MoveOn.org going after Mitt Romney for possible felony

[Riot]

Romney has been caught in multiple outright lies during all his political campaigns, so we know the guy will lie to your face. And he was caught bald-faced lying about his taxes in his Mass. governor's race. But ...

This is a pretty damn serious accusation from a campaign organization. I hope they can back such a thing up, or their reputation will be toast.

MoveOn has sent a letter to the Public Integrity Division of the United State Department of Justice urging it to investigate whether Mitt Romney committed a felony by violating the False Statements Act when he claimed, on his personal financial disclosure form filed in 2011, that he was “not involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” after February 12, 1999.

The letter was accompanied by detailed legal analysis backing up its allegations, and its author, Joseph Sandler, is no slouch, having served as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Governors Association, among others. I interviewed Sandler via email on Friday, and he has agreed to answer questions in the Comments.

Here's what we discussed:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...oveOn-s-lawyer

New Legal Analysis Finds Strong Possibility of Romney Criminal Liability for Misrepresentation He Made in Federal Financial Disclosure Filings in 2011

MoveOn submits complaint and formal legal analysis to U.S. Department of Justice, urging investigation into Romney’s apparent violation of False Statements Act; substantial evidence contradicts Romney’s claim that he was not “active” in Bain Capital in “any” way after 1999.

September 27, 2012

Washington, D.C.—Substantial evidence that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by lying on his financial disclosure forms justifies a criminal investigation—that’s the conclusion of a legal analysis released today by MoveOn.org Political Action.

Read letter to the DOJ and the full legal analysis:

http://front.moveon.org/legal-analys...l-disclosures/

This morning, MoveOn.org submitted the 7-page legal analysis and a letter calling for an investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice. The analysis contends that there is good reason to believe GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney may be criminally liable for false statements he made in 2011 in his federal financial disclosure filing (form SF-278)—in apparent violation of the federal False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. §1001).

Romney claimed in his disclosure filing that he departed from “any” active role in Bain Capital in 1999, which would be politically convenient because it was before Bain Capital was most heavily involved in outsourcing jobs. However, the legal analysis released today, which includes a review of state law in Delaware, where Bain Capital was incorporated, concludes that existing evidence is “clearly inconsistent with [Romney’s] flat disavowal of ‘any’ involvement in the ‘operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way’” after 1999.

“Candidates for office—especially an office as important as the presidency—need tell the truth, even when it isn’t pretty,” said Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action. “When it comes to disclosing their finances, that’s not just a moral obligation, it’s a legal one. We asked one of the country’s most prominent election law attorneys to look into Romney’s disclosures, and his conclusions are startling. Romney’s failure to level with voters may well be criminal. It is time for the Justice Department to investigate.”

The letter calling for an investigation and the legal analysis were sent to the DOJ’s Chief of Public Integrity this morning, and MoveOn members are making phone calls to the DOJ today to urge that it begin an investigation.

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), reviewed the legal analysis and seconded MoveOn’s call for an investigation. “CREW strongly supports a Department of Justice investigation into the evidence that Mitt Romney remained involved with Bain Capital after 1999, given that he stated the exact opposite in his financial disclosure forms in apparent violation of the False Statements Act,” Sloan said.

It is undisputed that Romney was the sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital, Inc. at least through the middle of 2000. MoveOn’s analysis finds that under Delaware law, while he held these titles, Romney was legally required to maintain “reasonable oversight” of Bain, which contradicts Romney’s claim in his 2011 disclosure filing that he did not have “any” involvement in Bain after 1999.

[joeydb]

Maybe Mitt can go after MoveOn.org for slander, and in so doing get some of that George Soros money. Then Soros can be indirectly funding the Romney campaign, which will irritate him no end.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Maybe Mitt can go after MoveOn.org for slander,

Only if Mitt can prove it's not true and there was no reason for MoveOn to file the complaint with the appropriate agency.

So go ahead, Mitt - prove you didn't commit a felony.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Only if Mitt can prove it's not true and there was no reason for MoveOn to file the complaint with the appropriate agency.

So go ahead, Mitt - prove you didn't commit a felony.

Uh - that's not how it works in this country.

Formal charges or alleged wrongdoing need to be proven or the accused is presumed innocent. And in the case of things outside of a courtroom setting, the lack of proof would open up the accuser for lawsuits if the wrongfully accused is so inclined to pursue them.

[Antitrust32]

innocent until proven guilty... unless you are a republican lawmaker of course.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Uh - that's not how it works in this country.

Formal charges or alleged wrongdoing need to be proven or the accused is presumed innocent. And in the case of things outside of a courtroom setting, the lack of proof would open up the accuser for lawsuits if the wrongfully accused is so inclined to pursue them.

civil court bears a different burden of proof than criminal-you don't have that same presumption of innocence. it's why oj simpson was found culpable in civil court for two murders, even tho he was found not guilty criminally-which is not the same as being found 'innocent'. it's why so many don't bother pursuing suits regarding character assassinations, slander and the like.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

innocent until proven guilty... unless you are a republican lawmaker of course.

lori, obama has been judged and found guilty by association because he attended a church with rev wright as pastor. pre-judgement isn't the exclusive domain of only one party.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Uh - that's not how it works in this country.

Formal charges or alleged wrongdoing need to be proven or the accused is presumed innocent. And in the case of things outside of a courtroom setting, the lack of proof would open up the accuser for lawsuits if the wrongfully accused is so inclined to pursue them.

Did you read the first post in this thread? Do you understand that there is indeed a legal process, and that process has been initiated via the accepted legal channels?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lori, obama has been judged and found guilty by association because he attended a church with rev wright as pastor. pre-judgement isn't the exclusive domain of only one party.

I was thinking more along the lines of Scott Walker, etc.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lori, obama has been judged and found guilty by association because he attended a church with rev wright as pastor. pre-judgement isn't the exclusive domain of only one party.

something else i find funny and very sad.

The same people who bash Rev. Wright are also some of the same people who think Obama is a Muslim... which is it?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

something else i find funny and very sad.

The same people who bash Rev. Wright are also some of the same people who think Obama is a Muslim... which is it?

i don't know.

probably the same people who are ant-abortion because life is sacred, but are pro-death penalty. don't think you should use birth control, but abortion is bad, but don't have kids if you can't afford them cause i'm not helping, you shoulda prevented getting pregnant by not having sex you filthy woman, you...and what do you mean that's all inconsistent? why, it makes perfect sense! and doc, where's my viagra paid for with health insurance??

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

something else i find funny and very sad.

The same people who bash Rev. Wright are also some of the same people who think Obama is a Muslim... which is it?

Obama is everything and everyone except a 1%er. A friend of Tony Rezko and not a friend. A man who attended Rev. Wright's church for over ten years yet never noticed racist sermons. A man who is charitable yet donates less than a percent of personal income to charity (until last year).

He is a human chameleon.

He just calls it evolving. Personally I prefer someone who is evolved.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I was thinking more along the lines of Scott Walker, etc.

That reminds me, Scotty Walker has been listed as prosecution witness for both current trials of his employees (other employees trials not scheduled yet) .

Judges refused to delay these trials until after the election, they both start this month, and John Doe investigation into Walkers past office has expanded to Walker's current governors office.