Mitt Romney, liar.

[not_so_new]

What with the Citizen's United ruling having sent our political system sailing into uncharted waters, life preservers might be recommended, but this story is really more like a lottery ticket, I'd say.

Not many of us would really expect to scratch that ticket and watch the words "Felony Investigation" emerge, but what one gets for the price of a lottery ticket is at least a few brief moments in which the world is filled with new possibilities. (Millionaires don't typically invest a lot in lottery tickets, or so I would presume, and not just because they understand why statisticians refer to lotteries as "the stupidity tax" -- it's because, for them, the world is already filled with possibilities).

I'm not sure it would be all that as a prize anyway, considering that it would (I guess) mean that the rest of the clown circus would return to the stage for an encore, and with so much of the comic value of that having been exhausted already, it might be rather more creepy than funny.

Great post!!

Thanks, that sums up my take as well.

 

[12AX7]

Romney's camp is now claiming he "retroactively" retired; that his original plan was to work part time with Bain while managing the Olympics, but that fell by the wayside once it was realized just how bad the Olympics were.

Source.

So in other words... he WAS still at Bain, he just didn't do anything with it and didn't offer his opinion on the enormous amount of outsourcing Bain was doing at the time, and after the fact decided to absolve himself of any blame by "retroactively" retiring to 1999? Does he think that negates his responsibility for what Bain was doing in the intervening three years?

Wow. "Retroactive retirement".

One of the finest examples of pretzel logic I've seen in a while.

...

Hey!

So glad you're back! See, when Obama wins in November, I have some questions for you.

Take care!

E44

 

[not_so_new]

I don't know. But given that PR releases like this have basically no legal standing, I'd hardly put much credence in such characterizations. Seriously, why are you finding a PR release such a credible source of information? Let me remind you again: it's a PR release. Do you know what a PR release is? Have you ever seen one before?

I just don't understand how seemingly intelligent people get to specific subjects and they can't see beyond their own bias.

So, I have not been following this story completely but it looks like....

- Romney was collecting money from Bain in additional to his passive investment returns during the time period in question

- The SEC paperwork has him listed as running Bain during the period in question

- There is a press release where he is talking about the departure of other members of the Bain team during the period in question

- Romney has not released his tax returns to the press from the period in question

Outside of the SEC papers none of these things on their own are solid proof of his employment with Bain after he said he was no longer involved with the company but taken as a whole there is some pretty compelling evidence here.

Zig, I don't get it. We all learn new things and if we are smart (as I know you are) then we should use that experience to reexamine our viewpoint. There isn't anything wrong with admitting we changed our minds based on new evidence, that's exactly what smart people do.

It looks entirely possible that he was working for Bain during the time he said he wasn't. It seems as if you don't see that as a possibility and I just don't understand why.

 

[Dymanic]

Yeah, wasn't there an official STATE INVESTIGATION on this that concluded Romney was clean, and could run for governor?

You mean did they accept these sworn statements as true?:

"I remained on the board of the Staples Corporation, Marriott International, and the LifeLike Corporation".

"There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth."

"I returned for most of those [Staples board] meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html?ir=Politics

Instead of this?:

"I was in Salt Lake City for three straight years. I don’t recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or management meeting. We were, I was out there running the Olympics and it was a full time job, I can tell you that.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-s-statements-network-interview-contradict-2002-testimony


Yeah, it seem reasonable to conclude that.

 

[mhaze]

You mean did they accept these sworn statements as true?:

"I remained on the board of the Staples Corporation, Marriott International, and the LifeLike Corporation".

"There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth."

"I returned for most of those [Staples board] meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html?ir=Politics

Instead of this?:

"I was in Salt Lake City for three straight years. I don’t recall even coming back once to go to a Bain or management meeting. We were, I was out there running the Olympics and it was a full time job, I can tell you that.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-s-statements-network-interview-contradict-2002-testimony


Yeah, it seem reasonable to conclude that.

Do you have a point, and if so what? It seems that you start talking about corporations a, b, and c, and wind up talking about d, and thinking you have said something intelligent.

By the way: I don't know of anyone who thinks being on a board of a company is "active management". Unless the company was in big trouble and the board had to step in or take over. Could happen.

 

[A'isha]

Former Bain Capital partner says Romney was 'legally' CEO of Bain Capital until 2002

A former partner at Bain Capital, who worked at the firm when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was in charge, acknowledged on Sunday that Romney was “legally” the chief executive officer and sole owner of Bain Capital until 2002, not 1999 as Romney has previously stated, and said that Romney was engaged in a “complicated set of negotiations” over his exit pay for at least two years after he says he left the firm.

“Mitt’s names were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Ed Conard, who served as a partner at Bain Capital from 1993 to 2007, said in an exclusive interview with Up w/ Chris Hayes. Asked again if Romney was chief executive officer of Bain Capital from 1999 to 2002, Conard said, “Legally, on documents, I suppose, yes.”

Despite Romney's statements that he left in 1999, Conard's new remarks suggest that, in fact, Romney's continued ownership of the firm enabled him to negotiate a better exit deal. "We had to negotiate with Mitt because he was an owner of the firm," Conard said.

[...]

Asked whether Romney, as the legal president of the company between 1999 and 2002, could have ordered executives at Bain Capital at the time to put a stop to factory closures such as GST Steel, Conard said yes: “You’d have to presume that he was aware of it, yes. I don’t think he would have been aware of it.”

Asked if the factory closures and lay-offs that occurred between 1999 and 2002 were characteristic of Bain Capital’s record before 1999, Conard said, “I believe that’s true, yes. I think that Bain Capital does what Bain Capital does, which is try to make companies stronger and grow them faster.”

[...]

Conard contended that, despite Romney’s legal status as CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital on federal regulatory documents filed with the SEC, a “management committee” oversaw the company’s day-to-day operations after Romney left in 1999. According to former Securities and Exchange Commission officials, however, representing Romney as the CEO of the company when he was no longer in charge would have been misleading to both federal regulators and investors.

“If the information is not correct then investors are potentially being materially misled,” Edward Siedle, a securities lawyer formerly with the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, said in a telephone interview Saturday. “The filings are supposed to require material disclosure. I mean, these aren’t pointless forms.”

Siedle added that both investors and federal regulators rely on timely and accurate filings for up-to-date information about a financial company’s operations, and that the officers listed on the filings should be considered responsible for the company’s actions. “All those designations indicate that he had significant responsibility at the firm,” Siedle said of Romney. “There’s a reason he was listed as president and CEO all those years.”

Huh.

 

[Robrob]

Romney has not released his tax returns to the press from the period in question

Pretty easy solution to the question then. Release your tax returns and kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Dymanic]

Do you have a point, and if so what? It seems that you start talking about corporations a, b, and c, and wind up talking about d, and thinking you have said something intelligent.

You appear not to realize that those companies are all Bain investments.

 

[Sabrina]

There is a lot of conflicting evidence in regards to this situation. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what or who to believe any longer. I would think that the SEC would attempt to make some sort of a statement if they intended to investigate this situation, but then again, it's possible they'd want to keep any investigation under wraps until they have more concrete evidence.

I think this is what I feel about the situation; there's no evidence of any illegal activity thus far, so I do not think Romney broke the law. I do however think that he was engaged in some pretty shady activity, and that he bears at least some responsibility for the numerous American jobs that were lost both while he was the definite CEO and owner of Bain before 1999 and in the subsequent three years while he was working on the Olympics. I was and still am indifferent to the man himself; I hadn't been planning to vote for him before because his stance on the issues (when he manages to state it definitively, which doesn't seem to be often) disagreed in far too many places with mine, but I have to admit I have trouble understanding how anyone could possibly want this man as the President with all the revelations that have been surfacing recently.

Regardless, it seems fairly clear that there is something going on here, and we need more evidence to reach any sort of conclusion. The best evidence out there, as far as I am aware, are those twelve years of tax filings that Romney is thus far categorically refusing to release despite the precedent set by so many previous Presidential candidates, Obama and even Romney's father included. I would hope he would come to his senses and realize that if anything will exonerate him, it is those documents (although as more and more information comes out I find it that much less likely that they WILL exonerate him in any way). Hopefully he'll realize that he's shooting himself in the foot and do the right thing in the end.

 

[not_so_new]

Hopefully he'll realize that he's shooting himself in the foot and do the right thing in the end.

Great post... but on this last line I think we disagree a touch.



Of all the things I think about Romney, I don't think he is stupid (I guess that is still up for debate). Because he is probably not a complete idiot my guess is that he has thoroughly weighed the options here, option 1 - release the tax records and option 2 - don't release the tax records.

Option 2 has a LOT of negative downsides for him. His own father released his tax records years ago, this is sort of the expected norm now for candidates. Additionally, not releasing the tax record means the that people are going to speculate on how bad things actually are. All this speculation creates a lot of FUD with independent voters.

But, even with these negatives looming over his head he has still chosen this option over option 1.... which tells us that, no matter the downside of going with option 2, option 1 is probably worse.

I see 3 conclusions here.

1. Romney is playing a game to throw off the Obama team in an effort to get them spend their time and resources on something unimportant. In a month or so Romney will release his tax records and there will be no major surprises. I doubt this is the case.

2. Romney is way more worried about releasing the taxes than taking the heat for not releasing them. In this case he will never release them and this issue may heat up as his own rank and file join the call.

3. Romney caves in and reluctantly releases some but not all of his tax information in an effort to minimize the damage that seems to be in the records. He may get away with releasing some but not all of the taxes and then he can use the "I released my taxes now let's talk about something else" tact. I think this is what we will see happen in a few weeks or possibly less.

He sure is an interesting character, the more I learn the less I like.

 

[mhaze]

There is a lot of conflicting evidence in regards to this situation. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what or who to believe any longer. I would think that the SEC would attempt to make some sort of a statement if they intended to investigate this situation, but then again, it's possible they'd want to keep any investigation under wraps until they have more concrete evidence.

I think this is what I feel about the situation; there's no evidence of any illegal activity thus far, so I do not think Romney broke the law. I do however think that he was engaged in some pretty shady activity, and that he bears at least some responsibility for the numerous American jobs that were lost both while he was the definite CEO and owner of Bain before 1999 and in the subsequent three years while he was working on the Olympics. ....

I must bear some responsibility for the numerous American jobs that were lost due to the things I've bought in the last ten years that were made offshore. I know that a lot of these things are far cheaper and equal or superior in quality to those I used to buy that were American, but that shouldn't matter - jobs were lost. I know that in many cases, those jobs were union jobs, and the unions had squeezed the companies until they couldn't compete with those labor rates. But heh, doesn't matter - jobs were lost.

Yes, I'm guilty as charged. I've caused American Jobs to be Lost.



Oh - that outsourcing, eh, problem? Looks like it works a couple different ways.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...switzerland-sweden-paris-and-communist-china/

Now back to building the narrative, the invective, the whispering campaign. It helps to work on the sincere look with a mirror before going out and preaching the word for the Bamster.

Cheers!

 

[tyr_13]

I must bear some responsibility for the numerous American jobs that were lost due to the things I've bought in the last ten years that were made offshore. I know that a lot of these things are far cheaper and equal or superior in quality to those I used to buy that were American, but that shouldn't matter - jobs were lost. I know that in many cases, those jobs were union jobs, and the unions had squeezed the companies until they couldn't compete with those labor rates. But heh, doesn't matter - jobs were lost.

Yes, I'm guilty as charged. I've caused American Jobs to be Lost.



Oh - that outsourcing, eh, problem? Looks like it works a couple different ways.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...switzerland-sweden-paris-and-communist-china/

Now back to building the narrative, the invective, the whispering campaign. It helps to work on the sincere look with a mirror before going out and preaching the word for the Bamster.

Cheers!

Are you running for President? Bought isn't the criticism, did you take apart American companies and offshore the production? Are you trying to take credit for the creation of American jobs?

There is so much moving of goalposts, red-herring, and insult rolled into one post, it's hard to know where to start. 'Building a narrative' is what everyone does in order to discuss issues. How complete and accurate is it? Your narrative doesn't fit the evidence, and just tries to build the 'nothing to see here' one that's already fallen by the wayside as more information has been discovered.

 

[Ziggurat]

- Romney has not released his tax returns to the press from the period in question

I'm not sure what you think that has to do with Bain. Investment income from Bain would be independent of his involvement, and we already know he got a salary from them. So unless you think that the publicly stated salary he received is not the true salary, why would his tax returns have any bearing on this?

Outside of the SEC papers none of these things on their own are solid proof of his employment with Bain after he said he was no longer involved with the company but taken as a whole there is some pretty compelling evidence here.

Compelling evidence of what, exactly? Because there's other stuff (like testimony of people there who are Obama supporters, and the lack of mention of him in minutes from meetings) that's also compelling.

It looks entirely possible that he was working for Bain during the time he said he wasn't. It seems as if you don't see that as a possibility and I just don't understand why.

I never said it wasn't a possibility. But I don't think the evidence to that effect is compelling. That's not proof he didn't, but everything so far has been incredibly circumstantial. I'm reminded of the fact that a biographical blurb for one of Obama's books said he was born in Kenya. It was a direct, explicit statement on that, not just a hint. Yet it isn't compelling evidence. In that case, it was simply flat-out wrong. If you just looked at that one piece of info, it looked cut and dry, but it wasn't. I'm not sure anything here is actually flat-out wrong, but unlike that case, the information isn't direct either. So basically, until I see something more substantial than what has been offered, I'm not going to assume that Romney is lying about this, especially since there's not really much to gain from doing so.

 

[Dymanic]

Yes, I'm guilty as charged. I've caused American Jobs to be Lost.

Might not want to make "Job Creator" the centerpiece of your bid for the presidency then.

Oh - that outsourcing, eh, problem? Looks like it works a couple different ways.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...mmunist-china/

"Americans Abroad for Obama" -- that does sound creepy.

 

[Dymanic]

Compelling evidence of what, exactly? Because there's other stuff (like testimony of people there who are Obama supporters, and the lack of mention of him in minutes from meetings) that's also compelling.

Wait. You've got copies of minutes from meetings? Can we see?

 

[Ziggurat]

What with the Citizen's United ruling having sent our political system sailing into uncharted waters

What on earth are you talking about? Citizens United merely restored what had always been the case prior to 2003. That's not uncharted waters, that's almost the entirety of our history. McCain-Feingold, not Citizens United, was the uncharted waters.

 

[mhaze]

Are you running for President? Bought isn't the criticism, did you take apart American companies and offshore the production? Are you trying to take credit for the creation of American jobs?

There is so much moving of goalposts, red-herring, and insult rolled into one post, it's hard to know where to start. 'Building a narrative' is what everyone does in order to discuss issues. How complete and accurate is it? Your narrative doesn't fit the evidence, and just tries to bald the 'nothing to see here' one that's already fallen by the wayside as more information has been discovered.

Hey, get real. I can see some industries where the jobs should be moved offshore, and others where the potential for on shore job creation is vast. Before you even criticize the actions of Bain in doing what they did, I think you need to take a close look at whether what they did was reasonable.

For an example, offshore production of solar cells and panels, that makes total sense to me because of comparative labor costs.

But you are not screaming about Soyndra and the loss of employees there to offshore production.

Oops.

 

[BenBurch]

Meanwhile, back in the reality-based world, Romney's disaster gets worse every time his campaign open it's mouth;

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/romneys-deeper-and-deeper-hole.html

<SNIP>

But responsibility for Bain? Think about it. No one disputes that Romney co-founded Bain, hired most of its staff, and honed its methods and strategies from 1984 to 2002. No one can dispute that he was paid at least $100,000 from 1999 to 2002 for being CEO. There is no massive difference between the kind of strategies Bain pursued from 1984 to 1999 when Romney was managing full-time and from 1999 to 2002, when he was managing part-time and by his own lawyer's assertion that his Bain activities "continued unabated just as they had." Is Romney saying that nothing that happened at Bain after 1999 is his responsibility but that everything that happened after January 2009 is all Barack Obama's fault?

Yep, that's what he's saying. It's a pathetic double standard argument from a suddenly pathetic and panicking campaign. The only way he can dig out of this hole - yes, Bill Kristol is right - is to release 12 years of tax returns just as his father did. Until he does, the Obama campaign has every right to double and triple their insistent criticism of Romney's Bain record. And there will be more and more blood in the water.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57472723/both-sides-press-romney-on-tax-returns/

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Some Republicans are actually agreeing with the Obama campaign on one issue: the need for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release additional tax returns.

But the motivations on the opposing sides are quite different.

<SNIP>

"The Romney campaign isn't stupid," Chicago Mayor and former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel said on "ABC This Week" Sunday. "They have decided it is better to get attacked on lack of transparency, lack of accountability to the American people versus telling you what's in those taxes."

Now, Republicans have joined the chorus of Democrats calling on Romney to release more tax returns.

<SNIP>

"There's obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, 'Have at it,"' observed ABC News Political Analyst and former George W. Bush political strategist Matthew Dowd on "ABC This Week."

Republicans want Romney to disclose more tax records in order to make the issue to go away.

Democrats have a different motive: They want to talk about whatever loopholes Romney may have used to lessen his tax burden.

<SNIP>

 

[tyr_13]

Hey, get real. I can see some industries where the jobs should be moved offshore, and others where the potential for on shore job creation is vast. Before you even criticize the actions of Bain in doing what they did, I think you need to take a close look at whether what they did was reasonable.

For an example, offshore production of solar cells and panels, that makes total sense to me because of comparative labor costs.

But you are not screaming about Soyndra and the loss of employees there to offshore production.

Oops.

Which is a different argument than Romney is making.