Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mitt caught in a direct lie?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mitt caught in a direct lie?

    Originally posted by Huffington Post
    WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain Capital after 1999 is false, according to Romney's own testimony in June 2002, in which he admitted to sitting on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain investment during the period.

    Romney has consistently insisted that he was too busy organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics to take part in Bain business between 1999 and that event. But in the testimony, which was provided to The Huffington Post, Romney noted that he regularly traveled back to Massachusetts. "[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," he said.

    Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

    Romney testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" at the time.

    Yet in the Aug. 12, 2011, federal disclosure form filed as part of his presidential bid, he said, "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney 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."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...p_ref=politics

    Ok, I realize it's probably too much to ask to expect a non-partisan discussion in the middle of election season, but is there any way to read this where Romney didn't actually lie?

  • #2
    In a statement released Thursday, Bain defended Romney. "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure," the statement reads. "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."
    This will not discourage you or the losers at Huffpost, of course, who will ignore Obama's failed record and numerous lies about Gitmo and jobs, and trump this Bain story up to be evidence Mitt Romney is an autistic antichrist.

    Comment


    • #3
      So he lied on his Résumé? Thats a victimless crime.
      Safer worlds through superior firepower

      Comment


      • #4
        So when he testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" and when Bain described him in their 2001 SEC filings as "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president", and that he owned 100% of Bain in 2002 and was receiving a six figure salary, was that true?

        Comment


        • #5
          There are varying degrees and results of autism; but being the anti-Christ, not so much.
          Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
          "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
          He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kentonio View Post
            So when he testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" and when Bain described him in their 2001 SEC filings as "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president", and that he owned 100% of Bain in 2002 and was receiving a six figure salary, was that true?
            Yes (though I do not think he testified to his salary or to his ownership of Bain?).

            The only reason anyone cares about these technicalities is that Bain had to close companies and outsource jobs in 1999, which no one except unskilled American retards has a problem with. So again, if this is a "direct lie" (as opposed to an indirect one?), it is only marginally more significant to me than a candidate lying about what he ate for breakfast. But I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts Bain's assertion that he left in 1999, kept his titles for a couple years and moved on.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is not a lie when the GOP does it. Get with the program !!!
              "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

              Comment


              • #8
                Again, even if we concede Romney lied about this (and nefariously ... helped his company make millions of dollars ... even while he was in Utah), I'd rather have a president who lies to cover up his successes from dumb Americans, than one who lies about his failures like Obama repeatedly has done.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am SHOCKED that a politician would lie!
                  I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                  - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                    Yes (though I do not think he testified to his salary or to his ownership of Bain?).
                    No, that part was in Bain's SEC filings for 2001/2002 from what I can gather.

                    Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                    The only reason anyone cares about these technicalities is that Bain had to close companies and outsource jobs in 1999, which no one except unskilled American retards has a problem with. So again, if this is a "direct lie" (as opposed to an indirect one?), it is only marginally more significant to me than a candidate lying about what he ate for breakfast.
                    So it's ok in principle to lie to American voters about something that may otherwise cost you votes?

                    Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                    But I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts Bain's assertion that he left in 1999, kept his titles for a couple years and moved on.
                    It appears their own SEC filings contradict that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
                      I am SHOCKED that a politician would lie!
                      I'm just shocked that apparently it's now ok to not only lie, but be caught in a direct lie and have everyone not care. I guess it really is true that you get the politicians you deserve.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As I understand it, there's really less to this than there appears. If you look at his actions from 1999 to 2002, it's apparently pretty clear that while he may have technically held some leadership role, he wasn't actively engaged in running Bain Capital anymore. Is there a discrepancy between his SEC filings and what he's said? Maybe. Does that make him responsible for the actions of Bain Capital? Not necessarily. If he is responsible, should that be held against him? I don't think so.

                        Btw, I have no intention of voting for Romney, so don't try to color me as some partisan with blinders on.
                        Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
                        "We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So it's ok in principle to lie to American voters about something that may otherwise cost you votes?
                          No, not on principle. But when you've got only two choices, and both of them lie about things, it makes sense to go with the one who lies about less important things (e.g., this crap) rather than the things Obama has lied about (jobs, gitmo, taxes).

                          It appears their own SEC filings contradict that.
                          I mean, maybe? They show he had titles. He acknowledges having the titles but denies having responsibility for Bain during that period, and Bain backs him up on that...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What lie?
                            Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion

                            New reporting cites strong evidence that Mitt Romney wasn’t actively managing Bain Capital while he was running the Olympics, despite what the Obama campaign (and some news reports) would have voters believe.

                            Dan Primack, a senior editor at Fortune Magazine, reports on previously confidential “offering documents” that Bain circulated to potential investors in June 2000, September 2000 and again in January 2001. And he says that in each of those three documents Romney’s name is conspicuously absent from lists of senior investment managers at Bain.

                            Dan Primack, July 12: [T]he contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain…


                            This has become a key point of contention, because Obama TV ads accuse Romney of shipping U.S. jobs overseas. We reported that the Obama campaign had failed to back up its claims (“Obama’s ‘Outsourcer’ Overreach,” June 29), partly because Romney had left Bain in February 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympic and wasn’t actively in charge of the company at the time.

                            But the Obama campaign objected, claiming that Romney remained a part-time manager even while he was living in Utah and running the Olympics. We responded, finding the campaign’s evidence “weak or non-existent.”

                            Since then some other reporters have weighed in on Obama’s side. Articles in Mother Jones magazine and the Talking Points Memo website, and most recently a front-page Boston Globe story on July 12, all cite documents filed by Bain with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                            The TPM piece noted that in documents from July 2000 and February 2001 Romney listed his “principal occupation” as “Managing Director” of Bain, for example. And the Globe story reported that Bain repeatedly listed him on government filings as the man in charge.

                            On a media conference call about the Globe story, Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said the story proves that Romney had “full control” of Bain during this time and “therefore directly responsible” for decisions made at companies in which Bain invested. “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony. Or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments,” Cutter said.

                            But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.

                            None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:

                            Bain Capital, July 12: Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.


                            Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

                            “If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.

                            We would reassess our judgment should somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions or had any active role (not just a title) at Bain after he left to head the Olympics. But nothing we’ve seen directly contradicts Romney’s statements — which he has certified as true under pain of federal prosecution — that he “has not had any active role” with Bain or “been involved in the operations” of Bain since then.

                            And we wish to note, we’re not alone in this judgement. Others include:

                            Fortune’s Dan Primack — who covers Wall Street “deals and dealmakers” — addressed the Mother Jones reporting in a July 2 article that came to the same conclusion we do. Primack’s more recent reporting we’ve already noted.
                            The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, rebutted the Boston Globe story in a July 12 piece. “Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role,” Kessler writes. We agree.
                            Before the Globe story broke, the Columbia Journalism Review’s Brendan Nyhan stated: “[T]he specific cases cited by the Obama campaign largely concern actions taken by those companies during a period in which Romney was not making operational decisions at the firm. Journalists must be clear about this distinction.” After the Globe story, CJR’s Greg Marx wrote “there’s less new in the Globe article than the attention it has drawn suggests.”
                            ABC News’ Devin Dwyer reported July 12, after the Globe‘s story appeared: “Team Obama does not provide any specific evidence to back up claims that Romney was actively managing Bain between 1999 and 2002.”

                            Dishonest Campaigns

                            The Romney campaign cited our work in a recent ad to accuse President Obama of running a “dishonest campaign.” The term “dishonest” is theirs, not ours, however. And we make no judgments about the personal character of either candidate, or their campaigns.

                            And we’ll just note for the record that FactCheck.org has also found numerous instances in which Romney has also strayed from the facts in accusations against Obama. He also claimed that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital — a claim we found lacked support because it took credit for jobs added by companies long after Romney had left the Bain.

                            But that’s no excuse for the Obama campaign trying to saddle Romney with responsibility for decisions Bain made while Romney was somewhere else.

                            – Brooks Jackson, with Rob Farley and Eugene Kiely
                            I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                            For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                              I'm just shocked that apparently it's now ok to not only lie, but be caught in a direct lie and have everyone not care. I guess it really is true that you get the politicians you deserve.
                              Well since they ALL lie you are doing the same thing they do. Maybe you deserve the politicians you get.
                              I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                              - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X