http://gratewire.com/tags/sec-romney-principle-occupation News & Opinion - Grated Fresh Daily en-US Fri, 24 May 2013 03:07:19 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://gratewire.com/search.php http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109721 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:16:11 +0000 california rick 109721@http://gratewire.com/ <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq00QI1cGJk&amp;feature=player_embedded" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq00QI1cGJk&amp;feature=player_embedded</a> </p> <p>Romney:  "I worked at one company, Bain, for 25 years."  </p> <p>Bain was started in 1977. </p> <p>1977 plus 25 years equals 2002.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109668 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:32:10 +0000 Black Lion 109668@http://gratewire.com/ <p>Mitt is hiding something....And it is hilarious watching the right attempt to defend him...</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109667 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:18:31 +0000 california rick 109667@http://gratewire.com/ <p>The big issue is the discrepancies between Bain's SEC filings and Romney's FEC filings - that's the issue - and that is why Mr. Romney won't show his returns.</p> <p>Perhaps we should become 'taxers' and demand that Mr. Romney show his returns.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109662 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:12:50 +0000 Obot 50549535 109662@http://gratewire.com/ <p>That guy at Forbes said just what I was thinking -- it depends on what the word "retired" means. How do you square the statement that Romney retired in 1999 with the statement that he was CEO and/or MD of several Bain entities in 2001?</p> <p>If this is a non-issue -- as some credible news outlets are saying -- I sure wish they would explain how this is not a problem.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109660 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:44:53 +0000 california rick 109660@http://gratewire.com/ <p>One thing that we can all agree on - and there IS one thing we can all agree on - is that Mitt Romney has been a VERY successful businessman, and that a lot of his success has been based on his ability to analyze financial statements, such as those prepared for the Securities and Exchange Commission. </p> <p>How likely is it that businessman Mitt Romney would be willing to invest millions of dollars of other people's money - and, even more to the point, millions of dollars of his own money - in a company listing a sole owner, etc. someone who signed years' worth of official documents about stuff that he now claims he had no involvement with? </p> <p>Legally, Romney had operational authority, well after he left to do the Olympics. </p> <p>Romney claims not to have exercised that authority, but he still had the authority, and responsibility comes with authority, so it really doesn't matter whether or not he exercised his authority, unless in the interest of asserting negligence.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109659 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:16:39 +0000 california rick 109659@http://gratewire.com/ <p>There is some really good analysis on this out there today in the MSM including interviews with former SEC and FEC commissioners who believe that one of the filings must represent felony lying. The deal is that filings made by Bain to the SEC and Romney to the FEC contradict each other on when Romney left Bain Capital. This date is important for several reasons to the political campaign. It is part of an Obama campaign tactic to hang outsourcing and job loss on Romney. The Romney defense was that he wasn’t there at the time so it wasn’t him. Well, that’s what the FEC filings say. However, that’s not what the SEC filings say.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/12/did-mitt-romney-exit-bain-capital-in-2002-or-1999-it-depends-on-the-meaning-of-the-word-retire/2/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Writes</a> </span>Peter Cohan of <span style="font-style: italic;">Forbes</span> magazine:</p> <blockquote><p> Why does this matter? It depends on whether the SEC and state filings are accurate. If those filings are correct, then Romney is in a weak position to claim that he had nothing to do with decisions to fire employees working for Bain Capital-controlled companies after 2002. </p></blockquote> <blockquote><p>To wit, consider Bain Capital’s 1993 $24 million investment in GST Steel, a Kansas City, Missouri steel company. During his 2002 campaign for governor, Romney’s opponent pointed out that Bain Capital had profited to the tune of $50 million – after laying off 750 workers at GST. </p></blockquote> <blockquote><p> And Romney replied that he was no longer at Bain Capital when the layoffs happened. But the SEC filings indicate that Romney was Bain Capital’s CEO in February 2001 when GST declared bankruptcy. And Romney made the same “not there then” claim when the Obama campaign raised this example in May 2012. </p></blockquote> <blockquote><p> If the SEC filings are accurate, that means Romney was again in a gray area when he made the claims about GST. After all, if he was CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital in 2002, he would have had a responsibility to his investors to make key decisions about its investments — like whether GST should file for bankruptcy and fire its staff. </p></blockquote> <blockquote><p> On July 11, Bain Capital issued a statement: “Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.” </p></blockquote> <blockquote><p>To paraphrase Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the word retired is. </p></blockquote> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109658 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:50:33 +0000 california rick 109658@http://gratewire.com/ <p>Given that <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/about/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">An<strong>nenberg University runs </strong></a>Factcheck.org and given that Walter Annenberg was a <strong><a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/factcheck-run-conservative-philanthropist-annenberg-2018865.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">conservative publishing mogul ala Rupert Murdoch</a></strong>, it's not surprising that Factcheck.org is not as thorough vetting Mitt Romney as perhaps they should be. </p> <p>Walter Annenberg was steeped in the Nixon-Reagan brand of conservative politics.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109654 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:31:08 +0000 stubborn bubble 109654@http://gratewire.com/ <p>Mother Jones.... LOL</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109650 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:19:16 +0000 bovril1a 109650@http://gratewire.com/ <p>I read the Factcheck post of high dudgeon and they make one and ignore one conspicuous points</p> <p>They argue, not particularly convincingly, that sole owner doesn't mean he's "in charge" or "really working". </p> <p>They fail to mention the MD and CEO parts as if they don't matter.</p> <p>Alas when you file with the SEC and say "Joe Bloggs of XVY corp is the sole owner AND Chief Executive Officer AND an MD" that means as far as the SEC is concerned for ALL matters corporate, Joe is on the hook.</p> <p>Mittens was for 3 years listed as such and if there had been an investigation, audit etc guess who would be the responsible officer....Mittens.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109649 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:56:33 +0000 Obot 50549535 109649@http://gratewire.com/ <p>Here's what has me baffled. Factcheck.org has stated unequivocally, in a post dated July 2, that the SEC filings don't prove anything. But their reasoning doesn't add up for me. They state -- I think correctly -- that the fact that Romney was sole owner of several Bain entities means nothing, because an owner is not necessarily running the show.</p> <p>But the fact that he is clearly the CEO and/or managing director of several Bain entities is basically ignored by factcheck -- and I have no idea why. Are they thinking that it's perfectly consistent for Romney to say he "retired" in 1999, when the companies he "retired" from are listing hiim as CEO and/or managing director two years later? I wish they would come out and say one way or the other, instead of just ignoring it. Because this is what appears to be the whole crux of the question.</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109647 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:45:39 +0000 california rick 109647@http://gratewire.com/ <blockquote><p> The idea that the presumptive Repb nominee has been caught out in ANOTHER bald faced lie... </p></blockquote> <p> Liar, liar, magical underpants on fire.</p> <blockquote><p> Seems some folks don't grasp the concept of SOLE OWNER... </p></blockquote> <p> Look at the IQ quotient of the group to whom you refer.   Cognitive reasoning in not their forte - how could it be - when one's thoughts are one-dimensional, stick-figure?</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109646 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:31:59 +0000 bovril1a 109646@http://gratewire.com/ <p>The denial over at the RWNJ sites like Freerperville is building quite deliciously... 8-)</p> <p>The idea that the presumptive Repb nominee has been caught out in ANOTHER bald faced lie is being dunned furiously with any dissenter being lablled a commie/LIEberal/Obamaite etc.</p> <p>One of the classic posts has the denialist squealing that simply because Mittens was the recorded and reported CEO and sole owner means nothing as he was just a sorta kind a figurehead CEO. </p> <p>Seems some folks don't grasp the concept of SOLE OWNER and that whilst a firm may have a talking head President or Chairman, CEO is not a figurehead position, particulary WHEN YOU REPORT IT TO THE SEC....</p> <p>The squeals and tears are juicy..........</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109644 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:58:00 +0000 california rick 109644@http://gratewire.com/ <p>Bain Capital's SEC filings for <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892058/000092701600002483/0000927016-00-002483-0001.txt" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><strong>July 2000</strong></a>.  Bain Capital's SEC filings for <strong><a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/0000927016-01-001009-0001.txt" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">February 2001</a></strong>.  Both clearly state Mitt Romney as "Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc."</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109643 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:39:29 +0000 california rick 109643@http://gratewire.com/ <p>Earlier this month, FactCheck.org stated that if Mitt Romney had not left Bain Capital in 1999, he "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."</p> <p>FactCheck.org made that argument to dismiss complaints by the Obama campaign, but a new <em>Boston Globe</em> report on Mitt Romney's true tenure at Bain Capital -- which reportedly lasted until 2002, three years longer than Romney has stated -- brings FactCheck's statement into sharp relief.</p> <p>"The Obama complaint claims we erred in saying Mitt Romney gave up active management of Bain Capital in early 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics, insisting we were then wrong in saying Romney was not responsible for shipping U.S. jobs overseas," FactCheck's Brooks Jackson and Robert Farley <strong><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/factcheck-romney-would-be-guilty-of-federal-felony-128733.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">wrote in a response</a></strong> to the Obama campaign, which had complained about an earlier article by the authors. </p> <p>"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."</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/report-mitt-at-bain-longer-than-admitted#post-109642 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:34:37 +0000 california rick 109642@http://gratewire.com/ <p>New questions are being raised about Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital after a bombshell report Thursday that he stayed as CEO of the private-equity firm for years longer than he has previously admitted. </p> <p>In response, the Romney campaign disputed the <em>Boston Globe</em> story that found, based on documents filed with the SEC, that the former Massachusetts governor had served as CEO at Bain until 2002, although Romney has said he left active management of the firm in 1999.<br /> ...<br /> <em>The Globe </em>story reports that, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Romney did not leave Bain Capital in 1999 as he said he had but continued his tenure for three additional years. </p> <p>Read more at <span style="font-weight: bold;"> <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78438.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Politico.com</a> </span></p>