So Mitt Didn't Leave Bain in 1999 After All

 
My opinion of why this will go nowhere. Because it's potentially a killer. I do not claim a deep knowledge of this stuff. But from reading there is a question of actual illegality. If the media went with this and it really is that big, Romney would have to drop out. That would be a defacto handing of the Presidency to Obama. The media having been hounded by the right for decades will do nearly anything to avoid charges of a 'liberal bias". They don't think they could survive the backlash from the right. In fairness, they are probably correct.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens. SEC and all that stuff is way out of my field of expertise. But the fools in the media aren't. They are very transparent to me.
 
Don Quixote said:
try cnn, they are the ones reporting them
Click to expand...

actually it was the Boston Globe who sourced Mother Jones that first reported it. I am glad to see you just read the journalists take without bothering to actually look at the SEC documents they source.

From Mother Jones (who actually sourced the SEC document they questioned unlike the Globe)

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/392937-stericycle-13d-1999

Take a look at who signed off as managing partner/general partner etc... for the various entities. Oh yeah, it wasn't Mitt. The only time Mitt signed the document was to show that he owned shares. Which given that Bain was investing numerous (if not all) of its various funds into the company, that stands to reason that Mitt's account would also get invested.
 
I am still looking for a motive, the facts are the facts. (No matter how badly Supercandy wants to pretend otherwise) But without some motive or gain by Mitt, why does it matter?
 
 
W. Mitt Romney, Two Copley Place Managing Director of
Chief Executive Officer, Boston, MA 02116 Bain Capital, Inc.
President and Managing
Director

Being CEO, President and Managing Director sure indicates he was with them.... That much is clear. The Cons wont respond here until they get talking points from the Conservative Media.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Thanks for the links
2) So nothing in those filings that I can see says Mitt has anything other than titles with Bain

Did anyone else see anything to the contrary?
Click to expand...

You are simply being silly. If you are CEO of a company, you are with that company. Are you really pittafull enough of a Romney follower to not belive this?

Romney certantly could put an end to this by releasing his tax returns! Now he has a motive for not releasing the Tax Returns...!
 
Jarod said:
I am still looking for a motive, the facts are the facts. (No matter how badly Supercandy wants to pretend otherwise) But without some motive or gain by Mitt, why does it matter?
Click to expand...

People are speculating it's the fetal disposal crap but I don't believe that really. I don't know. I think there's a shitload of stuff with this guy, and I'm starting to understand why Sarah Palin looked good to the McCain campaign after they vetted him. Assuming they did vet him. I read that the McCain campaign did see all of his returns that he won't release now, but I am also not sure that is accurate. It's definitely a get-out-the-popcorn election.
 
Supercandy and Dixie have gotten so silly its funny.

There Messiah can do no wrong!

The guy told the American people one thing, then told the SEC another. And they are trying to say, CEO of BAIN CAPITOL is just a title. Kinda like an honorary degree or something.
 
Darla said:
My opinion of why this will go nowhere. Because it's potentially a killer. I do not claim a deep knowledge of this stuff. But from reading there is a question of actual illegality. If the media went with this and it really is that big, Romney would have to drop out. That would be a defacto handing of the Presidency to Obama. The media having been hounded by the right for decades will do nearly anything to avoid charges of a 'liberal bias". They don't think they could survive the backlash from the right. In fairness, they are probably correct.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens. SEC and all that stuff is way out of my field of expertise. But the fools in the media aren't. They are very transparent to me.
Click to expand...


In reality, what happened was Rmoney took over the Olympics on short notice but had every intention of returning to Bain at the time that he took over the Olympics. So he wanted to keep his seat warm and didn't want anyone else to take his spot at Bain while he was gone. So he kept his titles and kept his positions and everyone at Bain acted as though Rmoney was going to return to his positions at the helm of the ship, and they acted accordingly. That's also why he is accurately listed as chairman of the board, president and CEO of Bain. Because he was. And in those positions he is responsible for Bain's activities during the period in question.

Moreover, as a practical matter it is entirely inconceivable that Rmoney up and left and didn't communicate with anyone at Bain regarding the business, given his express intent to return as chairman of the board, president and CEO after the Olympics. It is not within the realm of reason for Rmoney to totally and completely remove himself from the activities of the business. That's not to say that Rmoney was intimately involved with the day-to-day operations, but that Bain was operating in accord with Rmoney's wishes and people acted as though he was coming back in carrying out Bain's business.

It wasn't until 2002 that he decided to actually leave Bain and to enter public service. That's why Rmoney received at least $100,000 in compensation from two Bain entities in 2001. And that's why he received a retirement package in 2002 that was dated February 1999.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Thanks for the links
2) So nothing in those filings that I can see says Mitt has anything other than titles with Bain

Did anyone else see anything to the contrary?
Click to expand...


So other than Mitt Romney identifying himself as the chairman of the Board, President and CEO of Bain you don't see anything to suggest that he was actually chairman of the board, President and CEO of Bain? That's awesome. Or the document identifying Romney's principal occupation as managing director of Bain?

Also, too, didn't you crack a "vote present" joke or two in your day?

The dipshittery is astounding.
 
I couldn't help but notice that no one has called out Obama yet on this thread.

Shouldn't someone have to call out Obama?
 
Chariman of the board, president and CEO are really just honorary titles that he held those three years.


SuperCandy can explain it all away!
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
In reality, what happened was Rmoney took over the Olympics on short notice but had every intention of returning to Bain at the time that he took over the Olympics. So he wanted to keep his seat warm and didn't want anyone else to take his spot at Bain while he was gone. So he kept his titles and kept his positions and everyone at Bain acted as though Rmoney was going to return to his positions at the helm of the ship, and they acted accordingly. That's also why he is accurately listed as chairman of the board, president and CEO of Bain. Because he was. And in those positions he is responsible for Bain's activities during the period in question.

Moreover, as a practical matter it is entirely inconceivable that Rmoney up and left and didn't communicate with anyone at Bain regarding the business, given his express intent to return as chairman of the board, president and CEO after the Olympics. It is not within the realm of reason for Rmoney to totally and completely remove himself from the activities of the business. That's not to say that Rmoney was intimately involved with the day-to-day operations, but that Bain was operating in accord with Rmoney's wishes and people acted as though he was coming back in carrying out Bain's business.

It wasn't until 2002 that he decided to actually leave Bain and to enter public service. That's why Rmoney received at least $100,000 in compensation from two Bain entities in 2001. And that's why he received a retirement package in 2002 that was dated February 1999.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

And also, considering all of this, let's say Bain had engaged in illegal activity during the years 1999-2002...he'd have been legally culpable no matter what he claimed right? So semantics aside, legally, he was responsible. Which to me means he is responsible in all other ways. I assume there is something major they are afraid of, whether it's the outsourcing or the fetal tissue disposal investments, or both and a shitload of other stuff that together will just render him toxic.
 
Darla said:
You mean other than his sworn testimony?
Click to expand...

What are you referring to? Whose sworn testimony? Mitt? Saying he was not running the day to day? According to those SEC filings Dung posted, it would seem that is correct. Look at who signs off for Bain, Inc.... it isn't Mitt. (at least not on any that I have looked at as of yet)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top