GrateWire

News & Opinion - Grated Fresh Daily


Register - lost password?

*NEW* Political Games

GrateWire » General Open Forum

Report: Mitt at Bain longer than admitted

15 posts - 5 voices
  • Started 10 months ago by california rick
  • Latest reply from california rick
  • out of
  • Rate this Topic here:

Tags:

  • Bain Capital SEC filings for February 2001
  • Bain Capital SEC filings for July 2000
  • Bain Capital's FEC and SEC filing in conflict
  • Factcheck.org run by Annenberg University
  • Gray areas for Mitt Romney
  • Managing Director of Bain Capital
  • Romeny's filings contradict each other
  • Romney had legal authority as CEO
  • Romney longer at Bain Capital than previously admitted
  • Romney may be guilty of a federal felony
  • Romney not truthful about Bain tenure length
  • Romney tenure at Bain lasted until 2002
  • Romney's biography in doubt
  • Romney: 'I worked at Bain for 25 years'
  • SEC Romney principle occupation
  • violation of 18 USC 1001
  • Walter Annenberg conservative politics
  • Walter Annenberg steeped in Nixon-Reagan conservatism
  • Walter Annerberg - A Powerful Conservative Publisher
  1. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    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.

    In response, the Romney campaign disputed the Boston Globe 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.
    ...
    The Globe 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.

    Read more at Politico.com

    Posted 10 months ago #
  2. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    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."

    FactCheck.org made that argument to dismiss complaints by the Obama campaign, but a new Boston Globe 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.

    "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 wrote in a response to the Obama campaign, which had complained about an earlier article by the authors.

    "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."

    Posted 10 months ago #
  3. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    Bain Capital's SEC filings for July 2000.  Bain Capital's SEC filings for February 2001.  Both clearly state Mitt Romney as "Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc."

    Posted 10 months ago #
  4. bovril1a

    core member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 877

    The denial over at the RWNJ sites like Freerperville is building quite deliciously... 8-)

    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.

    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.

    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....

    The squeals and tears are juicy..........

    Posted 10 months ago #
  5. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    The idea that the presumptive Repb nominee has been caught out in ANOTHER bald faced lie...

    Liar, liar, magical underpants on fire.

    Seems some folks don't grasp the concept of SOLE OWNER...

    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?

    Posted 10 months ago #
  6. Obot 50549535

    senior member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 5,230

    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.

    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.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  7. bovril1a

    core member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 877

    I read the Factcheck post of high dudgeon and they make one and ignore one conspicuous points

    They argue, not particularly convincingly, that sole owner doesn't mean he's "in charge" or "really working".

    They fail to mention the MD and CEO parts as if they don't matter.

    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.

    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.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  8. stubborn bubble

    senior member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 8,123

    Mother Jones.... LOL

    Posted 10 months ago #
  9. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    Given that Annenberg University runs Factcheck.org and given that Walter Annenberg was a conservative publishing mogul ala Rupert Murdoch, it's not surprising that Factcheck.org is not as thorough vetting Mitt Romney as perhaps they should be.

    Walter Annenberg was steeped in the Nixon-Reagan brand of conservative politics.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  10. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    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.

    Writes Peter Cohan of Forbes magazine:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.”

    To paraphrase Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the word retired is.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  11. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    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.

    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?

    Legally, Romney had operational authority, well after he left to do the Olympics.

    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.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  12. Obot 50549535

    senior member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 5,230

    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?

    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.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  13. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    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.

    Perhaps we should become 'taxers' and demand that Mr. Romney show his returns.

    Posted 10 months ago #
  14. Black Lion

    senior member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 16,380

    Mitt is hiding something....And it is hilarious watching the right attempt to defend him...

    Posted 10 months ago #
  15. california rick

    senior member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 5,028

    Romney:  "I worked at one company, Bain, for 25 years." 

    Bain was started in 1977.

    1977 plus 25 years equals 2002.

    Posted 10 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

GrateWire is proudly powered by bbPress. bbPress theme design: Free CSS Templates - bbPress Port by bbPress Themes.

129,413 posts in 15,432 topics over 30 months by 196 of 9,361 members. Latest: Unuttinourf, Wardalkacle, Alebolaler
Hosting provided by Idea Sponge