If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   While the media is busily covering the staged NAACP fauxtroversy, someone has actually bothered to look at Romney's financial disclosures, and he may be guilty of a felony   (politico.com) divider line 510
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

5960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2012 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



510 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-12 11:27:46 AM

qorkfiend: You could look at the Fark headline. I'll even help by pasting the pertinent part: "he may be guilty of a felony". I've even bolded the operative word for you!




And my point is that by the same logic Obama MAY be guilty of a felony because he filed a tax return and he MAY have lied on it. There is absolutely no evidence that he lied, and the fact check sites say that the tax return is accurate... but ya know, there's always a chance!

Essentially the Farklib community is having their birther moment.
 
2012-07-12 11:28:15 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: I don't know if retaining the title of CEO constitutes "active management" though.

Is that sarcasm?

So what's he gonna say? "I was listed as CEO of a company but I didn't actually do anything. Now, please vote for me to be President of the United States. I'll totally do stuff then. Promise. End of quote."


FTW!!!
 
2012-07-12 11:29:35 AM

Cubicle Jockey: skullkrusher: why would it be sarcasm? He retains his title as CEO but takes a leave of absence for the Olympics. He decides he'll never return to active management, relinquishes his title and and has effectively "retired" from Bain in 1999.


As pointed out in the original Globe article, his duties at the time were "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president."

If he was in a leave of absence at the time, who was performing those roles?


He could say, "well they didn't have anyone doing that at the time but they didn't really need it" which kills his narrative that he is this wizard that made Bain successful and that's why you should vote for him.
 
2012-07-12 11:29:43 AM

RolandGunner: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: why would it be sarcasm? He retains his title as CEO but takes a leave of absence for the Olympics. He decides he'll never return to active management, relinquishes his title and and has effectively "retired" from Bain in 1999.

So he defrauded all of Bain's investors from 1999-2002 who thought he was running the company?

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 300x300]


Ok. Lets do this slowly.

Romney said he left Bain in 1999 and filed federal finance forms that reflected that date.

SEC filings show that he was still listed as CEO of Bain until 2002 and owned 100% of the company until 2003.

So, he either lied to the SEC or he lied on the federal finance forms.

As for the fraud...

Bain controls $66 Billion in investor funds as of 2012. At the end of 1999 that number was $4 Billion. It stands to reason that some of that growth happened during Mitt's 'questionable' years. If Mitt was holding himself out as running the company, using his name to lure in investors, then theoretically that could be considered fraud.

I really don't see how anyone can pass this off as 'no big deal,' especially since Mitt's party went apeshiat because Clinton got a beej in the Oval Office and then lied about it. How is this different?
 
2012-07-12 11:29:44 AM
GET THEM ICEBACKS OUTTA HERE! THEY'RE TAKIN' OUR JOB'S
 
2012-07-12 11:30:02 AM

RolandGunner: qorkfiend: You could look at the Fark headline. I'll even help by pasting the pertinent part: "he may be guilty of a felony". I've even bolded the operative word for you!



And my point is that by the same logic Obama MAY be guilty of a felony because he filed a tax return and he MAY have lied on it. There is absolutely no evidence that he lied, and the fact check sites say that the tax return is accurate... but ya know, there's always a chance!

Essentially the Farklib community is having their birther moment.


and to prove boaf sides r bad people will continue to bring this up for the next 4 years and their will be rallies and constant rallies and investigations about it, amirite?
 
2012-07-12 11:30:02 AM

Cubicle Jockey: skullkrusher: why would it be sarcasm? He retains his title as CEO but takes a leave of absence for the Olympics. He decides he'll never return to active management, relinquishes his title and and has effectively "retired" from Bain in 1999.


As pointed out in the original Globe article, his duties at the time were "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president."

If he was in a leave of absence at the time, who was performing those roles?


Sole Shareholder is usually a legal practice for tax purposes and liability purposes.
 
2012-07-12 11:30:03 AM

skullkrusher: Yes, his "Primary Occupation" was CEO of Bain Capital. Presumably he was still receiving paychecks from Bain during that period. That's the question. Does retaining the title, and "primary occupation", of CEO equivalent to being an active manager of the company or did he have an active role in the company since that date? If so, he made a materially false statement in the disclosure form from Aug 11, 2011 and should be held accountable. I don't know that merely remaining on the Bain payroll constitutes that, though. I guess if he still retained a paid position then he was not technically "retired" though


FT Linked Globe A: "But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.""

That's hard to jive with "retired." Maybe if they stuck an "emeritus" on the end. I'm not going to call Romney a possible felon until the SEC chooses to investigate, and since they probably won't ever choose to investigate, I probably won't ever get to call Romney a possible felon.

Damn straight I'm disappointed about that. Spoiled rich brat.
 
2012-07-12 11:31:25 AM

skullkrusher: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: I don't know if retaining the title of CEO constitutes "active management" though.

Is that sarcasm?

So what's he gonna say? "I was listed as CEO of a company but I didn't actually do anything. Now, please vote for me to be President of the United States. I'll totally do stuff then. Promise. End of quote."

why would it be sarcasm? He retains his title as CEO but takes a leave of absence for the Olympics. He decides he'll never return to active management, relinquishes his title and and has effectively "retired" from Bain in 1999.


Water-carrying for Romney again? Whoulda thunk it!
 
2012-07-12 11:32:29 AM

RolandGunner: Essentially the Farklib community is having their birther moment.


You know, after hearing that Obama has had his 9/11 and his Katrina, and according to you, his birther moment, do you ever stop to wonder why the right uses known GOP fark-ups to describe Obama's alleged fark-ups. At least I'm glad to know you understand that Bush shat the bed on 9/11, Katrina, et al and that the Republicans farked up embracing the birther movement.
 
2012-07-12 11:33:07 AM

RolandGunner: And my point is that by the same logic Obama MAY be guilty of a felony because he filed a tax return and he MAY have lied on it. There is absolutely no evidence that he lied, and the fact check sites say that the tax return is accurate... but ya know, there's always a chance!


Except for the fact that subsequent SEC filings name him as the managing director so..he was either lying in 1999, or 2001 and 2002.
 
2012-07-12 11:33:22 AM

RolandGunner: And my point is that by the same logic Obama MAY be guilty of a felony because he filed a tax return and he MAY have lied on it. There is absolutely no evidence that he lied, and the fact check sites say that the tax return is accurate... but ya know, there's always a chance!


Lolwut? Romney has forms filed with the SEC that contradict each other, so - unlike the birthers - we actually do have evidence that something is not quite on the up-and-up.
 
2012-07-12 11:37:01 AM
Oh please oh please oh please oh please... Romney dropping out of the race over a scandal would validate my oft-repeated prediction of a Huntsman-Giuliani ticket in November and my oft-repeated dream of stumbling over a filthy, bleary-eyed Romney begging for spare change and cadging cigarette butts in Harvard Square after he gets out of jail.
 
2012-07-12 11:37:02 AM

qorkfiend: Romney has forms filed with the SEC that contradict each other,


I'm not so sure the forms contradict eachother as opposed to people have no farking clue what the info on the forms mean.
 
2012-07-12 11:37:22 AM

RolandGunner: There is absolutely no evidence that he lied


Oh no. None at all. Except for the evidence that he lied:

Mitt Romney Campaign, July 1, 2012 - "Since February 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.''

Forbes, July 12, 2012 - "a 2003 Massachusetts filing states that he still owned 100% of Bain Capital in 2002. And the Globe's review of Romney's state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings."
 
2012-07-12 11:38:01 AM
The beauty of all this is "if you're responding, you're losing".
 
2012-07-12 11:38:30 AM

EyeballKid: RolandGunner: Essentially the Farklib community is having their birther moment.

You know, after hearing that Obama has had his 9/11 and his Katrina, and according to you, his birther moment, do you ever stop to wonder why the right uses known GOP fark-ups to describe Obama's alleged fark-ups. At least I'm glad to know you understand that Bush shat the bed on 9/11, Katrina, et al and that the Republicans farked up embracing the birther movement.


I think the current catchphrase is "Obama's Watergate". At least according to my Fox News MadLibs book.
 
2012-07-12 11:38:47 AM
It's false-equivalency day with the Fark independentsTM!

Today's assertion: Asking quesitons about lying in official doicuments is exactly the same as accusing someone of not being an American literally based on zero evidense.

Up next: Owning stock in a company wiht oversees accoutns is exactly the same as owning oversees accounts personally!
 
2012-07-12 11:41:36 AM
If the Boston Globe report is true, Romney is in deep shiate.
 
2012-07-12 11:41:37 AM

President Obama should loudly and prominently pardon Mitt Romney for lying to the SEC in 2001.

- Anil Dash (@anildash) July 12, 2012
 
2012-07-12 11:43:00 AM

vernonFL: If the Boston Globe report is true, Romney is in deep shiate.


I thought the meme was that the Globe isn't fit to line a bird cage with......Just like FOX is always lying until they sadi something yesterday that libs could latch onto as truth.
 
2012-07-12 11:44:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: RolandGunner: And my point is that by the same logic Obama MAY be guilty of a felony because he filed a tax return and he MAY have lied on it. There is absolutely no evidence that he lied, and the fact check sites say that the tax return is accurate... but ya know, there's always a chance!

Except for the fact that subsequent SEC filings name him as the managing director so..he was either lying in 1999, or 2001 and 2002.


And, as highlighted by the Globe, if they used maneuvering to make the seemingly contradictory filings all technically true, then it may be a case of fraud in that the company represented Romney as a major player when he was not.
 
2012-07-12 11:44:30 AM

BunkoSquad: President Obama should loudly and prominently pardon Mitt Romney for lying to the SEC in 2001.- Anil Dash (@anildash) July 12, 2012


One better would be if Obama announced "In gratitude for creating the framework of ObamaCare, I'll let you off the hook on this one."
 
2012-07-12 11:45:05 AM

cameroncrazy1984: sammyk: Suppose its true. Suppose there is overwhelming evidence and it looks like a slam dunk case. Does the DOJ dare go after it? It would make Obama look like a power hungry freak that will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It's not just fuel to the fire for wingnuts. It's freaking rocket fuel.

Okay. So the wingnuts will vote for him twice? Because of that?

I'm not so sure you thought that scenario all the way through.


You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.

/does not subscribe to party before country
 
2012-07-12 11:45:58 AM

RolandGunner: cameroncrazy1984: RolandGunner: And IF Obama choked a homeless man to death in 2001 he'd be guilty of murder.

We don't have an SEC filing with that one, though.



Hah, no. FactCheck stated that IF Obama is correct it could be a Felony.... But the FactCheck.org determination was that Obama's claim was false.

"So what does the Obama campaign have in rebuttal? Very little, and none of it convincing in our judgment."

So all that Farklibs have to go on is the obvious statement that lying on SEC filings is a felony.... but then IF Obama lied on his tax returns then that's a feony, and my evidence is that Obama filed a tax return!


So essentially:

Factcheck.org: "IF the Obama Campaign is correct and Romney didn't leave Bain in 1999 then he may be guilty of a felony, but all evidence shows that the Obama campaign is false."

Farklib: "ZOMG! ROMNEY'sa FELON!1! Factcheck said so!!1"


And by "farklibs" you mean Politco, Forbes, and many other non left sources?
 
2012-07-12 11:47:40 AM
Romney either left Bain in 1999 (as he says) or he didn't (as the Boston Globe says)
 
2012-07-12 11:48:39 AM
This just in:

Rick Santorum seen tenderly pressing and ironing his turtlenecks, booking suite in Tampa.
 
2012-07-12 11:50:45 AM

sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: sammyk: Suppose its true. Suppose there is overwhelming evidence and it looks like a slam dunk case. Does the DOJ dare go after it? It would make Obama look like a power hungry freak that will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It's not just fuel to the fire for wingnuts. It's freaking rocket fuel.

Okay. So the wingnuts will vote for him twice? Because of that?

I'm not so sure you thought that scenario all the way through.

You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.

/does not subscribe to party before country


So you believe that all nominees should be immune from prosecution even if there is evidence of a criminal act?
 
2012-07-12 11:51:26 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That's hard to jive with "retired." Maybe if they stuck an "emeritus" on the end. I'm not going to call Romney a possible felon until the SEC chooses to investigate, and since they probably won't ever choose to investigate, I probably won't ever get to call Romney a possible felon.


if there's smoke there should abso-farking-lutely be an investigation. I just don't know if there is. I just can't see what he has to gain by making false statements on that 2011 disclosure form. He'd commit a felony just to provide support for his future campaign claims that he wasn't actively running Bain in 1999?
 
2012-07-12 11:51:29 AM

sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: sammyk: Suppose its true. Suppose there is overwhelming evidence and it looks like a slam dunk case. Does the DOJ dare go after it? It would make Obama look like a power hungry freak that will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It's not just fuel to the fire for wingnuts. It's freaking rocket fuel.

Okay. So the wingnuts will vote for him twice? Because of that?

I'm not so sure you thought that scenario all the way through.

You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.

/does not subscribe to party before country


I agree, but at the same time I don't want someone in the White House who will be dealing with a felony investigation from the get-go (which is what Democrats in Congress could conceivable start). What the GOP needs to do is force Romney's hand in just releasing his taxes and properly vet him and all of his dealings before the convention. If it still looks bad, they need to replace him as the candidate.
 
2012-07-12 11:52:54 AM

sammyk: Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest.


Even if Romney actually committed a crime? Where's the line on that one? At what point does a potential crime become heinous enough to warrant investigation?
 
2012-07-12 11:53:30 AM

skullkrusher: He'd commit a felony just to provide support for his future campaign claims that he wasn't actively running Bain in 1999?


Do you honestly think there is a limit on what Romney would say or do to provide support for his campaign claims?
 
2012-07-12 11:55:09 AM

vernonFL: Romney either left Bain in 1999 (as he says) or he didn't (as the Boston Globe says)


Think of it this way, this latest observation still up holds up the quantum theory of Mitt Romney being candidate in superposition.
 
2012-07-12 11:56:15 AM

sammyk: You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.


Nope. Especially if it's an SEC investigation based on documents Mitt filed.
 
2012-07-12 11:57:19 AM

DarnoKonrad: vernonFL: Romney either left Bain in 1999 (as he says) or he didn't (as the Boston Globe says)

Think of it this way, this latest observation still up holds up the quantum theory of Mitt Romney being candidate in superposition.


silencedmajority.blogs.com
 
2012-07-12 11:58:38 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He'd commit a felony just to provide support for his future campaign claims that he wasn't actively running Bain in 1999?

Do you honestly think there is a limit on what Romney would say or do to provide support for his campaign claims?


he possess the instinct of self-preservation. I don't think Mittens would do well in prison.
 
2012-07-12 11:59:01 AM

Giltric: qorkfiend: Romney has forms filed with the SEC that contradict each other,

I'm not so sure the forms contradict eachother as opposed to people have no farking clue what the info on the forms mean.


Oh. Well, if you're not sure, then I guess that's that.
 
2012-07-12 12:00:33 PM

skullkrusher: if there's smoke there should abso-farking-lutely be an investigation.


Yeah, but there won't be. Regardless of the truth of the matter.

So either what the Globe is saying is completely true, and Romney/Bain did lie to the SEC, but we'll never know because there won't be an investigation, or the Romney campaign's response to the Globe is true, and it's a mere technical foul, and not at all actually worthy of charges being fired (which will be the de facto occurrence because without an investigation there won't be any charges) or what the Globe is saying isn't true and there's nothing here at all, in which case there won't be an investigation.

So no matter what actually happens, this is the end of the line. The SEC won't press the matter, because they're a bunch of dickless, underfunded wimps, most of whom are part of the very industry they're supposed to regulate. And we end up with what could possibly but we'll never know be a very legitimate issue in Romney's past that the right-wing shill dickholes will use to try and compare us to the birthers.

My point is, we can't have anything nice.
 
2012-07-12 12:01:21 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He'd commit a felony just to provide support for his future campaign claims that he wasn't actively running Bain in 1999?

Do you honestly think there is a limit on what Romney would say or do to provide support for his campaign claims?

he possess the instinct of self-preservation. I don't think Mittens would do well in prison.


I think he'd do great there. He be joining up with one of the gangs, or maybe a couple, withing minutes claiming to always have sided with them.
 
2012-07-12 12:01:45 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: sammyk: Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest.

Even if Romney actually committed a crime? Where's the line on that one? At what point does a potential crime become heinous enough to warrant investigation?


LOLWUT?
 
2012-07-12 12:03:03 PM

qorkfiend: Giltric: qorkfiend: Romney has forms filed with the SEC that contradict each other,

I'm not so sure the forms contradict eachother as opposed to people have no farking clue what the info on the forms mean.

Oh. Well, if you're not sure, then I guess that's that.


I think you pulled out too many of your own eyelashes making wishes.
 
2012-07-12 12:04:22 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: My point is, we can't have anything nice.


and there in lies the kernel of the core of the heart of the matter
 
2012-07-12 12:04:41 PM

Vodka Zombie: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: sammyk: Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest.

Even if Romney actually committed a crime? Where's the line on that one? At what point does a potential crime become heinous enough to warrant investigation?

LOLWUT?


What about my question didn't you understand? Would you like me to use crayons? S h o u l d I t y p e s l o w e r ?
 
2012-07-12 12:06:33 PM

Giltric: qorkfiend: Giltric: qorkfiend: Romney has forms filed with the SEC that contradict each other,

I'm not so sure the forms contradict eachother as opposed to people have no farking clue what the info on the forms mean.

Oh. Well, if you're not sure, then I guess that's that.

I think you pulled out too many of your own eyelashes making wishes.


You seem to be insinuating that since you have no idea what you're talking about, then nobody else does either.
 
2012-07-12 12:06:52 PM

Giltric: Haven't they been saying it will be a brokered convention since before the primaries?


As much as I would love to see that, the Republicans aren't exactly known for playing by the rules, especially when the rules get in the way of their grand schemes. I expect them to suddenly discover some obscure rule that will allows them to steamroller a clear path to Romney's coronation.

And if there isn't a rule, they'll just act like there is.

That said, RON PAUL getting onstage in the middle of this national, televised convention, and letting Romney have it with all the crap that's been coming out about him, from impersonating a police officer, to this Bain felony stuff, to his potential election fraud coverup... it would be so epic. Can you imagine the enraged squealing that would ensue?
 
2012-07-12 12:09:20 PM
Can any of you that seem so convinced this is a huge, massive, election-costing deal, please elaborate on exactly what you think the outcome of this will be? I mean seriously, I've seen some posts suggestions we're going to get some other nominee (funny stuff), or Romney is going to jail (oh god, stop my sides are hurting, you guys are hilarious). For serious, what do you guys think is going to happen as a result of this?

Because I'm standing by my position of nothing. But I'd love to hear what you people think the end game here is that has you so frothy about it. Mostly because I want to laugh at you later when nothing happens.
 
2012-07-12 12:13:02 PM

js34603: Can any of you that seem so convinced this is a huge, massive, election-costing deal, please elaborate on exactly what you think the outcome of this will be? I mean seriously, I've seen some posts suggestions we're going to get some other nominee (funny stuff), or Romney is going to jail (oh god, stop my sides are hurting, you guys are hilarious). For serious, what do you guys think is going to happen as a result of this?

Because I'm standing by my position of nothing. But I'd love to hear what you people think the end game here is that has you so frothy about it. Mostly because I want to laugh at you later when nothing happens.


See my post bout 30 up.
 
2012-07-12 12:13:16 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: At what point does a potential crime become heinous enough to warrant investigation?


That's the part that I found puzzling, dick. Please, type as slow as you want.

Where is your line where a crime should not be investigated because it's simply not heinous enough? Do you make a habit of shrugging off felonies? Are some of those not worthy of the precious time needed to investigate?

Crime is crime. Investigate it and STFU.
 
2012-07-12 12:17:31 PM

sammyk: You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS?


A prosecution is unnecessary and wouldn't happen within 4 months anyway. These cases take forever. All that needs to happen is for Romney to be formerly investigated for criminal activity. That will be enough to turn independents against him.
 
2012-07-12 12:17:54 PM

Vodka Zombie: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: At what point does a potential crime become heinous enough to warrant investigation?

That's the part that I found puzzling, dick. Please, type as slow as you want.

Where is your line where a crime should not be investigated because it's simply not heinous enough? Do you make a habit of shrugging off felonies? Are some of those not worthy of the precious time needed to investigate?

Crime is crime. Investigate it and STFU.


You know we're arguing the same thing here, right? I guess we can get in a sissy slap fight over it if you want.
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report