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.

(Daily Mail)   Surpriiiiiiiiiiiise   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 125
    More: Interesting, California GOP, October Surprise, Mitt Romney, Gloria Allred, Massachusetts, Matt Drudge, family courts, wedding photography  
•       •       •

7846 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2012 at 10:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 12:09:31 PM
"Mitt Romney Lied" is NOT a surprise. Sorry Gloria.
 
2012-10-24 12:10:15 PM
Got my hair cut and the barber, a Greek guy in his 70's, wanted to talk politics. He said he'd cut both Romney's and Obama's hair (this is Harvard Square after all). I asked who was the better tipper and he said Romney by a little bit, but Romney was already a businessman at the time and Obama was just a poor student. I asked who he was voting for and he said Obama. Why? Romney keeps bringing up Greece as a bad example: "If the country keeps up this way, we'll end up like Greece." Romney said that at least three times during the debate, so Romney doesn't like Greeks. I therefore predict a landslide Greek, Portuguese and Spanish vote for Obama.

Afterwards I gave him a tip and said "I hope that was a better tip than Romney gave you."
 
2012-10-24 12:10:19 PM
Uh... I cannot imagine anything in decades old character testimony in a divorce case that would be "shocking" or "Juicy." The press is salivating at it, but the Romney campaign is fine with the court releasing the records.

Which tells me that Romney's testimony is boring and irrelevant, and only outrages this crazy divorced woman who is obsessing over how much she hates him for supporting her husband during their divorce.
 
2012-10-24 12:11:27 PM

HeadLever: From other sources, it said that she recieved 500,000 shares of company stock.



It's possible she received a cash equivalent to what she was told those 500,000 shares were worth, and it turned out Romney and her ex lied about how much the company was worth. That's what pissed-off the Winklevoss twins with their Facebook settlement -- they settled for a sum of money that they were told was a certain % of what FB was worth, and then found out later that FB lied about the value of their company.

Romney and his buddy selling shares around the same time could mean two things -- either they were bailing-out, or they were "selling high" because the prices were good.
 
2012-10-24 12:12:33 PM

HeadLever: bootman:
Perhaps she sold many them off too early because she was told lies about the shares being worthless.

Not sure that I would be following this path until I got a second, independent opinion. Something tells me that she was likely not beliving most of what the other side was telling the court in the first place. Why should she belive this?


From the little I have read of her statements I am pretty sure that she is not a rational level headed person. In my book that makes misleading her all the more underhanded.
 
2012-10-24 12:15:56 PM
Judging from all the anti-Allred sentiment on this thread, I take it there are still a lot of Herman Cain supporters dragging around a ton of butthurt.

That said, any "revelations" contained in the sealed testimony will most likely have the effect of preaching to the choir. Since the subject of the testimony is Stemberg, not Romney, it is unlikely that there will be anything as explosively damaging to the candidate as in the Cain or Weiner cases.

Most Republicans simply assume that the wife in any divorce case is a gold-digging, hysterical harpy willing to carry a grudge for decades, anyway. (Which in this case might actually be true--why else would she have willingly married an asshole like Stemberg in the first place?)
 
2012-10-24 12:17:23 PM
I give this a resounding "Meh."
 
2012-10-24 12:18:33 PM
I would also point out that Allred hasn't pulled a Trump and announced to the world that this will be an "October Surprise" moment. The press has assigned that title to it on their own. It's possible that this is just an opportunistic lawyer and client taking advantage of the situation to shake-down one of Romney's old buddies. Try this three weeks from now, and it wouldn't work.
 
2012-10-24 12:19:03 PM

shower_in_my_socks: It's possible she received a cash equivalent to what she was told those 500,000 shares were worth, and it turned out Romney and her ex lied about how much the company was worth.


Not from the info in TFA : A 2005 Boston Globe article reported that Maureen received nearly 500,000 shares of Staples stock in the divorce, but sold half before the company went public, missing out on a huge windfall.

Seems to me like obtaining 500K shares of stock in a company that is being downvalued and later becomes what it is today would end up being a great thing. Of course, I am sure that selling your hand short does not help the bitterness at all.
 
2012-10-24 12:24:05 PM
Are you being intentionally obtuse or just dense, HeadLever? Romney said the stock was OVERVALUED, so she sold lots of it pre-IPO and got screwed out of a lot of the gains as a direct result of Mitt's statement.

Is it really that difficult to understand?
 
2012-10-24 12:25:21 PM

bootman:
From the little I have read of her statements I am pretty sure that she is not a rational level headed person. In my book that makes misleading her all the more underhanded.


I won't argue with that. A divorce can bring out the arsehole in the nicest of people. I can't even imagine the amount of poo that was flung during a divorce of this magnitude. Misleading and underhanded tactics were surely employed by both sides.

Probably the only thing that all sides could agree on during these proceedings is that several lawyers got rich.
 
2012-10-24 12:29:00 PM
I keep picturing Romney on the stand testifying, but he keeps looking to his attorney, or whomever, for an indication of what he should say....a la about 15 episodes of Law and Order.

Not a stretch at all.

"As long as I have known him, he has been a terribl....(looks to lawyer who is shaking his head)....y nice guy!
 
2012-10-24 12:31:27 PM

Two Dogs Farking: so she sold lots of it pre-IPO


What makes you think that she would belive a cohort of her ex-husband during a divorce of this magnitude? I would tend to think that I would not belive a word that come from the other side until I did my own research.

If you want to belive everything you are told in this type of setting, go ahead. Just don't attempt to garner any sympathy when it ends up biting you in the arse.
 
2012-10-24 12:39:07 PM

HeadLever: What makes you think that she would belive a cohort of her ex-husband during a divorce of this magnitude?



Yeah, but the point of this is that the CEO of Bain testified under oath that the company was worth X. That was, I'm sure, the whole point of him being in court. If he lied under oath to screw over his friend's ex, then that's A) illegal, and B) pretty shiatty, but C) probably not changing any voters' minds. In the words of Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium, "the cake is largely baked."
 
2012-10-24 12:44:38 PM
If Romney lied under oath about the value of the company before it went public then that is perjury.
 
2012-10-24 12:47:27 PM
Yes, this is the basket in which all of Obama's eggs should be placed. This womam seems like the kind of person the average person can relate to on a personal level... Granted, I realize Chicago is just warming up, but hell, this is weak...Very weak.
 
2012-10-24 12:57:01 PM

shower_in_my_socks: If he lied under oath to screw over his friend's ex,


While you may have a point on the 'lied' part, we will likely find out more about this. However, I don't really see how this 'screws' over the ex. In fact, if she would have played her cards right with this stock, she could have sold this stake for about $24 million.
 
2012-10-24 01:18:37 PM

Snarky Acronym: If Romney lied under oath about the value of the company before it went public then that is perjury.


Actus Reus - easily proven.

However, given Romney's ability to contradict himself within minutes, Atticus Finch himself, would be hard pressed to prove Mens Rea
 
2012-10-24 04:20:53 PM

JusticeandIndependence: NowhereMon: I guess I'm a little curious about WHY Mitt Romney would even need to testify at his partners divorce trial...

I'm not. and I don't care if Obama once thought about divorce.

It's a stupid ploy and should not be paid attention to.


The voice of reason.

It's so depressing to see both sides of the aisle so easily distracted by such plainly contrived distractions when the nation looks like it's edging closer and closer to economic meltdown.
 
2012-10-24 06:18:55 PM
Romney testifies Staples is severely overvalued at $2.00 a share, to influence the court, that meant his ex-wife received a poor divorce settlement, after the settlement Staples goes public for $19.00 a share
 
2012-10-24 06:21:50 PM
His bitter ex-wife Maureen Stemberg claims this testimony affected how much she got from the settlement.

FTFTFA
(Jesus Christ, I know it's only the Daily Fail, but you do have editors, right?) 
 
2012-10-24 06:59:15 PM

aug3: that meant his ex-wife received a poor divorce settlement,


Why? She got 500K shares of stock as part of the settlement. If she whould have kept it, she could have cashed in on that $19.00 per share. Or even the nearly $50 per share that it was selling for back in the mid 2000s. As far as I can tell, they did not force her to sell it when she did.
 
2012-10-24 09:30:24 PM

HeadLever: aug3: that meant his ex-wife received a poor divorce settlement,

Why? She got 500K shares of stock as part of the settlement. If she whould have kept it, she could have cashed in on that $19.00 per share. Or even the nearly $50 per share that it was selling for back in the mid 2000s. As far as I can tell, they did not force her to sell it when she did.


When a stock is referred to as "overvalued," smart investors know it's time to dump that crap stock pronto. You don't hold onto overvalued stock just because "it might be valuable someday." There are various calculations you can do to see if a stock is genuinely over or under valued, so it'll be interesting to see if they bring some finance experts to crunch the Staples numbers from around that time.
 
2012-10-25 01:09:15 AM

WordyGrrl: When a stock is referred to as "overvalued," smart investors know it's time to dump that crap stock pronto.


When a stock is referred to 'overvalued' by you husband during the couse of a nasty divorce, you typically get a second opinion. Especially a divorce of this magnitude.
 
2012-10-26 07:09:09 AM

HeadLever: WordyGrrl: When a stock is referred to as "overvalued," smart investors know it's time to dump that crap stock pronto.

When a stock is referred to 'overvalued' by you husband during the couse of a nasty divorce, you typically get a second opinion. Especially a divorce of this magnitude.


If Staples was still privately held and in that pre-IPO phase, a second opinion might have been hard to get. Not impossible, but you the rules are different than when it is 100% privately held.

Unless someone comes up with an email or letter in which Romney goes "Ha! Ha! I reep off angry biatch of my friend's ex-wife. Staples ees really $19 a share, but I say eet eez $2 a share. Ha! Ha!" or the like this does nothing but make liberals hate Romney more and conservatives give a big "so what?"

If in the next 1.5 weeks we do get hard evidence that Romney knowingly misstated the value of the company to screw over his friend's ex, this is a shot at or right above the waterline for Romney. And that, being the slight underdog, is something he really doesn't need.
 
Displayed 25 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report