Romney Lied to the Public About His Job at Bain Capital

Liar
Politics • Views: 36,055

Today we have confirmation that Mitt Romney has been lying to the public about when he left his job at Bain Capital: Romney’s Bain Story Is Falling Apart.

Despite Mitt Romney’s claims that he left Bain Capital in 1999, Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Romney was still listed as the owner of the company in 2002, three years later. The documents, reported on today by the Boston Globe, contradict Romney’s claims that he was not running Bain when it was investing in companies that were moving jobs overseas. The Globe quotes a Romney adviser who acknowledges that the campaign’s claims regarding Romney’s lack of involvement “do not square with common sense.”

The charge that Romney moved jobs overseas while running Bain has been central to the Obama campaign’s attacks on Romney. Until now, fact-checkers like the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler have described the Obama campaign’s claims as misleading because of Romney’s assertion that he stopped managing Bain in 1999. However, Mother Jones’ David Corn reported Wednesday that Bain invested in companies that outsourced jobs prior to the time Romney says he left, and the documents cited by the Globe show that Romney was still listed as an executive at Bain during the time the Obama campaign accuses the company of outsourcing jobs.

The website Factcheck.org called the Obama campaign’s claims “weak,” stating that if they were true, Romney might have committed a felony by making false statements in his financial disclosure forms where he stated that he “has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.” A Romney spokesperson told Politico’s Dylan Byers that Romney had not committed a crime.

Related
Also see
UPDATE at 7/12/12 10:53:08 am

Talking Points Memo has discovered more SEC filings in which Romney describes himself as CEO and “Managing Director” of Bain Capital in 2000 and 2001: No, Romney Didn’t Leave Bain in 1999.

UPDATE at 7/12/12 11:03:12 am

This isn’t just about outsourcing; Romney has another big reason to want to obfuscate his association with Bain after 1999: Business Insider:

Beyond determining whether these statements are accurate—or whether Bain misled the SEC or Romney has been misleading the public—the reason this issue is important is that Romney wants to disavow responsibility for anything Bain or Bain companies did after early 1999.

And one of the things that Bain did after early 1999, as Dan Primack of Fortune points out, is invest in a company called Stericycle whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses.

For obvious reasons, an investment in a company that performed this service might hurt Romney’s standing with the right-to-life voters in the Republican party, even though Romney was pro-choice at the time the investment was made.

Jump to bottom

128 comments
1 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:24:26am

Romney lied. He didn’t ‘mislead’ nor did he ‘misspeak’. The fucker lied.

But he does have a strategy to beat Obama…he’s using Hillary.

2 S'latch  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:26:02am

Ron Paul?

3 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:27:25am

Romney Responds…says it’s a “quirk in the law”…you know quirks…they’re those things that poor people have to obey but rich people don’t.

4 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:28:50am

Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler still saying No There There. SEC filings? What SEC filings?!

Boston Globe article cited some SEC person who happens to be a Democrat so whatev

5 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:30:28am

Please move along. Everyone move along. Nothing to see here.

6 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:30:54am

re: #1 darthstar

Romney lied. He didn’t ‘mislead’ nor did he ‘misspeak’. The fucker lied.

But he does have a strategy to beat Obama…he’s using Hillary.

[Embedded content]

Hillary who disliked Obama so much she became his Secretary of State. Mitt must be feeling desperate if he’s using criticisms made by Obama by a former rival who is now part of his administration.

7 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:30:58am

re: #3 darthstar

Romney Responds…says it’s a “quirk in the law”…you know quirks…they’re those things that poor people have to obey but rich people don’t.

More from that article:

But even if Mitt Romney had left Bain in February of 1999, even if he hadn’t continued to earn eight-figure sums from the company he created, Romney still couldn’t say that he had nothing to do with Bain’s investments in outsourcing. Because in 1998, when he was still at the company, that’s exactly what he did, investing millions in a Chinese company that helped U.S. companies outsource jobs. And the icing on the cake is that one of the entities he used to make that investment was a shell company with a Bermudan mailing address.

8 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:32:31am

It’s been previously debunked
Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain

We have looked at this issue before, back in January, and thought we had settled it.

But now the Boston Globe has raised the issue again. The story seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and Exchange Commission member, which would have more credibility if the Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats. (Interestingly, “The Real Romney,” a book on the former Massachusetts governor, by Boston Globe reporters, states clearly that he left Bain when he went to run the Olympics and details the turmoil that ensued when he suddenly quit, nearly breaking up the partnership)

We’re considering whether to once again take a deeper look at this, though it really feels like Groundhog Day again. There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)

To accept some of the claims, one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings — potentially worth millions of dollars — so he could say his retirement started in 1999.

The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right).

9 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:34:36am

re: #8 Killgore Trout

It’s been previously debunked
Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain

What about this one?

[Link: www.motherjones.com…]

Reporting on this Romney entity, Vanity Fair noted that “investments in tax havens such as Bermuda raise many questions, because they are in ‘jurisdictions where there is virtually no tax and virtually no compliance,’ as one Miami-based offshore lawyer put it.” With Sankaty, Romney was using a mysterious Bermuda-based entity to invest in a Chinese firm that thrived on US outsourcing.

10 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:35:29am

So FactCheck and the Romney campaign’s argument boils down to “Yes, he was listed by Bain as the guy in charge, but he wasn’t really in charge, so we don’t consider anything bad that happened when he wasn’t in charge to be his fault.”

11 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:36:14am

re: #8 Killgore Trout

It’s been previously debunked
Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain

That’s not a “debunking.” Romney was listed as an executive and continued to draw a six-figure salary. Maybe you should read the Globe’s article before claiming it’s been “debunked.” It hasn’t.

12 Buck  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:37:08am

re: #10 Targetpractice

So FactCheck and the Romney campaign’s argument boils down to “Yes, he was listed by Bain as the guy in charge, but he wasn’t really in charge, so we don’t consider anything bad that happened when he wasn’t in charge to be his fault.”

Investing is offshore companies is NOT a “bad” thing. Everyone who does any investing is always open to it. It is not a crime, or immoral.

It is not even necessarily bad for the US or local economy.

13 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:37:35am

Romney Team Disputes Report He Misled on Bain Departure Date - CNN Political Ticker Blogs

CNN confirmed that an SEC filing from 2001 also lists Romney as the “sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital.”

Roberta Karmel, a former SEC commissioner who served during President Jimmy Carter’s administration, said the documents raise questions about Romney’s role at Bain after the GOP contender says he left the company.

“It’s a criminal offense to file a false document with the SEC,” Karmel said. “And if that isn’t true, then he made a false filing, which is something I don’t think he wants to claim.”

She continued: “If he listed himself and he was getting paid, he was legally responsible.”

“Either you’re the owner or you’re not the owner,” Karmel added. “You can’t have it both ways.”

14 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:37:55am

re: #11 Charles Johnson

That’s not a “debunking.” Romney was listed as an executive and continued to draw a six-figure salary. Maybe you should read the Globe’s article before claiming it’s been “debunked.” It hasn’t.

I read it earlier as did WaPo’s factchecker who rated the claim “absurd”

15 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:38:26am

re: #12 Buck

Investing is offshore companies is NOT a “bad” thing. Everyone who does any investing is always open to it. It is not a crime, or immoral.

What about “bad things,” plural, reads as being strictly about outsourcing?

16 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:38:27am

re: #14 Killgore Trout

I read it earlier as did WaPo’s factchecker who rated the claim “absurd”

And both of you were wrong.

17 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:39:27am

Or, it depends on your definition of the word retire.

To wit, consider Bain Capital’s 1993 $24 million investment in GST Steel, a Kansas City, Missouri steel company. During his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney’s opponent pointed out that Bain Capital had profited to the tune of $50 million – after laying off 750 workers at GST.

And Romney replied that he was no longer at Bain Capital when the layoffs happened. But the SEC filings indicate that Romney was Bain Capital’s CEO in February 2001 when GST declared bankruptcy. And Romney made the same “not there then” claim when the Obama campaign raised this example in May 2012.

If the SEC filings are accurate, that means Romney was again in a grey area when he made the claims about GST. After all, if he was CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital in 2002, he would have had a responsibility to his investors to make key decisions about its investments — like whether GST should file for bankruptcy and fire its staff.

On July 11, Bain Capital issued a statement: “Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.”

To paraphrase Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the word retired is.

If Romney was still a sole stockholder in the firm, his retiring from the company wouldn’t absolve him from all company decisions since he could control company direction as the stockholder (choosing management - trustees/directors, etc.). He might have left day-to-day management up to the directors/trustees, but as a sole shareholder, he’d still have say (and sway).

But we get to that only after trying to figure out whether he was or wasn’t managing director at Bain past the 1999 date he claims to have gone to work on the Olympics. SEC filings, see 5/2000 and 2/2001 indicate that Romney was still with Bain in a management capacity.

That doesn’t tell you the whole picture - whether he was still engaging in day to day management activities at Bain or working 100% for the SLC Olympics, but he’s still a responsible person - especially in the government’s eyes (or potential lawsuits against the firm) pursuant to the filings.

I believe that those filings are accurate and that no criminality was intended with those filings. He was indeed still the managing director at Bain. He was ultimately responsible for acts undertaken by Bain during that period, even if he was off working on the Olympics. What would absolve him of that is the production of evidence showing that he delegated those decisions to others at the firm (that would be office communications or other SEC filings) indicating that Romney wouldn’t be doing day to day work for Bain after date X.

18 Destro  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:40:18am

re: #13 Charles Johnson

Romney Team Disputes Report He Misled on Bain Departure Date - CNN Political Ticker Blogs

Romney is claiming he was an absentee owner at this time. A figure head only. Just the right kind of Republican presidential material!

19 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:40:28am

re: #16 Charles Johnson

And both of you were wrong.

Maybe but I’m betting that the other nonpartisan fact checking sites aren’t going to change their rating on this story. They’ve covered it before.

20 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:40:45am

re: #17 lawhawk

Or, it depends on your definition of the word retire.

I believe that those filings are accurate and that no criminality was intended with those filings. He was indeed still the managing director at Bain. He was ultimately responsible for acts undertaken by Bain during that period, even if he was off working on the Olympics. What would absolve him of that is the production of evidence showing that he delegated those decisions to others at the firm (that would be office communications or other SEC filings) indicating that Romney wouldn’t be doing day to day work for Bain after date X.

If he’s “ultimately responsible for acts undertaken by Bain during that period”, then he’s responsible.

Period.

21 gwangung  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:41:12am

re: #8 Killgore Trout

It’s been previously debunked
Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain

This is absurd.

This story does NOT hinge on a quote from a SEC employee.

It hinges ON THE SEC DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES.

I expect better from you, sir.

22 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:41:19am

“sole shareholder and director” usually doesn’t imply no involvement with a company. On the contrary, it usually implies complete and utter control over all decisions and actions. Oddly enough, the SEC filings with Mitt Romney’s signature support that interpretation.

23 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:41:34am

Please note: Romney created FIVE new investment partnerships during the time in question. It’s going to be hard for him to claim he had no managerial role.

24 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:42:20am

re: #23 Charles Johnson

Please note: Romney created FIVE new investment partnerships during the time in question. It’s going to be hard for him to claim he had no managerial role.

It was his secretary! She was made his delegate and had the ability to sign his name for him!

25 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:43:02am

Again, can you imagine what the reaction would be if Obama had been the “sole shareholder and managing director” of, I don’t know, some company that sold guns to Syria?

What would the “nonpartisan” fact checking outlets be saying then?

26 jaunte  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:43:39am

Felony or responsibility. What a choice.

27 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:43:53am

re: #21 gwangung

This is absurd.

This story does NOT hinge on a quote from a SEC employee.

It hinges ON THE SEC DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES.

I expect better from you, sir.

Agreed. The same documents were previously used in debunking of previous versions of the same story.

The document says that Romney is “a passive, limited partner [with] no management capacity” in many of these funds.

28 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:44:44am

re: #26 jaunte

Felony or responsibility. What a choice.

Just so long as there isn’t any accountability.

29 allegro  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:44:50am

re: #8 Killgore Trout

The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right).

As the “delegator” it IS his responsibility. Period.

30 Mattand  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:44:54am

I think the big picture here is that the idea Romney as President would create jobs for the US is fucking absurd.

31 gwangung  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:45:17am

re: #14 Killgore Trout

I read it earlier as did WaPo’s factchecker who rated the claim “absurd”

Apparently you glossed over the part about being CEO and President.

Being CEO and President pretty much depends on being an active manager.

32 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:45:47am

So Romney created millions and thousands of jobs at Bain, except he was never really ‘active’ at Bain even though he was the CEO and President and Owner. /

33 gwangung  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:46:22am

re: #27 Killgore Trout

Agreed. The same documents were previously used in debunking of previous versions of the same story.

Sloppy, weasel argument. “Some.” “Part”

Specifics, sir. They matter.

Again, I expect better.

34 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:46:40am

re: #32 Bulworth

So Romney created millions and thousands of jobs at Bain, except he was never really ‘active’ at Bain even though he was the CEO and President and Owner. /

“I ran a successful company, except I didn’t.”

35 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:46:42am

re: #31 gwangung

Apparently you glossed over the part about being CEO and President.

Being CEO and President pretty much depends on being an active manager.

Wapo fact checker disagrees with you

There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)

36 gwangung  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:47:25am

re: #35 Killgore Trout

Wapo fact checker disagrees with you

Again, weasel argument.

When you are listed as president and CEO, YOU HAVE A MANAGERIAL ROLE.

37 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:47:39am

re: #32 Bulworth

So Romney created millions and thousands of jobs at Bain, except he was never really ‘active’ at Bain even though he was the CEO and President and Owner. /

He wants it both ways.

38 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:47:48am

re: #35 Killgore Trout

Wapo fact checker disagrees with you

What’s he going to say? “We tried to make Romney look good but as it turns out we were sloppy in our own fact-checking process”?

39 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:47:52am

re: #34 iossarian

“I ran a successful company, except I didn’t.”

I was also a super successful governor of Massachusetts where I set up the…oh forget that.

I’m just awesome, baby, OK?

40 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:47:57am

re: #32 Bulworth

So Romney created millions and thousands of jobs at Bain, except he was never really ‘active’ at Bain even though he was the CEO and President and Owner. /

Every success, he was in total charge of the investment and takes total credit. Every failure or controversial deal, somebody else was in charge, with no way of telling who because Bain refuses to name names.

41 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:48:46am

More previously undisclosed SEC filings in which Romney is listed as CEO and “Managing Director” in 2000 and 2001: No, Romney Didn’t Leave Bain in 1999 | TPM Editors Blog.

42 leftynyc  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:49:07am

re: #1 darthstar

Romney lied. He didn’t ‘mislead’ nor did he ‘misspeak’. The fucker lied.

But he does have a strategy to beat Obama…he’s using Hillary.

[Embedded content]

I think a very effective ad against romney would be statements from the primaries when everyone (including Caribou Barbie) was calling for him to release his tax returns - could also use footage from the Bain 30 minute ad that Newt did. Two can play at that game.

43 dragonath  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:49:23am

re: #38 iossarian

“Romney was only kidding, ha ha. Move along, nothing to see here…”

44 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:51:01am

re: #35 Killgore Trout

Wapo fact checker disagrees with you

There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)

It doesn’t mean you DON”T have a managerial role either. As Lawhawk said:

What would absolve him of that is the production of evidence showing that he delegated those decisions to others at the firm (that would be office communications or other SEC filings) indicating that Romney wouldn’t be doing day to day work for Bain after date X.

Emphasis added.

45 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:51:48am
Chief Executive Officer, President and Managing Director

Filings for 2000 and 2001

46 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:52:05am

It’s been rebunked. Try to keep up.

48 JAFO  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:55:44am

“I was the sole shareholder, CEO, and managing director, and I made a lot of money but didn’t actually DO anything to earn it, vote for me!”

49 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:56:17am

Outsourcing is rapidly turning into a red herring here.

What we need is an economy in which hard work and reasonable risks are rewarded, while reckless risk-taking is not rewarded, and negligent or fraudulent actions are punished.

We seem to have achieved almost the polar opposite.

The question is, which is the better candidate to move us in that direction? I do not see the former head of a venture capital firm as the better choice.

50 William of Orange  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:56:43am

Just a question I hope someone can answer.

I’m not schooled in law, but is Romney still able to run for president if the felony is proven or is that not serious enough to disqualify him for the race?

51 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:57:10am

This is all getting a little bit ridiculous, with the focus on whether or not he made management decions during the time that he was still 100% shareholder.

This is part of the modern view of ‘ownership’, where somehow you can own a company and not be responsible for what it does— and yet, of course, reap all the financial benefits of what he does.

If Romney was the sole shareholder, he is solely responsible for the actions of the company. Period. It doesn’t matter how much he delegated, recused himself, or whatever the fuck. You own it, you’re responsible for it.

52 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:57:46am

This isn’t just about outsourcing - Romney has another big reason to want to hide his association with Bain after 1999: Business Insider:

Beyond determining whether these statements are accurate—or whether Bain misled the SEC or Romney has been misleading the public—the reason this issue is important is that Romney wants to disavow responsibility for anything Bain or Bain companies did after early 1999.

And one of the things that Bain did after early 1999, as Dan Primack of Fortune points out, is invest in a company called Stericycle whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses.

For obvious reasons, an investment in a company that performed this service might hurt Romney’s standing with the right-to-life voters in the Republican party, even though Romney was pro-choice at the time the investment was made.

53 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:58:38am

re: #51 Obdicut

Corporations are people, and although I am sole owner and CEO of Myself, Inc., but I retired after 1998 and left day-to-day operations with my wife…

54 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:58:39am

re: #51 Obdicut

This is all getting a little bit ridiculous, with the focus on whether or not he made management decions during the time that he was still 100% shareholder.

This is part of the modern view of ‘ownership’, where somehow you can own a company and not be responsible for what it does— and yet, of course, reap all the financial benefits of what he does.

If Romney was the sole shareholder, he is solely responsible for the actions of the company. Period. It doesn’t matter how much he delegated, recused himself, or whatever the fuck. You own it, you’re responsible for it.

Precisely. Even as sole shareholder, he had the power to decide who was in charge and what course the company would take. Saying that you’re sole shareholder and yet have no control over the company whatsoever is absurd.

55 gwangung  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:58:56am

re: #51 Obdicut

This is all getting a little bit ridiculous, with the focus on whether or not he made management decions during the time that he was still 100% shareholder.

This is part of the modern view of ‘ownership’, where somehow you can own a company and not be responsible for what it does— and yet, of course, reap all the financial benefits of what he does.

If Romney was the sole shareholder, he is solely responsible for the actions of the company. Period. It doesn’t matter how much he delegated, recused himself, or whatever the fuck. You own it, you’re responsible for it.

That’s the common sense view.

56 allegro  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:59:18am

The more we learn about Romney the more reprehensible he is. His performance yesterday at the NAACP combined with his ugly racist comments at a later speech, his vicious business practices making his fortune by destroying the lives of thousands of Americans, his deliberate lies on top of more lies… that he is the best the Republican party has to offer says some pretty awful things not just about the party but the state of our country. I know that a large percentage of Republicans can’t stand the guy - to their credit - but that they would still vote for him makes my head spin.

I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

57 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 10:59:43am
58 nines09  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:00:06am

re: #51 Obdicut

This is all getting a little bit ridiculous, with the focus on whether or not he made management decions during the time that he was still 100% shareholder.

This is part of the modern view of ‘ownership’, where somehow you can own a company and not be responsible for what it does— and yet, of course, reap all the financial benefits of what he does.

If Romney was the sole shareholder, he is solely responsible for the actions of the company. Period. It doesn’t matter how much he delegated, recused himself, or whatever the fuck. You own it, you’re responsible for it.

Yes, Virginia. Corporations are people too. Just like Mitt.

59 dragonath  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:00:32am

Tim F. at balloon juice has a topic on this very subject. That same fact checker who “debunked” this story also called Obama a liar for putting out an ad saying Romney was a corporate raider.

Yeah.

60 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:00:46am

re: #56 allegro

The more we learn about Romney the more reprehensible he is. His performance yesterday at the NAACP combined with his ugly racist comments at a later speech, his vicious business practices making his fortune by destroying the lives of thousands of Americans, his deliberate lies on top of more lies… that he is the best the Republican party has to offer says some pretty awful things not just about the party but the state of our country. I know that a large percentage of Republicans can’t stand the guy - to their credit - but that they would still vote for him makes my head spin.

I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

He makes me wish Bush was still the party’s standard bearer- you have no idea how hard it was to say that but it’s really how I feel for all Bush’s flaws.

61 Kid A  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:01:16am

So, has Romneybot received his software update to deal with this recent development yet?

62 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:01:23am

The “defense” of Romney seems to boil down to hair-splitting, namely an acknowledgment of the SEC filings, but arguing that there’s leeway within the documents to say he wasn’t “really” in charge.

63 jaunte  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:01:47am

re: #47 Charles Johnson

Business Insider: Sorry, Mitt Romney, You Can’t Be Chairman, CEO, and President of a Company and Not Be Responsible for What It Does…

“Today’s bombshell report by the Boston Globe that Mitt Romney may have remained in charge of Bain Capital for three years after he claimed to have left has the potential to destroy Romney’s credibility.”

Had to chuckle at that one. Was there any before this?

64 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:02:23am

re: #59 Be Zorch, Daddio

Tim F. at balloon juice has a topic on this very subject. That same fact checker who “debunked” this story also called Obama a liar for putting out an ad saying Romney was a corporate raider.

Yeah.

NONPARTISAN

65 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:02:24am

re: #54 Targetpractice

Precisely. Even as sole shareholder, he had the power to decide who was in charge and what course the company would take. Saying that you’re sole shareholder and yet have no control over the company whatsoever is absurd.

At best, he could say that he was negligent, and that he didn’t actually make any of the decisions he was responsible for, that he completely neglected any of his responsibilities as CEO, owner, president, etc.

Is that really a quality we want in a guy who’s running for president? Someone who abandons his responsibilities like that?

This is really absurd. What Romney did is fine if you’re a wheeler-dealer CEO type, just out to make as much money as possible. The laws are structured so you can be CEO and not make any decisions, where you can just sign whatever shit you need to, and pass off responsibility while raking in cash. That’s fine— but it’s exactly the opposite qualities of someone that you want leading a country. You don’t want the guy who’s gaming the system to get the best results for himself.

One thing I’m glad of is that I think this is getting people to see more clearly how businesses operate, and how business leadership is not in any way similar to governmental leadership.

66 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:02:36am

re: #50 William of Orange

Just a question I hope someone can answer.

I’m not schooled in law, but is Romney still able to run for president if the felony is proven or is that not serious enough to disqualify him for the race?

I think he can still run until he’s convicted. That looks very unlikely.

67 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:03:01am

re: #61 Mistaken for Strangers By Your Own Friends

So, has Romneybot received his software update to deal with this recent development yet?

Last I heard he was in Montana telling fundraisers that the only reason why he got booed by supporters of ACA at the NAACP is because they want free stuff. The guy just doesn’t get it and I don’t think he ever will.

68 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:03:40am

re: #59 Be Zorch, Daddio

Tim F. at balloon juice has a topic on this very subject. That same fact checker who “debunked” this story also called Obama a liar for putting out an ad saying Romney was a corporate raider.

Yeah.

The other non partisan fact checking organizations came to the same conclusion.

69 allegro  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:03:56am

re: #60 HappyWarrior

He makes me wish Bush was still the party’s standard bearer- you have no idea how hard it was to say that but it’s really how I feel for all Bush’s flaws.

I know, right? For my intense dislike of Bush from his days in Texas through to his destructive presidency, I could still find positives about the man. Romney? Not a damn thing. He just gets uglier by the day.

70 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:03:57am

re: #59 Be Zorch, Daddio

Tim F. at balloon juice has a topic on this very subject. That same fact checker who “debunked” this story also called Obama a liar for putting out an ad saying Romney was a corporate raider.

Yeah.

Did they check that fact-checkers political contributions?

//

71 iossarian  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:04:04am

re: #67 HappyWarrior

Last I heard he was in Montana telling fundraisers that the only reason why he got booed by supporters of ACA at the NAACP is because they want free stuff. The guy just doesn’t get it and I don’t think he ever will.

“Those black folk just want handouts!”

“My website is now available for you to make donations to my campaign!”

72 Kid A  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:06:41am

re: #71 iossarian

“Those black folk just want handouts!”

“My website is now available for you to make donations to my campaign!”

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PARTY OF SLAVERY! AND THE KLAN, TOO!!!

/heard on Rush’s show today

73 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:06:55am

re: #69 allegro

I know, right? For my intense dislike of Bush from his days in Texas through to his destructive presidency, I could still find positives about the man. Romney? Not a damn thing. He just gets uglier by the day.

It’s all so surreal but yeah.

74 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:07:40am

I am shocked, SHOCKED I say to discover that Mitt Romney may not always be telling the truth when he speaks.

75 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:07:44am

I own my Ford pickup but I have delegated its daily operation to my cousin Dale in return for a share of the revenue from his garage sale pickings. I am therefore not responsible when he runs it through the front of the local Dairy Queen and does $350,000 worth of damage.

76 nines09  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:08:30am

Romney Bot 2012 is like that sleazeball car salesman down at the “Bad Credit, No Credit, Dead or On The Run, We Sell Used Cars” lot. He’s got one in back just for you folks. With easy payments weekly, forever.

77 Kid A  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:08:38am

re: #75 Shiplord Kirel

As long as the Blizzard machine stays intact, he can do all the damage he wants.

78 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:08:39am

FBI - Zimmerman Not a racist

New records released by prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder case show federal civil rights investigators interviewed dozens of his friends, neighbors and coworkers, but found no one who said Zimmerman was a racist.

FBI agents interviewed an array of people involved in Zimmerman’s life, including several coworkers. None said they had ever known him to show racial bias. One who saw him the day after the shooting said Zimmerman was “beat up physically and emotionally.

Because of course EVERYONE was telling the upfront truth. Also, I wonder what the racial makeup of the interviewees was?

79 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:08:48am

re: #72 Mistaken for Strangers By Your Own Friends

/heard on Rush’s show today

They always say that but ignore the fact that Nixon and Reagan both courted the old Dixiecrats. And Rush should know this since he had a fit at Ken Mehlman for admitting that the Southern Strategy was not the right thing to do but that was before Obama was president.

80 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:08:53am

re: #65 Obdicut

It’s a style it seems he’s brought along with him for years now. I’ve talked with those who lived through the Romney governorship and the general theme was “He was there for only half his term, the rest of the time he was out campaigning for president.” Charlie Pierce noted that at least Sarah Palin had the decency to quit before she stopped acting as governor.

81 Kid A  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:09:18am

re: #76 Some Assembly Required, Batteries Not Included,

Romney Bot 2012 is like that sleazeball car salesman down at the “Bad Credit, No Credit, Dead or On The Run, We Sell Used Cars” lot. He’s got one in back just for you folks. With easy payments weekly, forever.

I have an AMAZING deal for you today, pal. 3% interest!….a week.

82 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:09:24am

re: #75 Shiplord Kirel

I own my Ford pickup but I have delegated its daily operation to my cousin Dale in return for a share of the revenue from his garage sale pickings. I am therefore not responsible when he runs it through the front of the local Dairy Queen and does $350,000 worth of damage.

Your Dairy Queen must be nicer than our Dairy Queen.

83 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:09:54am

re: #66 Killgore Trout

I think he can still run until he’s convicted. That looks very unlikely.

I believe felony charges are a badge of honor in the GOP.

84 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:10:03am

re: #82 wrenchwench

Your Dairy Queen must be nicer than our Dairy Queen.

The one near my parent’s house has a working bathroom. Beat that.

85 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:10:18am

Proposal for Romney Attack ad:

*catchy musical intro followed by clips of an awkward looking Romney*

He shows no emotion…no matter the circumstance
He has only one tone of voice.
He puts Ben Stein to shame in the bland department.

He is…the most UNinteresting man in the world..

86 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:10:48am

re: #80 Targetpractice

It’s a style it seems he’s brought along with him for years now. I’ve talked with those who lived through the Romney governorship and the general theme was “He was there for only half his term, the rest of the time he was out campaigning for president.” Charlie Pierce noted that at least Sarah Palin had the decency to quit before she stopped acting as governor.

I think he’s been running for president since he realized he would not win re-election 2006. Hopefully Obama can put his presidential aspirations out of their misery.

87 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:11:41am

re: #86 HappyWarrior

I think he’s been running for president since he realized he would not win re-election 2006. Hopefully Obama can put his presidential aspirations out of their misery.

No! I want Romney to run again against Hillary in 2016.

88 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:11:57am

The Wash Post factchecker claims, in response to today’s Boston Globe article, that there’s ‘no there there’ because the article quotes an SEC person with Democratic ties, as if that has anything to do with the actual SEC filings.

Waiting for the Wash Post ‘factchecker’ to recheck his facts.

89 Kid A  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:12:25am

re: #85 dragonfire1981

Proposal for Romney Attack ad:

*catchy musical intro followed by clips of an awkward looking Romney*

He shows no emotion…no matter the circumstance
He has only one tone of voice.
He puts Ben Stein to shame in the bland department.

He is…the most UNinteresting man in the world..

“He once drove to Canada with a large canine attached to the roof and showed not a hint of shame on his face.”

90 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:13:32am

re: #88 Bulworth

The Wash Post factchecker claims, in response to today’s Boston Globe article, that there’s ‘no there there’ because the article quotes an SEC person with Democratic ties, as if that has anything to do with the actual SEC filings.

Waiting for the Wash Post ‘factchecker’ to recheck his facts.

Killing the messenger, what a shock. *rolls eyes*

91 Kid A  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:13:33am

re: #85 dragonfire1981

Proposal for Romney Attack ad:

*catchy musical intro followed by clips of an awkward looking Romney*

He shows no emotion…no matter the circumstance
He has only one tone of voice.
He puts Ben Stein to shame in the bland department.

He is…the most UNinteresting man in the world..

“I don’t always slice, dice and rip companies apart. But when I do, I choose Bain Capital.”

92 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:13:41am

re: #87 darthstar

No! I want Romney to run again against Hillary in 2016.

Wouldn’t shock me if he tried again but I think Republicans are even tired of Mitt.

93 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:13:47am

re: #88 Bulworth

The Wash Post factchecker claims, in response to today’s Boston Globe article, that there’s ‘no there there’ because the article quotes an SEC person with Democratic ties, as if that has anything to do with the actual SEC filings.

Waiting for the Wash Post ‘factchecker’ to recheck his facts.

No, The fact checker points out that the partisan source for the article is incorrect that the SEC filings are unusual or illegal.

94 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:14:43am

Mitt Romney needs to end all of his public statements with “Yeah, that’s the ticket…”

Image: 08-jon-lovitz1.jpg

95 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:15:04am

re: #93 Killgore Trout

No, The fact checker points out that the partisan source for the article is incorrect that the SEC filings are unusual or illegal.

doesn’t mean the ‘partisan source’ is wrong. The fact checker just didn’t like that the article didn’t mention the source of the quote’s partisan ties.

96 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:16:42am

re: #88 Bulworth

The Wash Post factchecker claims, in response to today’s Boston Globe article, that there’s ‘no there there’ because the article quotes an SEC person with Democratic ties, as if that has anything to do with the actual SEC filings.

Waiting for the Wash Post ‘factchecker’ to recheck his facts.

A very weak response:

Mitt Romney and His Departure From Bain

But now the Boston Globe has raised the issue again. The story seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and Exchange Commission member, which would have more credibility if the Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats.

This is just wrong. There are documents. The story does NOT “hinge on a quote” from anyone, Democrat or not. The documents state unequivocally that Romney was managing director of Bain Capital until 2002.

97 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:17:16am

So if I’m understanding all of this correctly, are the ‘fact-checkers’ and Team Romney asserting that to be the CEO and President and Managing Director of a company is not inconsistent with having no control or responsibility over that company’s decisions?

Just to make sure I’m following the logic here.

98 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:18:11am

re: #95 Bulworth

doesn’t mean the ‘partisan source’ is wrong. The fact checker just didn’t like that the article didn’t mention the source of the quote’s partisan ties.

Because the only thing new in the Boston globe article is the quotes from the partisan source. They reposted their previous debunking of the SEC filings which they still stand by.

99 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:18:32am

[Link: jayrosen.tumblr.com…]

But what of a strategy that incorporates…

1.) The lessons of the climate change debate, which is that you can run a political campaign against verifiable facts, and thereby weaken those facts in the public’s mind?

2.) The Palin method, which is that you can invent stuff and stick to it when it is shown to be false because culture war politics feeds off the noise and friction when fictional claims are fact-checked by the mainstream media?

3.) David Frum’s observation: “Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics.”

4. Plain old-fashioned secrecy, as in: don’t release information, don’t explain.

100 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:18:47am

re: #97 Bulworth

So if I’m understanding all of this correctly, are the ‘fact-checkers’ and Team Romney asserting that to be the CEO and President and Managing Director of a company is not inconsistent with having no control or responsibility over that company’s decisions?

Just to make sure I’m following the logic here.

Their “logic” is that the filings say something to the effect that, though he had all the titles to be the guy in charge, somebody else was really calling the shots while he’d bowed out to take charge with the Olympics. Thing is, even if he wasn’t the guy calling all the shots, he’s still the guy in the top chair. He still bears responsibility when the company does shit that looks bad, if not illegal or unethical.

101 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:19:31am

re: #97 Bulworth

So if I’m understanding all of this correctly, are the ‘fact-checkers’ and Team Romney asserting that to be the CEO and President and Managing Director of a company is not inconsistent with having no control or responsibility over that company’s decisions?

Just to make sure I’m following the logic here.

There’s really three options:

1. Criminal filings with the SEC. Least likely.

2. Filings with SEC are accurate, Romney was CEO, sole shareholder, president, but made no decisions and shirked all responsibility.

3. Filings with SEC are accurate, Romney was CEO, sole shareholder, president, and exerted control over decisions.

102 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:19:55am

re: #97 Bulworth

So if I’m understanding all of this correctly, are the ‘fact-checkers’ and Team Romney asserting that to be the CEO and President and Managing Director of a company is not inconsistent with having no control or responsibility over that company’s decisions?

Just to make sure I’m following the logic here.

I guess they’re saying that Mitt profited and put his name on Bain during that time but had no direct action in what they actually did during that time. I find that hard to believe or if it’s true, it’s a good indictment of why saying the government ought to be run like a business is nonsense. It seems to me that Mitt Romney wants to embrace the successes Bain had but run away from its failures and controversial dealings.

103 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:20:02am

re: #97 Bulworth

So if I’m understanding all of this correctly, are the ‘fact-checkers’ and Team Romney asserting that to be the CEO and President and Managing Director of a company is not inconsistent with having no control or responsibility over that company’s decisions?

Just to make sure I’m following the logic here.

It’s a legal distinction on the tax forms. The fact checker explains their conclusion pretty well although the article is a bit of a long read.

104 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:21:22am

It’s easier to prove Romney was at Bain through 2002 than it is for Romney to prove he wasn’t there. Welcome to “Prove you have no WMDs Saddam” redux. You can’t prove a negative, and Mitt…you are a negative.

105 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:22:06am

re: #103 Killgore Trout

It’s a legal distinction on the tax forms. The fact checker explains their conclusion pretty well although the article is a bit of a long read.

They can’t have it both ways, Kilgore. They can’t say he had all the titles to be the head honcho, but he bears no responsibility for what the company was doing while he was away.

106 Mattand  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:22:08am

re: #51 Obdicut

This is all getting a little bit ridiculous, with the focus on whether or not he made management decions during the time that he was still 100% shareholder.

This is part of the modern view of ‘ownership’, where somehow you can own a company and not be responsible for what it does— and yet, of course, reap all the financial benefits of what he does.

If Romney was the sole shareholder, he is solely responsible for the actions of the company. Period. It doesn’t matter how much he delegated, recused himself, or whatever the fuck. You own it, you’re responsible for it.

Christ, this is the defense I hear of Bush 43 all of the time in a nutshell. Credit for all the good stuff, none of the responsibility for the screw ups.

I guess it’s something they teach at Conservative School.

107 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:23:10am

Here’s another complicating factor, a retroactive 10-year severance package that was concluded in 2002 and retroactive to 1999:

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Contradictions concerning the length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital add to the uncertainty and questions about his finances. Bain is the primary source of Romney’s wealth, which is estimated to be more than $25o million. But how his wealth has been invested, especially in a variety of Bain partnerships and other investment vehicles, remains difficult to decipher because of a lack of transparency.

The Obama campaign and other Democrats have raised questions about his unwillingness to release tax returns filed before 2010; his offshore assets, which include investment entities based in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands and a recently closed bank account in Switzerland; and a set of “blind trusts” that meet the Massachusetts standards for public officials but not the more rigorous bar set by the federal government.

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

108 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:23:22am

The fact-checker doesn’t address the titles for Romney on the SEC filings including CEO, President and Managing Director.

Still waiting.

109 William of Orange  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:23:46am

Dammit!!

Where’s the American equivalent of Jeremy Paxman!

I’d looooove to see Mitt opposite of him. This clip is pure candy! Fun starts at about 4 minutes.

110 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:23:56am

Charles has pointed out another reason why Mitt be going back and fourth on his involvement. The investment in the firm disposing fetuses is something that if it became a big enough issue would really hurt his credibility with his base and really bring into question his “pro-life” creds. And honestly though I’m pro-choice, I understand why pro-lifers would be pissed about that. The guy tells them he’s anti abortion yet it would appear had no problem personal profiting from its legality.

111 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:23:59am

re: #105 Targetpractice

They can’t have it both ways, Kilgore. They can’t say he had all the titles to be the head honcho, but he bears no responsibility for what the company was doing while he was away.

It depends on who you mean by “they”. The fact checkers aren’t giving credit to Mitt for Bain’s successes while he wasn’t in charge of Bain. Mitt my try to claim that but that’s not what the factcheckers are saying.

112 darthstar  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:25:32am

BTW, Charles…thanks for fixing the title…time to run…in a meeting.

113 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:25:48am

re: #108 Bulworth

The fact-checker doesn’t address the titles for Romney on the SEC filings including CEO, President and Managing Director.

Still waiting.

Yes, I think they do….

There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)

To accept some of the claims, one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings — potentially worth millions of dollars — so he could say his retirement started in 1999.

For interested readers, below is a summary of what we, FactCheck.org and Fortune magazine have concluded.

they continue to explain their point in some detail.

114 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:26:13am

re: #111 Killgore Trout

It depends on who you mean by “they”. The fact checkers aren’t giving credit to Mitt for Bain’s successes while he wasn’t in charge of Bain. Mitt my try to claim that but that’s not what the factcheckers are saying.

The fact-checkers, like I said above, are splitting hairs. They’re focused entirely on management, i.e. was he calling the shots, and declaring that that’s not possible because he claims he’d delegated those to somebody else. But who he delegated them to, who was calling the shots, is a blank because Bain refuses to let anybody look at the books.

115 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:28:59am

A film about a ruler who wants to leave the business of ruling to his eldest son but retain the title and his roal standard. It all goes to hell in a handbasket as soon as the son requests the standard back:

Ran by Akira Kurosawa

116 Eventual Carrion  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:29:08am

re: #97 Bulworth

So if I’m understanding all of this correctly, are the ‘fact-checkers’ and Team Romney asserting that to be the CEO and President and Managing Director of a company is not inconsistent with having no control or responsibility over that company’s decisions?

Just to make sure I’m following the logic here.

But they need HUGE compensation so they can keep doing noting to bring in money for the company. Fucking welfare queens.

117 Bulworth  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:29:58am

re: #113 Killgore Trout

Yes, I think they do…


they continue to explain their point in some detail.

No. They never address the CEO, President or Managing Director titles. The Post just refers back to previous ‘debunking’ articles that disregard Romney’s ‘ownership’ role.

118 JAFO  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:32:26am

From AmericaBlog

…contrary to what the Romney campaign is now alleging, Romney didn’t say in federal documents that he “wasn’t actively managing Bain.” He said that he had “retired.” And retired means you’re gone. And Romney wasn’t “gone” at all. He remained the CEO, chair of the board, and sole stockholder, we now know from SEC documents filed by Bain.

So either Romney lied in his federal filing, or Bain lied in theirs. Either way, someone may very well be guilty of a felony.

119 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:33:00am

Thing is, Romney had to be aware that he was listed as “Managing Director” of Bain Capital in 2001, all the time that he was blithely claiming he left in 1999. Apparently he was hoping to obfuscate the issue enough that it would go away. Bad choice.

At the very least, he was misleading the public with his claims.

120 victor27  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:33:36am

The concluding sentence in the Boston Globe piece seems to be the most damning:

In Romney’s 2002 race for governor, he testified before the state Ballot Law Commission that his separation from Bain in 1999 had been a “leave of absence” and not a final departure.

So, did he take a leave of absence? That would mean he came back at some point. When? Or did he really “leave leave” in ‘99, but mischaracterize the separation in his testimony?

121 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:33:51am

Seething butthurt:

Our best info is that Team Romney was clueless and cancelled the fundraiser after all the blog posts and RT’s made them look stupid.

122 Eventual Carrion  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:35:36am

re: #108 Bulworth

The fact-checker doesn’t address the titles for Romney on the SEC filings including CEO, President and Managing Director.

Still waiting.

Wonder what title he used for those filings in the years BEFORE he ‘left’ in 1999? Did he use the exact same titles? Did they change meaning after he ‘left’ but was still calling himself that? Hell even a Limited Liability Corp has to report who is in change of the company at any time. Who did he leave in charge and where is the paperwork for that transition?

123 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:36:06am

re: #113 Killgore Trout

Yes, I think they do…

they continue to explain their point in some detail.

As they say:

To accept some of the claims, one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings — potentially worth millions of dollars — so he could say his retirement started in 1999.

I’m perfectly willing to believe that. Therefore, the claims are not absurd.

124 leftynyc  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:37:40am

re: #120 victor27

The concluding sentence in the Boston Globe piece seems to be the most damning:


So, did he take a leave of absence? That would mean he came back at some point. When? Or did he really “leave leave” in ‘99, but mischaracterize the separation in his testimony?

Testified? As in under oath? Interesting.

125 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 11:59:35am

re: #107 lawhawk

This is the bit that I find most suspect - and highlighted previously:

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

That would seem to indicate that he was with the company through 2002, but in acknowledging that he was doing Olympics stuff or not as much of the day to day, he made the separation retroactive to 1999. It would still keep him on the hook for the period between 1999 and the 2002 date when the severance agreement was signed though.

And if you’re inclined to dig deeper, this is the place to look - how and why he sought a back-dated severance from 1999, rather than from 2002. Were there additional tax consequences of that move (possibly), or was there something within the management decisions that he wanted to address by negotiating the severance from 1999 instead of 2002 when the severance was agreed upon.

126 gwangung  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 12:17:49pm

re: #113 Killgore Trout

Yes, I think they do…

they continue to explain their point in some detail.

No. They don’t. They completely ignore it.

It appears this fact checker thinks a 10K is a Romney bet.

As someone who DOES deal with LLCs and SEC documents on a regular basis, this fact checker is not showing me that he knows what he’s talking about.

127 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 12:23:58pm

re: #82 wrenchwench

Your Dairy Queen must be nicer than our Dairy Queen.

DQ is fine dining in my neck of the weeds. Don’t believe it? The alternative is McDonald’s.

128 Archangelus  Thu, Jul 12, 2012 3:06:47pm

re: #85 dragonfire1981


“He once said corporations are people, because, compared to him, they are”
“When Ambien can’t sleep, it takes him”
“Paint watches HIM dry”

;)


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 100 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 264 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1