The Breaking Romney Story
 

Mitt Romney has repeatedly stated he left Bain Capital in 1999, to supervise the Olympics. This leaving date unassociates Romney with multiple incidences of mass layoffs, firings, and outsourcing of American jobs to China that Bain Capital participated in after 1999, which are political liability in a presidential campaign.

However, in this past week, Romney's claims about the date he left Bain have been disproven.

The importance of this is that it leaves Romney only two choices to describe himself:

First, admitting he made repeated overt political lies simply to make himself look good. This would require simply an embarrassing public walkback, but leaves him open to attacks that destroy his Bain cred in the campaign.

Secondly, he didn't lie about the 1999 date, but instead Romney lied to the SEC, which would be a federal felony.

The exclusive original stories that have broken this news: David Corn at Mother Jones, Talking Point Memo, and then the Boston Globe. The timeline:

First story: July 2 and 3, David Corn, Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...documents-show

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ain-stericycle

Talking Points Memo then also verified the story July 10:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...in_in_1999.php

The Boston Globe then took the work of the reporters in the above two stories, and published a story that finally got MSM attention:

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics...sUTI/story.htm

Comment: It is believed that the Romney camp deliberately used various controversies over the NAACP speech, and his fundraiser talk yesterday, to try and distract the media and public from the breaking Bain stories that show Romney lied. The stories are a BFD to his continued successful campaign.

Referencing front page of: http://www.politico.com/

Thursday, July 12, 2012

THIS JUST IN... Boston Globe refuses Romney demand to "correct" Bain story

By John Aravosis on 7/12/2012 06:18:00 PM

The Boston Globe reported this morning that federal and state documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain claim that Mitt Romney remained the CEO, chairman of the board, and sole stockholder well beyond the 1999 retirement date that Romney had claimed in federal documents filed with the FEC.

If Romney lied, this could be a felony. And he appears to have lied to someone as you can't "retire" but still remain CEO and Chair of the Board for a couple more years.

The Romney campaign demanded that the Globe "correct" their story, which Romney called "inaccurate." The problem is that, as the Globe notes in their subsequent letter to the Romney campaign, the Globe can't correct a story that quotes federal and state documents that Romney wrote himself.

Via Politico, the Globe writes:

Only in Romney-land does someone retire and then keep his job for a few more years. If Romney is now claiming that he took a leave of absence from Bain, then why did he tell the FEC that he "retired"? And why did he file state documents showing he was still earning income if he supposedly no longer worked there?

Lots of questions, and no answers, from Camp Romney.

Then there's today's story from Buzzfeed in which Mitt Romney said during a recent GOP primary debate that he "worked" at Bain - you know, that place he "retired" from - until 2002.

As a result of all the bad news, Romney's camp is losing it. They issued a statement today demanding Obama apologize for the "out of control behavior" of his staff. Their behavior was accurately commenting on Romney's own federal and state filings.

But the Romney camp's statement is a sign that their worried, very worried, about today's news, and more generally, the traction the Bain story is clearly starting to have.

For them to risk making the story bigger by issuing such an over-the-top statement smells of desperation. They felt they to had to do something, anything, to stop the story. And instead, they keep making it bigger.

http://www.americablog.com/2012/07/t...e-refuses.html

Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 07:00 PM EDT

Why Romney flip-flopped on Bain departure date
by Jon Perr

Thursday's revelations in the Boston Globe that Mitt Romney did not in fact leave Bain Capital in February 1999 have put the GOP standard bearer in hot water.

At best, the contention if true would mean Romney lied to the American people to avoid paternity for job-killing deals that nevertheless lined his own pockets. At worst, the Republican nominee flouted SEC rules and broke the law.

But largely overlooked in the discussion of departure date as Bain Capital CEO is why Mitt Romney used to claim he was only on leave between 1999 and 2002.

If Romney really permanently left Bain in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, he might have been ineligible to run for governor of Massachusetts.

As the Globe noted in its story, "financial disclosure documents Romney filed in Massachusetts show that he was paid as a Bain Capital executive while he directed the Olympics." But it is the last sentence in the article which may be the most important:

And why was Mitt Romney testifying before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission? Because, it turns out, for three years he paid property taxes to Utah while claiming his $3.8 million Park City mansion was his "primary residence."

And unless he could convince the Commission that was a mistake and that his tony Belmont estate was still home, Bain Capital CEO Romney would never have become Governor Romney.

Continued ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...departure-date

^^^^^^

Please disregard me I am am hopeless in love with the turd in the white house

^^^^ Has nothing useful to say, acts like a child.

Tell us, Geeker - what do you think of the facts of the situation? Are you going to continue to pretend they don't exist simply because you hate Obama? This no longer has anything to do with the Obama campaign. The news media is on it's own.

wrong

I suggest you contact the Boston Globe and tell them they are wrong. And TPM, and Mother Jones.

wrong

Hang on ... I'm gonna get some popcorn .... ;)

wrong

You know, if some people who hang around this message board would be more concerned about hitting a pk3 or hammering an exacta box instead of worrying about what all the crooked politicians are doing, we would all be better off. Not accusing anyone in particular, this is just a general statement;)

If people with the responsibility to choose those who govern them would worry more about the people they are choosing, we wouldn't have so many crooked politicians :D

And with better politicians, possible the takeout on that Pick Four could be less ;)

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

wrong

While you could interpret that I am conservative or aligned with that way of thinking, I can assure you I am unimpressed with anything political on either side of the aisle. Somehow, someway, political reform will happen in the near future. It would be great if we could send all of these snake-oil salesmen/women;) politicians to Antarctica and start over.:D

As for those pk4 takeout rates......well.......you have to win every once in a while to be affected.:wf:zz:

I'm shocked..
 

Filings may conflict with Romney claims.


http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...ms-ar-2053474/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/op...=1&ref=opinion

'The first thing you need to know is that America wasn’t always like this. When John F. Kennedy was elected president, the top 0.01 percent was only about a quarter as rich compared with the typical family as it is now — and members of that class paid much higher taxes than they do today. Yet somehow we managed to have a dynamic, innovative economy that was the envy of the world. The superrich may imagine that their wealth makes the world go round, but history says otherwise.

To this historical observation we should add another note: quite a few of today’s superrich, Mr. Romney included, make or made their money in the financial sector, buying and selling assets rather than building businesses in the old-fashioned sense. Indeed, the soaring share of the wealthy in national income went hand in hand with the explosive growth of Wall Street.'

Krugman is liberal scumbag, everyone knows that...:)

Romney camp in major damage control mode
 

Romney camp announces Romney will give individual interviews to every major television station ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX this afternoon, to try and explain this current ... situation ... of being caught in multiple lies.

Romney has never done this before (he is press-adverse to non-FOX press). Interviews are supposed to be televised on evening newscasts.

Intrade has Romney 14% that he'll plead the 5th at some point.

yeah, i can't believe graham said it's american to avoid paying taxes. what bs. and i'm not happy that romney says he will try to undo the bank regs if he gets in. the softening of regulations is what lead us to the bank bubble..when it burst, it took insurance companies, banks, auto and housing all down with it. so many affected because of rampant speculation and trades run wild.
and look at jp morgan, the news from them keeps getting worse. absolutely ridiculous.
i also donl't like romney espousing building up defense, and the budget that would grow with it. it's already too big.




'... it turned out that modern finance was laying the foundation for a severe economic crisis whose fallout continues to afflict millions of Americans, and that taxpayers had to bail out many of those supposedly brilliant bankers to prevent an even worse crisis. So at least some members of the top 0.01 percent are best viewed as job destroyers rather than job creators.

Did I mention that those bailed-out bankers are now overwhelmingly backing Mr. Romney, who promises to reverse the mild financial reforms introduced after the crisis?

To be sure, many and probably most of the rich do, in fact, contribute positively to the economy. However, they also receive large monetary rewards. Yet somehow $20 million-plus in annual income isn’t enough. They want to be revered, too, and given special treatment in the form of low taxes. And that is more than they deserve. After all, the “common person” also makes a positive contribution to the economy. Why single out the rich for extra praise and perks?

What about the argument that we must keep taxes on the rich low lest we remove their incentive to create wealth? The answer is that we have a lot of historical evidence, going all the way back to the 1920s, on the effects of tax increases on the rich, and none of it supports the view that the kinds of tax-rate changes for the rich currently on the table — President Obama’s proposal for a modest rise, Mr. Romney’s call for further cuts — would have any major effect on incentives. Remember when all the usual suspects claimed that the economy would crash when Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993?'

Why do you think they put all the avoidance clauses in there?