What I’m seeing in this whole Romney Bain thing is that people are making two different arguments, as in:
1. Mitt was sole stockholder, CEO, President, and on some documents, Managing Director from 1999 to 2002. This we know from said documentation is true. And…
2. Though Mitt was listed on legal documents with these titles, they didn’t really mean anything because he wasn’t coming in to work during that time to hands-on manage the details of his company. This, too, appears to be true generally though it is documented that he attended board meetings and had some other dealings with a few companies that Bain bought/owned.

If one is arguing from point 1, Mitt is guilty as charged, facts are in. As his titles claim, he was responsible for the actions of his company regardless of his minute-by-minute involvement with those investments he now wants to gain as much distance away from as possible.

If arguing point 2, you can question minutia and semantics to argue the entirely unprovable-either-way claim that because Mitt wasn’t making the daily decisions then the details of those decisions cannot be placed at his feet. This is the argument I see the fact checkers making.

Both attributes can be true. It comes down to interpreting the idea/meaning of “responsibility.”