Posted by AzblueMeanie:
The pretty boys and girls who populate the corporate television media today are unworthy of the title of journalist. They demean the giants who preceded them like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and many others.
On a Friday night news dump, Willard "Mittens" Romney scheduled interviews with five television networks to essentially repeat his campaign's talking point that he had no operational control of Bain Capital or any other Bain entity after February 1999. Romney dismissed numerous SEC filings bearing his name and signature up until 2002, when he was on a leave of absence from Bain Capital, as mere "legal technicalities." Pishaw.
Not one of these reproters came prepared for their interview with Romney. Not one of these reporters had a copy of the trial transcript from the Massachusetts ballot challenge in 2002. Old Romney Testimony Undermines Today's Bain Claims:
Instead of leaving in 1999, Romney suggested in his testimony that he only left Bain after the Olympics in 2002: “I left on the basis of a leave of absence indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would return at the end of the Olympics to my employment at Bain Capital, but subsequently decided not to do so and entered into a departure agreement with my former partners. I use that in the colloquial sense, not legal sense, but my former partners."
The opening statement delivered by Romney's lawyer in that 2002 hearing said Romney "continued to serve on the board of directors of a significant Massachusetts company and to return here for most of its board meetings."
Not one of these reporters had a copy of Romney's 2011 public financial disclosure form, sworn under pain of perjury, that stated:
“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.”
Not one of these reporters presented the documentary evidence and asked Romney the key question: "In your 2002 trial testimony, you indicated that you left Bain Capital in 2002, but in your 2011 public financial disclosure form, under penalty of perjury, you state that you left Bain Capital in February 1999. Both sworn statements cannot be true. Were you lying to qualify for the Massachusetts ballot in 2002, or are you lying now?" (Lawyers love this question).
As Glenn Kessler noted yesterday, If Romney lied on this public financial disclosure form, that would be a felony.
So instead what we got from the pretty boys and girls of the corporate television media was a barely confrontational interview in which the corporate media villagers simply allowed Mittens to spin his campaign talking points without seriously challenging him on any facts. They are less than useless.
Fortuantely, there are a few real reporters still left in this world. There are new details out today. David Bernstein writes More Romney Signatures: DDi, 2000/2001 – Talking Politics:
In a controversial investment deal that led to a federal inquiry, Mitt Romney personally signed SEC documents reporting the sale of Bain Capital shares in 2000 and 2001 — during the time when he was on leave of absence to run the Salt Lake Olympic Games.
The Boston Globe reported in 2003, during the SEC investigation, that "Romney… signed the SEC's necessary documents for Bain when his company — and he as an individual shareholder — sold their stakes in DDi in the fall of 2000 and in the winter and spring of 2001. SEC records indicate that Romney remained well into 2001 as a general partner in three of the four Bain funds that are involved in the DDi transactions."
* * *
Romney and Bain invested in DDi prior to Romney leaving for Salt Lake. Bain reportedly netted some $36 million when it sold the shares, nearly doubling its investment.
The fact that Romney signed documents for selling his own personal holdings in DDi — close to 200,000 shares worth over $4 million — at the same time that he did so for Bain Capital, could raise additional questions, as it suggests that he was likely familiar enough with the deal to be making personal investment decisions.
DDi was part of a broader investigation, which resulted in Lehman Brothers paying a $1.4 billion settlement in 2003.
I have to agree with Dave Weigel at Slate, Did the Romney Campaign Create the Swift-Yachting Story?:
What confounds me about the Bain Capital/Romney story's current iteration is that there's such a long, uncontested record describing Romney's ties to the company through 2002. In the Boston Globe's investigative biography The Real Romney, we get about half a page describing how the company's founder exited in 1999. The Olympics job came through. Bain Capital was worried that a Mitt-less company would fall apart. A hasty deal was struck to keep him on top of the firm's paperwork while he was on leave.
So who gave people the idea that Romney had completely severed ties with Bain in February 1999? The Romney campaign!
* * *
But here's the weird part. The articles being cited [by the Romney campaign] clearly said that Romney had left the company but would provide some advice when it was needed. Here, for example, is the article referred to in the second bullet point.
“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.” (Greg Gatlin, “Romney Looks To Restore Olympic Pride,” The Boston Herald, 2/12/99)
When you go back over the explanations the Romney campaign used to beat back Obama/Priorities USA attacks, you see them fumbling the 1999/2002 distinction like a retired NFL-er with busted knees.
"Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions" is in direct contravention of his 2011 public financial disclosure form, under penalty of perjury, in which he stated:
“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.”
The body of evidence available is overwhelming that Romney is lying in his 2011 public financial disclosure form. He is not going to be prosecuted for this felony. But the American people damn sure should make him pay the price for his shameless lying. And the corprate media villagers should stop providing him cover for his shameless lies.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just a simple question.. (From Booman blog)
by BooMan
Sun Jul 15th, 2012 at 12:47:24 AM EST
I am going to address this to the American people, whether they be conservatives or liberals or something in between. Back in April, the Washington Post reported that Mitt Romney had turned over twenty-three years of tax returns to John McCain’s vice-presidential team. It’s easy to do the math here. If you subtract twenty-three from 2008, you get 1985. Mitt Romney created Bain Capital in 1984, and 1985 was the first tax return that reflected his new job. It’s obvious that Romney turned over every record that pertained to Bain Capital. Now, why did he do that? And why did McCain’s team ask him to do that?
Romney turned the records for Bain Capital over to McCain because he is ambitious and he wanted to be selected as McCain’s running mate, and he knew McCain would never consider him for the job if he didn’t provide the records that had been requested. McCain wanted the records from Bain Capital because he wanted to know whether Mitt Romney had any vulnerabilities that might embarrass him and potentially cost him the chance to win the election and become president.
Now, why should we the people not operate with these same assumptions? Shouldn’t we, like McCain, refuse to consider Romney’s candidacy if he won’t show us his records? And shouldn’t we, like McCain, be worried that he’ll embarrass us and our country if it turns out that he has things in his record that he had good reason to hide?
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/7/15/04724/9578
Oh, I didn’t mean that this is it,I actually think this will drip, drip, drip until Nov if he doesn’t release many years of returns.But the denial of responsibility is at the heart of the matter here…which is what he was pointing out.Romney is unfit to lead a country for that mere point alone. The buck stops with the President…even if he wasn’t personally responsible.Rather “funny” that Republicans would like the American people to believe that PBO is responsible for things that really DIDN’T happen on his watch, yet forgive Romney or try desperately to explain it away.They can’t have it both ways.
I think that $100,000/yr was a placeholder salary…he could have, and probably DID make tons more than that off the investments that the company made…but we have no idea until we see the tax returns.
These questions would be a good start…and notice how the number of questions that need answering grows exponentially as each day passes and he gets buried under more and more questionable dealings.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/3/
This morning I see that Bain is saying that they had a reputation to uphold, and that’s why his mane was on the SEC filings…he wasn’t there, but he was still on the filings as the CEO/Chairman/ sole owner etc….isn’t that a legal document? Because if that’s the case, can I just give my mortgage company the one finger salute and tell them that my signature on that legal doc didn’t apply to me and my underwater house? If Bain used Romney’s name on these filings,to keep their reputation…then I would say their “reputation” just fell into the toilet, and they lied to their investors and led them to believe that Romney was overseeing investments that he really wasn’t. I think they call that FRAUD.
Oh no, there will be lots more to say. I’m guessing we’re good for at least four or five more days of new revelations before Mitt tries to walk back his “absolutely no involvement after 1999” position. The tough questions haven’t even been asked yet, like how much was Mitt paid by Bain in those years? The filings say over $100,000, but it’s hard to believe he was paid a mere $100,000. If Bain had good years during that time frame and needed the deductions, the amount Mitt received would far exceed $100,000. At that point, he and Bain would have to explain why it was that a guy who did nothing was paid say $500,000.
But where this seems to be leading is Mitt’s tax returns. Republicans already are starting to pressure him to give them up. Watch to see if that pressure builds. Check out the moderate Republican talking heads (not gasbags like Limbaugh and O’Reilly).
There will be a lot more to say.
There is nothing else to say after this. Agreed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/romney-denial-of-responsi_b_1673255.html