; they are appreciated!
edit: regarding the felony charge, I thought that was based upon later and earlier Romney sworn testimony or Bain press releases contraindicating themselves, not whether he was falsely claiming to run or not run Bain while off at the Olympics (?) Seems like even if I agree with your timeline, I would argue you are asking the wrong questions in terms of what Obama's attacks are really about. Also seems like there is legitimate red meat for both Obama and Romney supporters to validly dig into.
No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.
All four told me Romney is telling the truth.
All Mitt has to do to return the favor is show the clip of Obama said on NBC about fixing the economy and he would be held accountable and become one term President if it would not work. After that clip, show the unemployment rate since 01-2009 to present time with the tag lines "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID" and "ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN 4 YEARS AGO?".Two highly reputable arbiters of political debate -- The Washington Post's fact-checking arm and FactCheck.org -- also on Thursday stood by their earlier findings that Romney stepped away from any active role at Bain when he accepted the Olympics post. And Fortune reported that it obtained private Bain documents that support the Romney account.
What a stupid contention. As early as the year 2000 critics of Brenie Madoff were coming forth and suspecting ole Berrnie was running a ponzie scheme.
As billizions of Berrnoe defenders, and some of them at the SEC swore on a stack of bibles that it could not be possible Joe. Because they assereted Bernie was as honest as the day is long.
Nothing new here, we never dump on the idiots who turned out to be 100% wrong as we instead punish the whistle blowers who turned out to be right. But still I can see it all here, the very day Mitt Romney is confirmed as the GOP nominee in late August or early September 2012, our SEC will be finally be ready to file criminal
charges against Romney.
One of those non-linked out of the ass numbers.
Two posts above, thanks, that was good info.
Have to do my own due diligence, but your counterarguments seem plausible.
Whether Romney is getting swift-boated right now or not is hard to tell, because Bain seems like it was just opening salvo trying to force Romney to release all of his tax records (e. g. Global Tech Appliances in 1998 and off shore shell corporations, which may have been perfectly legal and normal for a private citizen engaged in private equity, but can come across as unseemly for someone running for president, especially in the aftermath of a near Depression caused by the financial industry).
Thanks again for the rational, non-emotional counter arguments though; they are appreciated!
edit: regarding the felony charge, I thought that was based upon later and earlier Romney sworn testimony or Bain press releases contraindicating themselves, not whether he was falsely claiming to run or not run Bain while off at the Olympics (?) Seems like even if I agree with your timeline, I would argue you are asking the wrong questions in terms of what Obama's attacks are really about. It seems like you are arguing that there was no crime committed, and I am saying Romney has twisted himself into a pretzel because of the cover-up of the non-crime (his story line to defuse Bain attacks always had a lot of holes in it, but for whatever reason, it didn't get traction during Republican primaries when Newt and others was trying to push same arguments). Seems like there is legitimate red meat for both Obama and Romney supporters to validly dig into, but that Romney should want to definitely extinguish this line of attack just like Obama did during the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
There is absolutely no way a hands-on management style CEO like Romney had ZERO involvement with Bain when he left in 1999. I mean how stupid do you have to be to actually believe that?
Republicans, I know you don't believe that. You're telling me that a company that Romney basically built from the ground up...he had ZERO idea what they were doing and ZERO input into what decisions were made? BULLSHIT. That fails the credibility test on every level.
That source does not mention 30 billion.
What I once again find funny is that even if you take 'ol Mitten's story as 100% fact that just means that he was getting six figure salaries from his company for doing literally nothing all y at work once you pay off your house.while this same company was charging large management fees to companies that were forced to cut costs by laying off workers. That's really really shitty.
A lawyer isn't going to change his fees based on what he pays his secretary so why should Bain? You certainly wouldn't ask for a reduction in pay once you pay off your house.
Opponents of Romney: "He claimed to have no responsibility for what the company did, but we have documents showing he was still CEO, still attended board meetings, and still drew a $100,000 salary."
Supports of Romney: "Romney never did anything technically illegal, as the following 24 paragraph exposition will demonstrate."
Which of these will play better to the electorate is left as an exercise for the reader.
All Romney had to say was his involvement in Bain was severely limited when he took over the Winter Olympics. Instead, he's hardlined his position to say he had absolutely no involvement whatsoever with the company.
That's BS and fails the credibility test for anyone with half a brain.
Actually businesses do change their fee structure based on their costs, executive pay included. Economics 101.