Quote:

---

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney may be guilty of federal felony if he lied to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) about when he ceded control of Bain Capital, President Barack Obama’s campaign suggested on Thursday.

The Boston Globe reported on Thursday that SEC documents showed that Romney continued to serve as Bain’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” until 2002 — even though he has repeatedly claimed that he left the company in 1999.

In an attempt to defend against claims that Romney was Bain’s CEO during the period that the company invested in firms that moved American jobs to countries like China, FactCheck.org may have accidentally revealed that the GOP candidate committed a “federal felony.”


“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,” FactCheck.org wrote before the The Boston Globe‘s report came to light.

Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer noted on Thursday that there could be “severe consequences” for individuals and companies that lied to the SEC.

“If in fact as he now claims that he was not active with the company, that he was not the controlling person that is described here, that means that these statements are false and as I said, there are very, very serious legal consequences that would follow,” Bauer explained.

“Of particular consequence would be a misrepresentation that involves a controlling person,” he added. “And as these representations show, Romney is the controlling person. You know, he is the person who is the sole stockholder, the chairman of the board, the chief executive officer and the president. And the consequences for the controlling person of this sort of potential misrepresentation — and frankly on this record, it appears by his own words — absolute misrepresentation because he’s now saying none of this matters, none of this is true.”

“[It's] very, very serious. And in the normal course would subject somebody in this position to every manner of investigation with all the consequences that you can imagine that would follow.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

If Romney is entangled in lawbreaking, and is forced to drop out of the race, does that mean the GOP might have to dig up someone good to run for office? I'd really like to see a better alternative to Obama.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

If Romney is entangled in lawbreaking, and is forced to drop out of the race, does that mean the GOP might have to dig up someone good to run for office? I'd really like to see a better alternative to Obama.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Another case of "Kwickfacts"?

For a guy who, according to some, has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. There sure do seem to be a lot of "smear" threads started about him. I wonder why?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Another case of "Kwickfacts"?

---

Quote:

---

For a guy who, according to some, has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. There sure do seem to be a lot of "smear" threads started about him. I wonder why?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

This is a 100% bogus charge

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like I touched a nerve with old Geezer.

If Romney wasn't involved in any way with Bain after February '99, why was he signing multimillion-dollar deals as the President, CEO, and sole stockholder well after that time?

And why are the right-wing fanatics like Geezer so dead-set against investigating this matter?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Neither.

This is a 100% bogus charge, made up by the Obama campaign, because they're the dirtiest group of low life Chicago style political thugs, who have nothing positive to run on, and are now resorting the the most vile, corrupt and low down tactics known in the modern era.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


Keep ripping Romney apart. I hope you put him behind bars.

Just hope you're happy when Santorum is president

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Yeah, these guys who want to put Obama in the stocks for every move he makes, seem in a real hurry to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "nyah nyah nyah" about this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like I touched a nerve with old Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

And why are the right-wing fanatics like Geezer so dead-set against investigating this matter?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

This is a 100% bogus charge

---

No it's not, I'm in MA- Romney is as dirty as the Connecticut River. But that makes him different from any other candidate HOW???

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured Operatives

---

Quote:

---

Washington (CNN) -- So just why is 1999 suddenly such a flashpoint in Campaign 2012?

Team Obama says 1999 is the birth year of "The Big Bain Lie" and goes on to suggest that Mitt Romney might have committed a felony.

That provoked a rare statement from Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades, who called on President Barack Obama to apologize for "the out of control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office that he holds."
Pointed rhetoric aside, just what is the 1999 debate about and why is it potentially significant in the Obama versus Romney race?

At issue is whether Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is telling the truth when he says he had no role in investment and operations decisions at Bain Capital once he left in February 1999 to take over the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.

Talking Points Memo this week questioned Romney's claim by citing Securities and Exchange Commission filings listing Romney as Bain's top officer after 1999. The Boston Globe on Thursday carried a similar account -- and that was seized upon by Team Obama.

"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments," Stephanie Cutter, deputy Obama campaign manager, said on a campaign conference call.


Remember that last part of Cutter's statement -- about responsibility for "his" investments.

But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?

No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.

All four told me Romney is telling the truth.

Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain's low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.

Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."

In explaining the SEC documents filed in 2000 and 2001, Pagliuca said, "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."

Another Bain Democrat who did not want to be identified by name said Romney had no role after taking the Olympics post

"Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He was just gone. And it happened very suddenly. ... After that, he was not on calls or writing memos. He was gone."

To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed.

Two highly reputable arbiters of political debate -- The Washington Post's fact-checking arm and FactCheck.org -- also on Thursday stood by their earlier findings that Romney stepped away from any active role at Bain when he accepted the Olympics post. And Fortune reported that it obtained private Bain documents that support the Romney account.
But the Obama campaign and its liberal allies continue to hang their claim on the SEC filings.

Why so important for them to try to stretch the calendar of Romney's Bain tenure?

For starters, just suggesting Romney isn't telling the truth fits the arc of recent Obama character attacks on the Republican hopeful, including questions about why he won't release more of his tax records.

More significant, though, is that Cutter statement about responsibility for "his" investments.

Liberal blogs were quick to list Bain-tied companies that lost jobs in late 1999 and beyond -- and just as quick to suggest it is now fair game to blame Romney.

And inside both Bain and the Romney campaign, there is a strong belief that either the Obama campaign or a Democratic ally wants to use another Bain investment against Romney late in the campaign but cannot do so with any credibility under the February 1999 departure scenario.

The investment in question: Stericycle, a medical waste company that, among other things, disposed of aborted fetuses.

How could the Stericycle investment be used against Romney?

Bain's involvement in a company that disposed of aborted fetuses could make a powerful final week direct mail piece or attack ad on Christian radio. And in a close election, turnout of the religious right is one of the keys to a Romney victory in November.

*** Bain negotiated the Stericyle investment deal in November 1999, nine months after Romney said he left.

Bain's investors pour money into numbered investment pools. Several sources said that Fund VII was the main investment vehicle at that time.

"You don't see his name anywhere -- in the meetings list, the investor documents, the manager paperwork -- it would have to be there if he was involved in any way," one current Bain officer said of Romney and Fund VII. "He was long gone then."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=h
p_t1


" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's hi-larious, indeed. Here we keep being told by the righties that Obama is directly responsible for "gunwalking", whether or not he ever heard anything about it, because his is the name on the chair in the big office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But we're also supposed to believe that Romney bears absolutely no responsibility for anything his company ever did while he was founder, president, CEO, and sole shareholder?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's one hell of a double standard. But what else should I expect from the Dems?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So if Romney never had a single thing to do with Bain after February 1999...


... Why did he explicitly state otherwise when he was running for office in Massachusetts? He claimed then that he wasn't an out-of-stater from Utah, but was intrinsically a part of Bain, and attended board meetings and more at his company during the time between 1999 and 2002.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So it's clear he's a liar; nobody is even trying to deny that. What's more muddy is whether he was lying THEN, or lying NOW. Or - more likely - both.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's hi-larious, indeed. Here we keep being told by the righties that Obama is directly responsible for "gunwalking", whether or not he ever heard anything about it, because his is the name on the chair in the big office.

---

Hi-larious that Bush was responsible for everything because his name was on the big chair. But somehow if Obama didn't know about something, how could he possibly be blamed.

---

So you agree the buck stops with the executive? Then you agree that Romney was in charge at Bain after 1999. Thank you for getting that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But we're also supposed to believe that Romney bears absolutely no responsibility for anything his company ever did while he was founder, president, CEO, and sole shareholder?

---

But what if he didn't know about all that was going on?

---

Then as founder, president, CEO, and sole stockholder, he was pretty awful at it if all that was going on - and he was signing the papers and cashing the paychecks - and he didn't know a thing about it. Again, thank you for proving that Romney is incapable of running a company OR a business.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's one hell of a double standard. But what else should I expect from the GOP?

---

Quoted for truth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So if Romney never had a single thing to do with Bain after February 1999...


... Why did he explicitly state otherwise when he was running for office in Massachusetts? He claimed then that he wasn't an out-of-stater from Utah, but was intrinsically a part of Bain, and attended board meetings and more at his company during the time between 1999 and 2002.

---

Why did Obama explicitly state that he would bring change when he was running for office when in fact the present administration has been eerily similar to the last?

---

So this is a campaign promise for Romney, then? He's promising to go back in time and not have had anything to do with the company he ran while he was running it? That would be a neat trick, but I doubt he can pull it off.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So it's clear he's a liar; nobody is even trying to deny that. What's more muddy is whether he was lying THEN, or lying NOW. Or - more likely - both.

---

I guess there is no such thing as an honest politician. The only thing that seems to matter to people is the D or R, and nothing else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
The Republican's ideal of leadership: a man who collects a 6 figure paycheck for doing absolutely nothing and having no idea what the people he employs are up to, though he founded the company, owns 100% of it, signs off on the official paperwork, and attends board meetings...

Yep, this man would be an excellent POTUS. /sheesh

Funny thing is - this is the kindest possible interpretation of the situation. The reality of it is likely so much worse.

Second funny thing: Romney's reaction during his full panic mode "media blitz" yesterday, which looked a lot like what I see from some people here when I press a point they don't like: get offended and demand an apology so you don't have to actually address the issue.

Get that man a waaaambulance!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But we're also supposed to believe that Romney bears absolutely no responsibility for anything his company ever did while he was founder, president, CEO, and sole shareholder?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You could see the utter desperation all over his face in his FIVE network interviews he scrambled to do yesterday, in a failed effort at damage control and an attempt to spin-doctor this mess into something he can weasel out of.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
But at this point, the right is so married to him as their messiah and savior - even though they hated him just a few months ago - that they'll do and say ANYTHING to try to make it okay for Mitt to be a liar.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
LOL!

The main thrust of Geezer's opinion based WAPost blog is along these lines:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you liked Mike's original article so much you decided to do homage by also taking selected quotes out of context? Nice to see the teamwork, I guess.

---

Quote:

---

Or do you believe that CNN and FactCheck, (as well as the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-docu
ments-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html ) are a bunch of right-wing liars?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Looks like BainGate may very well prove to be the bane of R-Money's existence.

---

Quote:

---

Financial disclosure forms Romney filed in Massachusetts indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain ‘executive’ in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

---

Quote:

---

We'll start the ass-kissing with you.
Boondock Saints - Paul smecker

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right-wingers are trying to get you to believe that Romney was being paid a salary ("separate from investment earnings") of $100,000 or more per year, while he was IN NO WAY connected to the company and had nothing to do with it at all.

And Romney wants to whine about people wanting "free stuff"...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Hee, hee, hee, I love it! EXCELLENT, Mal4--hey, what was it Romney said, something about "sauce for the goose..."?

---