Obama campaign calls Mitt Romney a felon

Party Rooster · Jul 13, 2012

Presidential rivals trade charges of lying, Romney demands apology over 'felony' remark

Published July 12, 2012
FoxNews.com

AP

The battle between President Obama and Mitt Romney reached new levels of rancor Thursday, with each campaign accusing the other of lying over Romney's tenure at private-equity firm Bain Capital.

The charges flew at a rapid pace, and by the end of the day the Romney campaign was demanding an apology after a senior Obama campaign official said the Republican presidential candidate may have committed a felony.

Obama official Stephanie Cutter made the claim following a Boston Globe article that said documents show Romney was in charge at Bain for three years longer than he had claimed. Cutter said Romney was either misrepresenting his position at Bain to the Securities and Exchange Commission, "which is a felony," or misrepresenting to the American people.

Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades issued a blistering statement in response.

"President Obama's campaign hit a new low today when one of its senior advisers made a reckless and unsubstantiated charge to reporters about Mitt Romney that was so over the top that it calls into question the integrity of their entire campaign," Rhoades said. "President Obama ought to apologize for the out-of-control behavior of his staff, which demeans the office he holds. Campaigns are supposed to be hard fought, but statements like those made by Stephanie Cutter belittle the process and the candidate on whose behalf she works."

The challenge capped a frenzied and nasty day on the campaign trail.

Earlier, Romney released a new ad calling Obama dishonest and asking if the American people can "trust him to lead" if he "doesn't tell the truth." The release which accompanied the ad in an email to reporters also cited Obama's "lies and exaggerations."

The ad titled, "No Evidence," was an aggressive rebuttal to Obama's claims that Romney outsourced jobs while at the helm of Bain Capital.

"There was no evidence that Mitt Romney shipped jobs overseas," a narrator says in the ad.

But the Obama campaign pushed back in a statement charging the ad is part of Romney's "big Bain lie."

Relying on the report in the Globe claiming government documents reveal Romney remained CEO of Bain for three years longer than he claimed, the Obama camp statement went on to say the ad is "based on a false premise."

In a filing with the SEC in February 2001, Bain Capital listed Romney as the company's "sole shareholder, sole director, chief executive officer and president." It said Romney's "principal occupation" was as Bain's managing director.

Romney's campaign repeatedly has said Romney had virtually nothing to do with the company's operations after February 1999, when he began work on the troubled 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

Questions about Romney's control at Bain from 1999 to 2001 are important in his bid to oust Obama this fall. That's when the company oversaw investments that either created jobs abroad or filed for bankruptcy. It's also a time during which Romney stated in federal disclosure forms that he was not active in Bain Capital.

Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said Romney may have committed a felony if he misrepresented his role at Bain on the SEC documents. And if he was running Bain after 1999, Cutter said, Romney hasn't been truthful with the public.

"If that's the case, if he was lying to the American people, then that's a real character and trust issue," she said.

But Romney's campaign issued a statement Thursday from Bain that said 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. 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."

J.W. Verrett, an attorney and economics scholar at George Washington University's Mercatus Center, also told Fox News that the original Globe report appeared to "be confused" about the SEC filings.

He noted they refer to "Bain Capital VI," which he described as an investment separate from Bain Capital itself.

"Saying that Governor Romney was the CEO of Bain Capital VI is like saying that I am the CEO of my retirement account ... it's a silly bit of legalese and it doesn't also mean I am CEO of all the companies in which I invest," he said in an email.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ey-demands-apology-over-felony/#ixzz20TR1GbDr

Ooops. Why does Obama have all these dumb cunts working for him?

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 13, 2012

I'd say that SEC filings carry a little more weight of the law than ghost-written biographies.

OccupyWackbag · Jul 13, 2012

Obama didn't call Mittens a felon. One of his campaign advisers did. No need to "lib" the title sir.

Begbie · Jul 13, 2012

Oh yeah...The Blaze of course had a field day with this....

"Jumped The Shark" Krauthammer Slams Obama Campaign As They Double Down On 'Felon' Charges

The Obama campaign’s attack on Mitt Romney for potentially being a “felon” has backfired in almost every conceivable way. But don’t tell Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt, or we’ll lose all sorts of unintentional comedy. You see, since the accusation was made, LaBolt has been the poor staffer required to defend it, and he’s been doing everything in his power to stick his foot in his mouth as much as possible.

We could spend time tearing Mr. LaBolt’s charges apart, but as it happens, Charles Krauthammer already preemptively did it for us. Just watch the following clip from Krauthammer, explaining how this is the moment where the Obama campaign “jumped the shark.” It pretty much sums up everything we could say:

[yt]ptO0RNqZhck[/yt]

Gotta agree with Krauthammer. Not a good move.

CougarHunter · Jul 13, 2012

Yeah, I'd not get all uppity about felonies when your guy was a known dope dealer.

Sunsetspawn · Jul 13, 2012

Oh no, Romney was a little dishonest, he can't possibly be POTUS now!

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 14, 2012

Bbbbbuuutttt Obama has a racist pastor!!!

Mitt Romney's Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain Capital after 1999 is false, according to Romney's own testimony in June 2002, in which he admitted to sitting on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain investment during the period.

Romney has consistently insisted that he was too busy organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics to take part in Bain business between 1999 and that event. But in the testimony, which was provided to The Huffington Post, Romney noted that he regularly traveled back to Massachusetts. "[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," he said.

Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

Romney testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" at the time.

Yet in the Aug. 12, 2011, federal disclosure form filed as part of his presidential bid, he said, "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. 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."

Bain, a private equity firm, held a stake in the LifeLike Co. until the end of 2001, including during the period in which Romney claimed to have no business involvement with Bain entities. Bain had heavily invested in LifeLike, a company that Romney identified personally as an opportunity, in 1996 and sold its shares in late 2001. His involvement with LifeLike contradicts his assertion that he had no involvement with Bain business. His testimony is supported by his 2001 Massachusetts State Ethics Commission filing, in which he lists himself as a member of LifeLike's board.

Romney has long said that he took a leave of absence from Bain because the work of organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics was so grueling, which has allowed him to deny responsibility for Bain activities during 1999 and 2002.

His activities during that period also included Staples board meetings: "I returned for most of those meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return."

Bain was involved with Staples early in its life, taking the company public in 1989. Romney used his Bain position to obtain a seat on the board, which he held into 2002. He regularly cites the jobs that Staples created as reflecting positively on Bain's record.

The Boston Globe on Thursday blew a giant hole in Romney's claim that he left the private equity firm in 1999. The Globe reported that Bain's own filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission suggest that Romney remained deeply tied to the company until sometime in 2002.

Bain described Romney in 2001 SEC filings as the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president." Another form stated that he owned 100 percent of the company in 2002 and received a six-figure salary from Bain in 2001 and 2002. His listed title: "Executive."

Earlier reporting on the topic by Talking Points Memo and Mother Jones had already begun to chip away at the Romney narrative.

The Romney campaign is still sticking with its candidate's story.

"The article is not accurate," spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement released to reporters following the Globe story. "As Bain Capital has said, as Governor Romney has said, and as has been confirmed by independent fact checker multiple times, Governor Romney left Bain Capital in February of 1999 to run the Olympics and had no input on investments or management of companies after that point."

Yet Romney's sworn testimony appears to back up the SEC filings and contradict his personal disclosure forms submitted to Massachusetts officials in 2002, in which he said that he retired from Bain on Feb. 11, 1999.

Romney's lawyer at the Massachusetts hearing said that Romney's work in the private sector continued "unabated" while he ran the Olympics: "He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on U.S. soil. Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had."

Instead of leaving in 1999, Romney suggested in his testimony that he only left Bain after the Olympics in 2002: “I left on the basis of a leave of absence indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would return at the end of the Olympics to my employment at Bain Capital, but subsequently decided not to do so and entered into a departure agreement with my former partners. I use that in the colloquial sense, not legal sense, but my former partners."

The opening statement delivered by Romney's lawyer in the 2002 hearing said Romney "continued to serve on the board of directors of a significant Massachusetts company and to return here for most of its board meetings."

In a statement released Thursday, Bain defended Romney. "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," the statement reads. "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."

UPDATE: 9:15 p.m. -- The Romney campaign responded by focusing on Romney's involvement with Bain itself, and argued that the state Ballot Law Commission validated the argument that Romney was not involved in day-to-day Bain matters.

"After extensive hearings the Ballot Law Commission came to the same conclusion as numerous independent fact checkers in finding that Mitt Romney ended his active employment with Bain Capital in 1999," said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. "Every public judgment, including a unanimous one from the Ballot Law Commission, has confirmed this fact."

Henneberg called the controversy over Romney's employment at Bain "just another distraction from a desperate campaign that is willing to say anything to divert attention from President Obama’s failed record in office.”

However, the purpose of the Ballot Law Commission inquiry was to determine Romney's residency, not whether he had done any part-time work on behalf of Bain. Indeed, in two days of testimony, the Democratic lawyer didn't question Romney about his role at Bain, as the issue wasn't a live one. That question only arose in recent years when Romney categorically denied any active involvement with Bain.

In addition, the Romney campaign's response does not address whether by sitting on LifeLike's board until 2001, Romney's 2011 disclosure form statement that he had "not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way" was false.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html

Don the Radio Guy · Jul 14, 2012

oandapartycock said:

Because he's a dumb cunt. Let's be honest about this.

Stig · Jul 14, 2012

Whatever. Obama will always be black. And isn't that what really matters?

CousinDave · Jul 14, 2012

oandapartycock said:

The one thing that Bill Clinton did that made him a more successful POTUS after the 1994 election was to get rid of all the dumb cunts working for him - we all know multiple examples of these type of people in our daily lives.

Every politician has them, but few realize or accept it.

Had Barry cleaned house 20 months ago the country would likely be in better economic shape, but all these ideological hanger ons will just bring their candidate down that they support as well as the country as a whole.

Some people are really good at campaigning but not so good at governing, and some people are good at governing but not so good at campaigning - know when to utilize the skills of each person is crucially important for any POTUS

Let's just hop President Romney gets rid of them even earlier than Bill Clinton did.

Don the Radio Guy · Jul 14, 2012

CousinDave said:

Let's not act like these people are off the reservation. They're thugs working for a thug. Things are only going to get worse.

Falldog · Jul 14, 2012

Stig said:

:icon_lol:

Party Rooster · Jul 15, 2012

Mitt Romney Bain Mess Shows Stonewalling Consequences

Howard Fineman
finemanblog@wsj.com
Posted: 07/13/2012 1:48 am Updated: 07/13/2012 10:41 am

WASHINGTON -- It takes perverse talent to turn a two-day mini-story into a major three-week distraction. But that is precisely what Mitt Romney's campaign has done with a June 21 story in the Washington Post. As a result, they're losing valuable media time playing defense when they should be using every waking second and news cycle to remind voters about how crappy the economy is and why President Barack Obama should be blamed for it.

First, here is what the Romney camp did wrong. They screwed up even before the Post story appeared, by stiffing the paper and not giving the reporter answers to questions about Romney and his company Bain Capital. Bain had invested in companies that were developing business in domestic outsourcing and foreign offshoring of production costs. But rather than answer, Bain issued a bland non-statement. If Romney and Bain had engaged on the story in advance, they might have been able to explain the difference between outsourcing and offshoring. They also might have been able to point out that this was a small part of the business, and an unavoidable trend that, in fact, protected many American jobs by making the American-based companies in question more efficient.

The Romney camp in Boston waited a full six days to hit the alarm box after the story was published, and long after the Obama camp took the headline and facts in the story and twisted them to their own advantage. This is an eon of time in modern campaigning, when every tweet is its own news cycle. And as if to highlight their slow-off-the-mark response, the Mittsters formed a delegation and flew to Washington to personally demand a retraction by the paper, which they accused of conflating outsourcing with offshoring. Having brushed off the paper in advance, they arrived with a dossier and demanded results. Not surprisingly, they failed.

The Romney campaign's next move was to strenuously point out that Obama's stimulus package directly poured money into foreign, as opposed to American, jobs, by funneling grants to overseas energy companies. This would have been a good retort -- had the campaign thought of using it right away, not after Team Obama had gone up with an attack ad.

Around that time, the Romney camp committed its biggest mistake, basing their defense of the candidate on the theory that he had bowed out of any role in Bain as of early 1999, and, as such, could not be blamed for any offshoring, consulting or other work that Bain did thereafter. This was too cute by half.

For one, were they saying that there was a lot of offshoring, but that Mitt wasn't around for it? Or were they saying that there wasn't any offshoring, at least none that Bain was responsible for?

For another, the timeline defense is opening an entire new line of media inquiry about the facts -- and opening a new line of inquiry is the last thing you want to do. And the question was -- and is -- whether Mitt Romney was really and truly dialed out of Bain, and too busy in Salt Lake City with preparing for the Olympics to notice that American jobs were being shipped overseas?

It didn't take reporters long to start digging through documents. Fortune magazine found some documents supporting Romney's narrative. But others found that, in SEC filings, Romney's name was listed as the leader of record of Bain through 2002.

The Huffington Post reported on Thursday that, as he prepared to run for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Romney suddenly had an interest in showing that he WAS involved in Bain business from 1999 to 2002. In a lawsuit filed by Democrats seeking to question his residency, Romney said that he had worked closely on trips back to Boston with at least one Bain-owned company, LifeLike Corp., and had gone to board meetings for Staples and Marriott.

The impression you get is of a guy who was whatever the form in front of him required him to be -- not great advertising for a presidential candidate.

But the larger question: Why did Mitt and his minions behave this way, that is, putting a blowtorch to a campfire?

The first reason is Bain, and the culture that surrounds it. Bain Capital, which Mitt Romney founded, was not and is not now in the business of telling people what it is up to. The press is a pox, at best, in a business that requires stealth attacks on undervalued assets.

The second is the attitude of the Romney campaign, which is staffed by classy, good people who also have no use for the press. With the exception of Fox and perhaps a few other publications and outlets, they think that the press corps is against them. But this is and can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obama's attitude is not really much better, but he makes a show of respect. As far as the Romney camp is concerned, most of the press are aliens from a distant evil planet.

Finally, most important, there is Mitt Romney himself. He has no interest in speaking to the non-Fox media. He is bad at it and hasn't practiced enough to get better. His top adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, is a former tabloid reporter who used to rip politicians to shreds, but now uses his considerable talents to keep other reporters at bay, or in fear, if he can get away with it.

In 2008, Romney talked a lot about his Mormon faith and felt burned by the experience. He reluctantly released one tax return and is loath to release more. For 2012, his basic strategy is to clam up, and try through that aggressive silence to keep the focus on Obama.

But if you don't answer questions when they are asked, the result isn't silence. It is more questions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04610596.html?

.

wes mantooth · Jul 15, 2012

The Obama camp needs to watch themselves on this topic. With Democratic cronies like Jon Corzine still walking the streets people are getting fed up with this heads I win tails you lose bullshit. There's some serious thieving going on Wall Street right now and no one is being punished for it.

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 15, 2012

Even Forbes magazine reports aren't buying Romney's nonsense

35 Questions Mitt Romney Must Answer About Bain Capital Before The Issue Can Go Away

Mitt Romney conducted numerous TV and other media interviews yesterday in order to minimize the damage his campaign has received regarding discrepancies surrounding his tenure at Bain.

During times of crisis it is often a smart strategy to give virtually unlimited access to the media in order to push out your message aggressively and satisfy reporter curiosity so that the issue can be pushed of the front burner. John McCain famously did this well earlier in his career when dealing with his own Keating five controversies.

Unfortunately for the Romney Campaign, The slew of TV interviews did little to satisfy the media. In times of crisis, a strong candidate will come up with answers that satisfy the basic questions surround the controversy and will make people want to move on to another subject. Romney, however, could not seem to come up with basic messages that resolved the controversies. Many of his answers seemed evasive or overly legalistic. The biggest problem for Romney is that all of his interviews have only increased the questions that political observers, voters and the media have regarding he subject of Bain Capital.

Specifically, Romney is going to have to answer the following 35 questions before this issue subsides:

1. Are you contending that an individual can simultaneously be the CEO, president, managing director of a company, and its sole stockholder and somehow be “disassociated” from the company or accurately classified as someone not having “any” formal involvement with a company?

2. You have stated that in “Feb. 1999 I left Bain capital and all management responsibility” and “I had no ongoing activity or involvement.” It depends on what the definition of “involvement” is, doesn’t it? Clearly you were involved with Bain to the extent that you owned it. Are you defining “involvement” in a uniquely specific way that only means “full-time, active, 60-hours-a-week, hands-on manager?”

3. How exactly are you defining “involvement?”

4. Surely someone from Bain occasionally called you up and asked your opinion about something work related from 1999 to 2002. Wouldn’t that qualify as “involvement,” if only on a minor level?

5. You earned at least $100,000 as an executive from Bain in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings according to filings with State of Massachusetts. Can you give an example of anyone else you personally know getting a six figure income, not dividend or investment return, but actual income, from a company they had nothing to do with?

6. What did you do for this $100,000 salary you earned from Bain in both 2000 and 2001?

7. If you did nothing to earn this salary, did the Bain managers violate their fiduciary duty by paying you a salary for no discernible reason?

8. Are there other companies that pay you six figures a year as earned income, not investment income, for which you have no involvement?

9. In 2002, you are listed as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors LLC in its annual report. What does this mean?

10. On the very day after you took over the Winter Olympics, the Boston Herald reported that “Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions.” Do you now contend this was factually inaccurate?

11. Do you have records of having written to the Boston Herald asking them to make a correction on this story?

12. On July 19, 1999, a news release about the resignation of two Bain Capital managing directors describes you as CEO and “currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee.” Was this wrong?

13. Did you ask for a retraction?

14. Why would Bain say this if you had severed all ties in Feb 1999?

15. Isn’t it possible that if Bain had made an investment during 1999 to 2002 that you felt was truly odious, for example ownership of a legal Nevada brothel, that you could have and would have used your authority to veto such a decision?

16. If, in fact, you did not veto any major investment decision during your 1999 though 2002 ownership, doesn’t that imply your broad consent of management’s decisions?

17. According to the Boston Globe, “In a November 2000 interview with the Globe, Romney’s wife, Ann, said he had been forced to lessen, but not end entirely, his involvement with Bain Capital.” Did your wife misspeak?

18. Did you correct her?

19. According to the Boston Globe, “Romney also testified that ‘there were a number of social trips and business trips that brought [him] back to Massachusetts, board meetings’ while he was running the Olympics. He added that he remained on the boards of several companies, including the Lifelike Co., in which Bain Capital held a stake until 2001.” You testified that while running the Olympics you took a number of business trips to Massachusetts and for board meetings for companies including Lifelike Co. Bain had a stake in this company until 2001. Are you contending that you could attend board meetings for Lifelike Co at the same time Bain Capital had a stake in Lifelike Co and at the same time you owned the stock of Bain Capital, but that somehow your attending a board meeting for a company partially owned by Bain had nothing to do with Bain because you were on the board as Mitt Romney the individual, not as the representative of Bain?

20. If yes to the previous question, do you understand that anyone who did not graduate in the top 5% of his class from Harvard Law School, as you did, may have a hard time understanding this?

21. You seem to be suggesting that once you stepped down from full-time, 7 day a week, 18 hour a day management, that you were no longer “involved.” You claim you had “no role whatsoever in the management.” Assume for the moment that everyone, even in the Obama campaign concedes that after Feb 1999 you were no longer the 100% full-time, hands-on manager of Bain. Isn’t it fair to suggest that an individual could still have a role in managing a company through the occasional phone call, meeting and email, even if they didn’t involve monumental decisions, such as hiring and firing?

22. When you demanded an apology from the Obama Campaign you seem to suggest that they have stated that you deserve blame for outsourcing done at Bain from 1999 to 2001 because they stated that you were the full-time active manger of Bain during that time. Can you cite a single ad, press release or statement from the Obama Campaign where they specify that you were the full-time manager of Bain from 1999 to 2001?

23. Every time a reporter asks you “why were you listed by Bain in sec documents as the CEO in 2000-2002″ You respond that everyone knows you were no longer the active manger after Feb. 1999 and that you owned stock in Bain but did not manage anything. That may well be, but that doesn’t answer the question as to why Bain listed you as ceo, president and managing director. Why won’t you answer a simple question that involves basic facts that are undisputed?

24. Why do SEC documents claim you were Chief Executive Officer, President, and Managing Director of Bain Capital 2000 and 2001 if you were merely the sole owner?

25. Did you sign this SEC document?

26. Is this accurate or not?

27. If you didn’t sign it, is someone guilty of lying to the SEC?

28. True or false, it is a felony to lie on SEC filings?

29. When asked “did you attend board meetings for Bain after 1999″ you responded by saying “I did not manage Bain after 1999,” or that you didn’t attend any meetings involving things like firing people. This seems to suggest the possibility that you did attend Bain meetings in 2000 and 2001 that did not involve hiring or firing people or where you made the final decisions on investments. Is that possible?

30. If not, why not just give a blanket statement that you never attended a single board meeting for Bain after Feb. 1999?

31. If Obama owned slum apartments in Chicago that horribly mistreated poor people and didn’t provide them heat or running water, but Obama hired a real estate management firm to manage the building and collect rent, do you think it would be fair to criticize him for being a hypocritical slum lord who showed no compassion for poor people?

32. You seem to stress the word “management” a great deal. You had no role in active “management” of Bain after Feb 1999. You then seem to suggest that the only other role for a person to be involved with a company is as an investor. Isn’t there a third role?

33. Couldn’t you have been an active adviser or consultant, the way many chairmen of the board are?

34. You are obviously bright, hard working and energetic. Isn’t is possible that you put in 60 hours a week on the Olympics but still put in 5 hours a week as an active consultant or adviser by phone, email and the occasional meeting with the full time managers of Bain?

35. In general, don’t full-time hired managers often seek the “advice” of absentee owners and then do everything they can to implement that “advice?”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalke...-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/1/

Sorry for the VMS wall of text, cue the "Haha didn't read" GIF guy.

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 15, 2012

wes mantooth said:

I hadn't heard that Corzine was involved with Obama's campaign, much less running for President. And remember, when Obama came out in support of the OWS, he was bashed for it by Republicans. Republicans on the other hand have moved the narrative from "Main Street versus Wall Street", to "Rich guys are cool, you can totally trust them to run our country"

Neon · Jul 15, 2012

I'll just leave this here for Mayr. http://www.mediaite.com/online/game...on-globe-flawed-story-on-romneys-bain-tenure/

Party Rooster · Jul 15, 2012

NeonTaster said:

Pfft. Factcheck.org? Not buying it. :icon_cool

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 15, 2012

NeonTaster said:

1) Now Factcheck is an unbiased and reliable source of info? Seems to me they get attacked by the usual suspects more than DailyKos

2) Factcheck only addresses whether Romney committed a felony. Still doesn't answer the question of "Was he in charge of Bain Capital from 1999-2002". Either way he lied about his involvement at some point.

This has already been proven false by his sworn testimony in June 2002

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html?ir=Politics

Neon · Jul 15, 2012

MayrMeninoCrash said:

Does that mean you'll stop using them?

Uh, yeah. No.

EDIT: And here is the actual Factcheck article if you care. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 15, 2012

NeonTaster said:

Again, Factcheck is only disputing whether Romney committed a FELONY on certifying the SEC filing. It doesn't address whether his campaign was lying by saying he had NO INVOLVEMENT with Bain Capital entities.

Do you believe that Romney lied in his testimony in 2002 that he really wasn't an active board member of Staples and Lifelike? Do you think being paid $100k a year to do nothing is a smart use of money and Bain Capital was A-OK with getting nothing out of Mitt Romney for it?

Neon · Jul 15, 2012

MayrMeninoCrash said:

The Forbes article came out yesterday. I think I'll wait for the response. Since all the claims about it up until now have turned out to be false, I would be less than surprised if this stuff turns out to be just more hogwash in a day or two.

MayrMeninoCrash · Jul 15, 2012

Neon · Jul 15, 2012

Party Rooster · Jul 15, 2012

I still don't see why he listed his "primary occupation" as head of Bain until 2001. Wasn't he getting paid for the Olympics thing?

Campaign adviser Gillespie says Romney ‘retired retroactively’ from Bain Capital

By Keith Laing - 07/15/12 09:43 AM ET

Senior Mitt Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie blasted President Obama's attacks on the GOP candidate, saying Romney had been honest about his tenure at the private equity giant Bain Capital.

"We now know this president will say or do anything to keep the highest office in the land, even if it demeans the highest office in the land," Gillespie said, during an interview Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Democrats have raised questions about when exactly Romney left Bain. Romney has said he left in 1999 to oversee preparations for the Salt Lake City Olympics, but SEC documents show him listed as Bain’s CEO beyond that time.

Gillespie on Sunday sought to clarify the matter, saying that Romney initially thought he would be leaving Bain on a temporary basis, but the challenges of the Olympics led him to “retire retroactively.”

"There may have been a thought at the time that it could be part time, but it was not part time," Gillespie said.

"He took a leave of absence and in fact he ended up not going back at all, and retired retroactively to 1999 as a result," he added. "He left a life he loved to go to Salt Lake City and help a country he loves more, and somehow Chicago… is trying to make it something sinister.

Democrats have raised the issue of Romney's departure date from Bain because they argue that the former Massachusetts governor is responsible for layoffs that occurred at companies that were owned by Bain after 1999.

Romney has responded aggressively to the attacks from the Obama campaign. On Friday, he called for an apology from Obama after a suggestion from the president’s deputy campaign manager that Romney might have committed a felony by misrepresenting his role at Bain to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gillespie said Romney had been forced into responding to Obama's criticisms about his career at Bain, despite earlier claiming "if you're responding, you're losing," because he wanted to clear the air over the unfair attacks.

"There were questions that Gov. Romney wanted to address, and make sure people understood that he's not a felon," Gillespie said. "That's what this campaign, on the Obama side, was reduced to. And it's sad to see."

The Obama campaign, however, showed no signs Sunday of backing off attacking Romney's background with Bain.

Appearing on the same show after Gillespie, senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod defended the questions about whether Romney had helped companies ship jobs overseas while at Bain and over the former Massachusetts governor’s offshore financial holdings.

Axelrod said they were legitimate criticisms and raised concerns about the policies Romney would enact if elected.

"We've got to reform the tax code, how does that inform his judgment?," he said when CNN host Candy Crowley asked him why the Bain attacks should be relevant to voters focused on the still weak economy.

On Romney's departure date from Bain, Axelrod said the GOP nominee was "very willing to take credit for everything good that he thinks happened after [1999], but he's not willing to take credit for this."

Romney’s campaign has denied that he placed his money in “tax havens” abroad and said Romney has paid all taxes owed in the U.S. They accuse the Obama campaign of seeking to distract voters from two months of weak jobs growth numbers.

“As the failures of his presidency become more evident, Barack Obama has resorted to the tactics of a typical politician – dishonest and totally unsubstantiated attacks meant to distract from his own record by smearing the reputation of his opponent,” said Romney campaign spokesman Amanda Henneberg, in a statement to The Hill on Saturday. “Americans deserve a president they can trust, and not someone willing to say and do anything to win an election.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...omney-retired-retroactively-from-bain-capital

Obama campaign calls Mitt Romney a felon

Unleash The Beast

Liberal Psycopath

Registered User

Wackbag Generalissimo

Lying causes cat piss smell.

Registered User

Liberal Psycopath

G-Bb-A-D

Making America So Great You Won't Believe It.

Registered User

G-Bb-A-D

Wackbag's Best Conservative

Unleash The Beast

wierdo

Liberal Psycopath

Liberal Psycopath

ネオン

Unleash The Beast

Liberal Psycopath

ネオン

Liberal Psycopath

ネオン

Liberal Psycopath

ネオン

Unleash The Beast