Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated

Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated

Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999

Mitt Romney has repeatedly sought to distance himself from some business dealings at Bain Capital by asserting that he left the firm in February 1999, but a review of public records shows that his authority lingered for three more years as Bain repeatedly listed him on government filings as the man in charge. Until 2002, when Romney and Bain Capital finalized a severance agreement, he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president,” according to SEC documents. The description was applied even to the creation of five new Bain partnerships a full three years after Romney has said he relinquished all control.

bostonglobe.com... UTI/story.html

Why this matters...besides the fact he once again outright lied...

Romney has said he left Bain Capital in 1999 to manage the Salt Lake City Olympics, but documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reviewed by the Globe show that Romney was listed as the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president” through 2002.

.......

The timing is key because the Obama campaign has attacked Romney for some companies that were acquired by Bain and ultimately failed. Romney has countered that he was no longer with the company when some of those acquisitions occurred.

Still, the report adds to the Obama campaign’s avalanche of attacks against Romney over how much he has divulged about his wealth, estimated at nearly $250 million, and about his background as a corporate financier.

The Obama team has hit Romney for not releasing tax returns prior to 2010, for holding accounts overseas in vehicles parked in the Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts, and for his role in Bain acquisitions that led to outsourced jobs or company failures.

Romney’s most recent Federal Election Commission financial disclosure form said that “since Feb. 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.”

thehill.com...

Most of the "Fact-Checking" that pushed back on the claims of Romney as an outsourcer or corporate raider inaccurately cited that he had left Bain in 99.

SEC docs show the precise opposite....CEO, Chairman of the Board, 100% sole stockholder.

Not to mention that his most recent Federal Election Commission filings have claimed he left Bain in 99...could there be legal implications?

reply to post by Indigo5

This is a biggie. People can say "boo factcheck.com or boo politifact" and "can we really trust fact checking websites"? Well, this is much different as it is SEC filings. The right is already criticizing the person who presented the documents as a Dem on a witch hunt. SORRY, it does not matter who presented these documents, it is the content. This shows Mitt lied again and flip-flopped again. David Corn has single handily crushed the Romney campaign the past two weeks with OUTSTANDING investigative journalism (I am sure he is being fed these leads).

So you are saying that someone can retire from a company but not still own it? Or not still be listed as its owner for financial reasons? He could easily have retired and had nothing to do with the day to day operations of the company. I dont remember him saying he sold all his shares or that he didnt own it. Bit deal if they still listed him as the owner. It was probably in their best interest in some way. Would you rather have a guy running the country that is obviously trying to hide every skeleton in his closet? Or one that has not openly tried to hide every aspect of his life?

And the only source pushing this is the Boston Globe which is a very liberal sources. I will reserve judgement until some actual facts come out rather than a bunch of "may haves" or "possibly's" and "Could Haves". But carry on with your Romney bashing.

Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Indigo5

 

This is a biggie. People can say "boo factcheck.com or boo politifact" and "can we really trust fact checking websites"? Well, this is much different as it is SEC filings. The right is already criticizing the person who presented the documents as a Dem on a witch hunt. SORRY, it does not matter who presented these documents, it is the content. This shows Mitt lied again and flip-flopped again. David Corn has single handily crushed the Romney campaign the past two weeks with OUTSTANDING investigative journalism (I am sure he is being fed these leads).

Again. How does this mean he lied or was flip flopping? Do you not realize that someone can still be the owner of a company but not have anything to do with that company? Again, Good luck on the Romney Bashing. This is not even remotely crushing. This Bain Capitol thing seems to be the only thing the Dems have. It says he earned $100,000 from them in 2001. Dont you think if he were involved in the day to day operations as the owner and CEO he might earn a tad more than that? Or do you think he was possibly on the books for some tax reason or some kind of agreement that was made when he got out in 99? Keep on witch hunting though. If you throw enough witches in the lake you might find one.

Originally posted by TheTardis
Would you rather have a guy running the country that is obviously trying to hide every skeleton in his closet?

No...so I'd like Mitt to answer questions about where his money is and where it comes from, like every other presidential candidate including his own father.

The fact that this is only revealed via investigations, just like him owning that shell company in the bermuda islands or his swiss bank account, tells me he is hiding it for a reason.

Originally posted by TheTardis
And the only source pushing this is the Boston Globe which is a very liberal sources.

The source is FEC and SEC filings...

The Washington Post has shown this charge to not be true. Washington Post fact checker. In fact they've done several articles on the subject indicating there was no wrongdoing. And no, the Post is not by any stretch a conservative paper.

He's going to jail soon anyway, for Federal election crimes. No need to worry much longer about this little hooligan psychopath.

reply to post by fourthmeal

He's going to jail soon anyway, for Federal election crimes.

Wow, thanks. I missed that news. Have charges been filed against him, indictments obtained, any DAs or prosecutors working an official investigation?

Originally posted by charles1952
The Washington Post has shown this charge to not be true.

Being a stock holder .... so what? That is unimportant.
Being a CEO or President when you claim you aren't .. that's big.
But since the Washington Post has shown this story to be false ... then I guess the thread is dead.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
He's going to jail soon anyway, for Federal election crimes. No need to worry much longer about this little hooligan psychopath.

Yes because all Hooligan phychopaths legally amass millions and try to keep it safe in banks that can actuall unsure it. I have asked this on many threads now. Can you tell me how much money american banks can insure? Do you understand why people put money in these overseas banks? And does it actually matter to you how much money he has? Why does that change your voting? Hell to me the more money he has the better. We need someone that knows how to turn a dime instead of doing dime bags.

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by fourthmeal
He's going to jail soon anyway, for Federal election crimes. No need to worry much longer about this little hooligan psychopath.

Yes because all Hooligan phychopaths legally amass millions and try to keep it safe in banks that can actuall unsure it. I have asked this on many threads now. Can you tell me how much money american banks can insure? Do you understand why people put money in these overseas banks? And does it actually matter to you how much money he has? Why does that change your voting? Hell to me the more money he has the better. We need someone that knows how to turn a dime instead of doing dime bags.

I don't care how much money he has, what I care about is that he's the head boss of a crime syndicate, and he's going down in a ball of flames.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by charles1952
The Washington Post has shown this charge to not be true.

Being a stock holder .... so what? That is unimportant.
Being a CEO or President when you claim you aren't .. that's big.
But since the Washington Post has shown this story to be false ... then I guess the thread is dead.

From the Washington Post linked to above..

By virtually all accounts, Romney was focused on the Olympics in the 1999-2002 period. Yet because Romney had not legally separated from Bain, his name is littered across Securities and Exchange Commission filings concerning Bain Capital deals during this period.

So this is what it hinges on...

(1) Romney contests that he "left" Bain in 1999 and has filed Federal Elections Commission reports claiming the same.

(2) The reality is that he was still listed as and "legally" CEO, 100% Stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Bain until the end of 2002 when ownership was transferred and a seperationa greement was signed.

The waters get muddy....It can be argued and is in fact being argued by Romney supporters that wether or not he was legally the owner of Bian during that time period...he wasn't active in the day-to-day and was focused on the Olympics.

The question is this...he filed several docs over the years to the Federal Elections Commission and Campaign related materials...he has been running for President much longer than 4 years and Govenor before that.

It appears that some, if not the majority of those filings hid the reality that he was CEO, 100% stock-holder and COB of Bain.

Aside from the argument that he was not "involved" with the company that he was the sole owner of...gulp as I try to swallow that nugget...there is a question of flat out falsehoods being filed with the Fed Elections Commission, the state of MA etc.

I'll try to break it down in the next post.

reply to post by fourthmeal

You are a person with a fixed idea, aren't you? The idea being that Romney is a criminal. I do hope that you're not calling someone a criminal because he has different political beliefs, so there must be some real, substantial evidence out there, right?

Don't you think Holder would jump on a prosecution of Romney if he had a chance? Or at least delegate it to one of his state attorneys general? There's enough evidence to convince you, apparently, but there doesn't seem to be enough to convince anyone who works with the laws and is responsible for enforcing them.

Perhaps Romney really isn't a criminal?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

He's going to jail soon anyway, for Federal election crimes.

Wow, thanks. I missed that news. Have charges been filed against him, indictments obtained, any DAs or prosecutors working an official investigation?

Richard Gilbert (California Bar) put out the details on the case, District 9 circuit judge Carson (I believe his name is) will be handling it. Gilbert said that the decisions relevant to the case have already been made in the Supreme Court, this case is just a matter of dealing with the repercussions of those decisions. There is already enough video evidence, eye-witness evidence, and physical paper evidence to make this an open and shut case.

You see, tons of people were recording the events in all these disputed caucuses and other meetings. There were documents passed out that were fakes, and there are people that have claimed bodily injury due to intimidation techniques (people roughing up other people to vote a certain way), and so on. Physical evidence in the form of those Affidavits where the RNC demanded "under penalty of perjury" that people vote Romney in the conference. Thing is, Federal Law trumps any and all rules and laws as it should in the case of voting, and those that did these things will be looking at 5 years jail time per each offense. Those that partook in any of these events had best get real with it, and come clean and HOPE that the courts have mercy, vs. dragging them to jail for 10+ years due to multiple counts of this. The Romney evidence (according to Gilbert,...remember this isn't just a regular joe he is volunteering his time as a Bar-approved lawyer to handle this huge case) ...the evidence against Romney is so strong that this will rip him wide open and expose all his connections, and how he's the head boss of what Gilbert calls a crime syndicate.

In other words, this just got REAL. And this is all happening pretty much now. Romney, Priebus, and pals, along with all the little guys.

MA State Ethics Commission Financial Interests Declartion 2002 filed by Romney

www.romneyfacts.com...

Bain Capital, LLC.
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Position Held: Executive
over 100k

Bain Capital, INC
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Position Held: Executive
over 100k

compare to the next several declarations...see the position? PASSIVE..Not so with Bain above.

BCIP Associates II
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Position Held: General Partner (passive)
over 100k

Then on to "Ownership"

Bain Capital, LLC.
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Ownership: 100%

Bain Capital, INC
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Ownership: 100%

Bain Capital Investors
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Ownership: 100%

Bain Capital Investors V
111 Hunington Ave.
Boston MA. 02199
Mitt Romney
Ownership: 100%

And about 5 other "Bain" divisions all at 100% ownership.

From the CONSERVATIVE "The Hill"

Romney’s most recent Federal Election Commission financial disclosure form said that “since Feb. 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.”

thehill.com...


There are in fact legal questions or uncertaintites here.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

You are a person with a fixed idea, aren't you? The idea being that Romney is a criminal. I do hope that you're not calling someone a criminal because he has different political beliefs, so there must be some real, substantial evidence out there, right?

Don't you think Holder would jump on a prosecution of Romney if he had a chance? Or at least delegate it to one of his state attorneys general? There's enough evidence to convince you, apparently, but there doesn't seem to be enough to convince anyone who works with the laws and is responsible for enforcing them.

Perhaps Romney really isn't a criminal?

I tend to believe Mr. Gilbert.

But we shall see, shant we?

Originally posted by fourthmeal

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by fourthmeal
He's going to jail soon anyway, for Federal election crimes. No need to worry much longer about this little hooligan psychopath.

Yes because all Hooligan phychopaths legally amass millions and try to keep it safe in banks that can actuall unsure it. I have asked this on many threads now. Can you tell me how much money american banks can insure? Do you understand why people put money in these overseas banks? And does it actually matter to you how much money he has? Why does that change your voting? Hell to me the more money he has the better. We need someone that knows how to turn a dime instead of doing dime bags.

I don't care how much money he has, what I care about is that he's the head boss of a crime syndicate, and he's going down in a ball of flames.

Ahh yes and all of the sources to back up your claim I see. How many sources was that? ZERO you say? Nice catch there buddy.. Try again. Just because you want something to be true really bad doesnt make it so. But I am sure if you shout loud enough a couple more of the obots will come in and help.

Factcheck had erroneously assumed Romney left in 99, yet in SEC Filings for 2000 and 2001...he listed his "Principle Occupation" as "Managing Director of Bain Capital".

Factcheck.org, which disputed the truthfulness of the Post report and accepted that Romney left the firm in 1999, wrote that were that not the case, 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."

The SEC filings listed in the Globe article were first flagged in a letter the Obama campaign sent to Factcheck.org, which nevertheless concluded that Romney never returned to active management in the company after 1999, instead shifting his focus to the 2002 Winter Olympics. But in separate SEC filings from 2000 and 2001, Romney listed his "principal occupation" as "Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc.," and a 2003 state financial disclosure form said he owned 100 percent of the firm in 2002.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

See his SEC Filings from 2000 and 2001 here...
No, Romney Didn’t Leave Bain in 1999
talkingpointsmemo.com...

These are legal waters...not rhetorical...

Fixed wierd underline error by removing my previous posts underline?

It is GROWING


Romney's Bain story doesn't match his SEC filings
www.examiner.com...

Romney faces a potentially serious legal problem. If he hadn't really left Bain when he said he did, he'd be guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms. That's a felony. But if he did leave in 1999 yet kept being listed as controlling the firm as SEC documents cited by the Globe indicate, that could be problematic, too. Former SEC commissioner Roberta Karmel told the Globe:

“
If someone invested with Bain Capital because they believed Mitt Romney was a great fund manager, and it turns out he wasn't really doing anything, that could be considered a misrepresentation to the investor... It's a theory that could be used in a lawsuit against him.