• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney, liar.

Dymanic said:
The "I never had a The Buck Stops Here placard on my desk at Bain" defense doesn't fly when you're running for President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I think the Annenberg articles also imply some good advice to the Obama campaign (or anyone else making ads against Romney): tweak the claim.

Just because Romney didn't actually make the decisions in question doesn't mean he didn't profit from them. Also, he doesn't seem to have voiced any objections to those decisions.
 
I could see this coming a mile away. Let's face it, Obama loses if the campaign is a referendum on the last four years, as reelections normally are. So he's desperately trying to make the campaign about something else. The flopsweat is palpable.
 
RandFan said:
I'm only looking to see if anyone has a possible reason for bad faith.
Click to expand...
I guess that's what it would take to get the felony charges to stick. Otherwise, he could just shrug his shoulders and go "Well, sheesh, ya know, when you're as important a guy as me, people are always handing you some sort of papers to sign, who could be expected to read them all?"
 
BenBurch said:
The documents the Boston Globe found seem definitive.

I read the factcheck entry, and they appear to not have been aware of these new documents that have him legally CEO much later than he claimed.
Click to expand...

In the July 2nd article, FActCheck links to the 6 page letter from the Obama camp. They dismissively characterize the document as something that "cobbles together selective news snippets and irrelevant securities documents in an attempt to show that Romney was still running Bain Capital on a part-time basis while he was also running the Olympics committee."

I read through the letter, and it seems to be citing the exact same SEC filings that the Boston Globe finds definitive.

I'm not sure what grounds FactCheck has for dismissing them... and the other content in the letter. The letter sounds pretty damning to me.

I would be surprised if Boston Globe did not get the documents it's citing from the Obama camp. And I would be surprised if they were different or new documents.

But now I'm not sure exactly why FactCheck dismisses this evidence.

ETA: I generally find FactCheck to be pretty reliable. My main complaint with them in the past has been their tendency to try to stay "balanced" such that they can say "both sides are lying" even if one side is significantly nearer the truth than the other.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I could see this coming a mile away. Let's face it, Obama loses if the campaign is a referendum on the last four years, as reelections normally are. So he's desperately trying to make the campaign about something else. The flopsweat is palpable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what with the Boston Globe being just a tentacle of the Obamapus and all.
 
Brainster said:
I could see this coming a mile away. Let's face it, Obama loses if the campaign is a referendum on the last four years, as reelections normally are. So he's desperately trying to make the campaign about something else. The flopsweat is palpable.
Click to expand...

If you saw a potential slam-dunk, and you were running a campaign, you'd decline it? Remind me not to hire you when I run for library board next year.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
In the July 2nd article, FActCheck links to the 6 page letter from the Obama camp. They dismissively characterize the document as something that "cobbles together selective news snippets and irrelevant securities documents in an attempt to show that Romney was still running Bain Capital on a part-time basis while he was also running the Olympics committee."

I read through the letter, and it seems to be citing the exact same SEC filings that the Boston Globe finds definitive.

I'm not sure what grounds FactCheck has for dismissing them... and the other content in the letter. The letter sounds pretty damning to me.

I would be surprised if Boston Globe did not get the documents it's citing from the Obama camp. And I would be surprised if they were different or new documents.

But now I'm not sure exactly why FactCheck dismisses this evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, the letter was days ago, and the allegation is today. I think the allegation would have been days ago were it completely the same information.
 
Brainster said:
I could see this coming a mile away. Let's face it, Obama loses if the campaign is a referendum on the last four years, as reelections normally are. So he's desperately trying to make the campaign about something else. The flopsweat is palpable.
Click to expand...
I could see that coming a mile away. If the election is a referendum on the last four years and the last four years are so damnable, then why oh why is Romney still behind in the polls? Perhaps it's a bit more complex than all of that.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
But now I'm not sure exactly why FactCheck dismisses this evidence.
Click to expand...
The argument from adverse consequences fallacy may have been at work.

"In fact, if the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999."

Unless I'm reading it wrong, that statement is presented in such a way as to imply that it can't be true because it would make Romney guilty of a felony.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, the letter was days ago, and the allegation is today. I think the allegation would have been days ago were it completely the same information.
Click to expand...

No. . the allegation was the claim that was FactChecked a couple of weeks ago. It was made in June, then re-made sometime after the original FactCheck article but before July 2nd (the letter, signed by the Deputy Campaign Manager of Obama for America, was not dated).

In fact, the letter does have a bunch of cites of SEC documents saying Romney is the owner (as FactCheck said), but it also has a bunch of cites saying Romney was an active partner, part of the management team, and several examples that say he "is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Investors V and thus is the controlling person of Bain Investors V." I'm pretty sure this is the same thing the Globe article is about.

The FactCheck article also dismisses a news clipping from the Boston Herald Boston Herald, (Feb. 12, 1999) saying that "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."

They seem to think that the decisions in question were not investment decisions but were matters of day-to-day operations. The seems like shaky reasoning to me.
 
Dymanic said:
The argument from adverse consequences fallacy may have been at work.

"In fact, if the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999."

Unless I'm reading it wrong, that statement is presented in such a way as to imply that it can't be true because it would make Romney guilty of a felony.
Click to expand...

I see it that way too. With all the heat and light here, I am sure they will revise to be more clear.

Actually I am astounded this story had any legs. I got it from a Boston friend, and thought it might not have been noticed outside of Boston, but it's everywhere suddenly.

The Freepers are going insane, BTW.
 
Dymanic said:
The argument from adverse consequences fallacy may have been at work.
Click to expand...
Yep--that's what Upchurch pointed out too.

I think you're right. I also am beginning to think the FactCheck article is an exceptionally poor one.
 
Brainster said:
I could see this coming a mile away. Let's face it, Obama loses if the campaign is a referendum on the last four years, as reelections normally are. So he's desperately trying to make the campaign about something else. The flopsweat is palpable.
Click to expand...


Willard wants us to believe that his business experience qualifies him to be president, but he's desperately trying to avoid scrutiny of his business experience. The flopsweat is palpable.

Steve S
 
IANAL, but it seems to me that one can certainly take a leave of absence, with the following results:
  • No longer involved in the management or operations of the company;
  • No change is made to the organizational structure of the company;
  • Formal documents showing the company organization still list you in the position, even though you are on a leave of absence;
  • No lying happens, and no felony is committed.
 
theprestige said:
IANAL, but it seems to me that one can certainly take a leave of absence, with the following results:
  • No longer involved in the management or operations of the company;
  • No change is made to the organizational structure of the company;
  • Formal documents showing the company organization still list you in the position, even though you are on a leave of absence;
  • No lying happens, and no felony is committed.
Click to expand...

1. What are the SEC rules here?
2. Is that what he actually did? You can't do this retroactively.
 
theprestige said:
IANAL, but it seems to me that one can certainly take a leave of absence, with the following results:
  • No longer involved in the management or operations of the company;
  • No change is made to the organizational structure of the company;
  • Formal documents showing the company organization still list you in the position, even though you are on a leave of absence;
  • No lying happens, and no felony is committed.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much along the lines of what I was thinking. Chairing the US Olympics committee while preparing to host the games isn't exactly what one normally thinks of as a part time job. Now if he said that he took some time off to go roll around in his bank vaults naked or whatever other personal business he could come up with instead of running his business then there might be something to look into here, but I doubt that he could be doing what we know he was doing with the Olympics and run a business of that scope full time simultaneously. If you look at it from a purely business point of view it would be irresponsible to do so but there may have been legal issues or tax complications that made keeping his name in those positions in title only while he was off doing something else a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom