Mitt Romney, liar.

[Ziggurat]

I'm glad you agree with me.

I'm not. Note the "if".

Why is that "incoherent"?

Because what you're arguing doesn't actually matter to what you claim the issue really is.

Claiming something is a legal requirement you had no choice about after you have made the choice that makes it a requirement is certainly no excuse for contradictory statements.

No it wouldn't be. Furthermore, something actually being a legal requirement you had no choice about also wouldn't be an excuse for contradictory statements. So it doesn't matter to the issue of the contradictory statements whether or not the listing was required. You claim that the contradictory statements are the real issue, yet you actually spend your time arguing about something that makes no difference to that issue. That makes no sense.

Fixated on it? I'm responding to posts where you try to hide what the issue really is.

By helping me hide it? What's the logic behind arguing this point that is irrelevant to your stated position, rather than arguing only what you think the real issue is? Again, that makes no sense.

Wait a second, you're asking me for evidence that the claim "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital" is deceptive if we assume for the sake of argument that Romney was not in fact the CEO, President and controlling person of the company?

I'm asking for evidence that the SEC was deceived, yes. You see, the SEC is not a person, it's a bureaucracy. It creates filing requirements, it has definitions for the terms it uses, etc. If the filing met all the requirements, if the words they used matched the definitions that the SEC expected, then I don't see a case for any deception. You have not provided any evidence that this is the case.

But as a reminder, this is an issue that you're claiming is not the real issue. Yet here you are, spending quite a bit of your effort on it. You want to blame me for that, but really, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

If a company doesn't need a CEO in order to operate but only needs someone designated as CEO for a legal filing, then the best choice to list as the CEO is a person who has retired from the company?

Sure, why not? Since he voluntarily stepped down, one can have confidence that he wasn't going to try to abuse a titular role to try to do more.

It is proper to list on legal documents someone as the CEO and president of a company who isn't even an employee of the company?

What exactly is improper about it?

This is an old issue? It's been known all along that Romney was listed as the CEO and president for at least 3 years after he retired from Bain?

SEC filings are public. So, yes.

 

[RandFan]

What exactly is improper about it?

Which would seem to raise the question, what purpose is disclosure to the SEC in the first place? If it doesn't matter then what's the point? Look, I don't know. Perhaps disclosure is pointless.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which would seem to raise the question, what purpose is disclosure to the SEC in the first place?

If all the SEC filing consisted of was a statement about who the CEO was, then it would be hard to consider that information incidental. But somehow, I don't think that's the case. If the SEC filings included a lot more information (as seems likely, I haven't checked myself), then I find it perfectly plausible that some of the information requested is incidental. For example, it might serve no purpose at all except to have someone to hold legally responsible in the event of a problem with other information in the filing (which there's no indication of).

 

[Brainster]

How much you in for on Romney winning, then? (gets pencil)

ETA: Also, hey guys, I'm right here. I would have posted "Coins never change", but I really felt it was just being used as a red herring to the actual issue. We done now?

Well, let's just use the odds right now. I'll let you choose my avatar for a month if Obama wins. You let me choose your avatar for two months if Romney wins.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Sure, why not? Since he voluntarily stepped down, one can have confidence that he wasn't going to try to abuse a titular role to try to do more.

A CEO and a president who isn't even an employee of the company? I'm trying to understand how a person can be the president of a company without being part of the company. Isn't the president of a company part of the company by definition?

What exactly is improper about it?

Listing someone as an employee who isn't an employee?

 

[Ziggurat]

A CEO and a president who isn't even an employee of the company?

How do you define employee? That's not a rhetorical question.

Listing someone as an employee who isn't an employee?

Why is that improper? Furthermore, until you answer the above question, I don't have reason to conclude it's even true.

 

[Brainster]

Meet the newest group of nutbar conspiracy theorists: The Bainers!

 

[BenBurch]

You'd like to think this is a CT, Brainster, no doubt. Too bad your guy shot himself in the foot.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

How do you define employee? That's not a rhetorical question.

I define an employee as someone who signs a contract for that company while acting in the capacity of managing director of that company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/mitt-romney-bain-sec_n_1671819.html

 

[RandFan]

If all the SEC filing consisted of was a statement about who the CEO was, then it would be hard to consider that information incidental. But somehow, I don't think that's the case. If the SEC filings included a lot more information (as seems likely, I haven't checked myself), then I find it perfectly plausible that some of the information requested is incidental. For example, it might serve no purpose at all except to have someone to hold legally responsible in the event of a problem with other information in the filing (which there's no indication of).

So, you don't know. You are just speculating like everyone else. Well, I appreciate your honesty. I don't know either but I'm not going to debate as though I do. It strikes me as reasonable to avoid arguing when one is ignorant. But obviously that is just me.

 

[BenBurch]

I define an employee as someone who signs a contract for that company while acting in the capacity of managing director of that company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/mitt-romney-bain-sec_n_1671819.html

They have an actual contract he signed while supposedly not there?

If they do, that is definitive.

He is lying.

OH, Republicans?

Your candidate lied to you and lied to the American people.

How does that make you feel?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From a recent CNN article:

"There's nothing wrong with being associated with Bain Capital, of course," Romney said in an interview with CNN's Jim Acosta. "But the truth is that I left any role at Bain Capital in February of 1999."

Except that he was still drawing a $100K salary. He, his wife and his lawyer said he had an active, though part time, role in investment decisions in the company.

And SEC filings say, "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

So either he's lying now, or he lied when he signed the SEC filings.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If all the SEC filing consisted of was a statement about who the CEO was, then it would be hard to consider that information incidental. But somehow, I don't think that's the case. If the SEC filings included a lot more information (as seems likely, I haven't checked myself), then I find it perfectly plausible that some of the information requested is incidental. For example, it might serve no purpose at all except to have someone to hold legally responsible in the event of a problem with other information in the filing (which there's no indication of).

The fact that the statements made to the SEC that Romney was in control of the company may have been incidental to the purposes of the filings doesn't make those statements disappear. He actually made them, and now he's contradicting them.

So one way or another, he lied.

And by the way, holding that named person legally responsible for statements made in the filings is pretty much exactly what we're talking about, isn't it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What exactly is improper about it?

Again, you really want to know what is improper (or deceitful) about a statement to the SEC that says, "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital" if we also assume that Romney was not in fact the person controlling the company?

 

[DavidJames]

From what I'm reading, I think the Obama supporters pushing this in the media should have kept it low keyed until the issue could be fully vetted. Perhaps just raising questions versus flat accusations.

The Huffington Post article seems to be support the claims. I think the spinning may twist, pretzel like, to be one that might resemble the one attempting to determine the definition of 'is'.

 

[BenBurch]

The Huffington Post article seems to be support the claims. I think the spinning may twist, pretzel like, to be one that might resemble the one attempting to determine the definition of 'is'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because what you're arguing doesn't actually matter to what you claim the issue really is.

Rubbish. I have pointed out repeatedly that even if we use your circular reasoning (assume that Romney isn't lying now in order to prove that he isn't lying now, basically), we are still left with the problem that he lied to the SEC.

Furthermore, something actually being a legal requirement you had no choice about also wouldn't be an excuse for contradictory statements.

What exactly was it that Romney had no choice about? Whether to lie to the SEC or not?

So it doesn't matter to the issue of the contradictory statements whether or not the listing was required. You claim that the contradictory statements are the real issue, yet you actually spend your time arguing about something that makes no difference to that issue. That makes no sense.

Pay attention this time. Yes, I believe the real issue is that Romney has been caught red handed making contradictory statements. If his present position is true, the lie might constitute a felony.

I have also been addressing your arguments where you claim that this isn't the issue. I've pointed out serious flaws in your argument for the position that Romney was not actively involved in running the company. I have repeated the 3 lines of evidence that the Obama campaign offered. You have attempted to refute 2 of these lines of evidence (the salary and the SEC filing) by asking me to assume that Romney was not actively involved in running the company. Otherwise, your argument against those 2 lines of evidence is meaningless.

I'm asking for evidence that the SEC was deceived, yes.

And you have been given it. The SEC filings said that Romney is the person running the company, but Romney claims he was not. So if he's not lying now to the American public, he lied then to the SEC.

You see, the SEC is not a person, it's a bureaucracy. It creates filing requirements, it has definitions for the terms it uses, etc. If the filing met all the requirements, if the words they used matched the definitions that the SEC expected, then I don't see a case for any deception.

So now your theory is that the terms in the statement, "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital" have some technical meaning that is consistent with Romney's claim that he " left any role at Bain Capital in February of 1999".

I think the burden of evidence on that claim is entirely on you. I see no reasonable way of construing these statements to be consistent with one another.

Yet here you are, spending quite a bit of your effort on it. You want to blame me for that, but really, you have no one to blame but yourself.

It was you who claimed that the "legal requirement" defense somehow refuted the evidence that Romney did in fact have a continuing role with the company. As you fully know by now, I've pointed out that your argument on that point hinges on circularity (asking me first to assume that Romney had no continuing role in the company).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which would seem to raise the question, what purpose is disclosure to the SEC in the first place? If it doesn't matter then what's the point? Look, I don't know. Perhaps disclosure is pointless.

I doubt it, since even the FactCheck article (that rejects the Obama campaign's claims) said that if he did lie to the SEC it would be a very serious matter. As mentioned earlier, they used this as an argument from consequences rather than on the merits to conclude that Romney didn't lie to the SEC.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rubbish. I have pointed out repeatedly that even if we use your circular reasoning (assume that Romney isn't lying now in order to prove that he isn't lying now, basically), we are still left with the problem that he lied to the SEC.

No, we aren't left with that problem. But there's an irony in your accusation against me: you're assuming that putting Romney's name on the SEC filing if he was only pro forma CEO constitutes lying to the SEC. But you haven't demonstrated that this would be the case.

Pay attention this time. Yes, I believe the real issue is that Romney has been caught red handed making contradictory statements. If his present position is true, the lie might constitute a felony.

Not likely.

I have also been addressing your arguments where you claim that this isn't the issue.

No, Joe. I have never made a claim about what is or isn't relevant, except in regards to expecting consistency from you. You have been internally inconsistent in your claims in this regard. But they were your claims, not mine.

And you have been given it. The SEC filings said that Romney is the person running the company, but Romney claims he was not. So if he's not lying now to the American public, he lied then to the SEC.

What are the legal requirements for being listed as CEO in an SEC filing, Joe?

I doubt you even know. If you did, you would have presented them, and demonstrated how Romney's claims don't match with those legal requirements. But since you haven't, I can only conclude that you are merely guessing. You are using your own sense of what you think it should mean as a substitute for what the SEC actually demands. That is a mistake, because the two can very easily be worlds apart.

So now your theory is that the terms in the statement, "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital" have some technical meaning that is consistent with Romney's claim that he " left any role at Bain Capital in February of 1999".

I think that's entirely possible. And until I see an analysis of the SEC requirements, I think it's foolish to conclude that it must be otherwise, as you have.

It was you who claimed that the "legal requirement" defense somehow refuted the evidence that Romney did in fact have a continuing role with the company. As you fully know by now, I've pointed out that your argument on that point hinges on circularity (asking me first to assume that Romney had no continuing role in the company).

But you're wrong. My position also rests on the testimony of people whose own interest would be in saying Romney was still at Bain, but who say he wasn't. I find their testimony very credible. So your imagined circularity simply isn't.