HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Romneyland responds: 'Thi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:45 PM

Romneyland responds: 'This is nothing more than a quirk in the law'

Romneyland responds: 'This is nothing more than a quirk in the law'

by Jed Lewison

Mitt Romney's campaign responds to The Boston Globe's report that three years after Romney claims he left Bain Capital, the firm was still identifying Romney as its sole owner and top corporate officer:

"Although Governor Romney was not involved with Bain Capital after he left to head the Winter Olympics in 1999, he was still listed on some technical filings," the official said. "This is nothing more than a quirk in the law. When Governor Romney took over the Olympics, he was not involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way. He was too busy working to make the Olympic Games among the most successful ever held."

So on the one hand Mitt Romney's campaign says Mitt Romney had nothing to do with Bain Capital whatsoever after February of 1999 ... and on the other hand his company continued to say that he was the sole owner and top corporate officer as late as 2002 and Romney himself signed key documents during that three year span. And the Romney campaign's explanation for this is that it's all just "a quirk in the law"?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. If Mitt Romney wasn't the top guy at Bain, then Bain shouldn't have listed him as the top guy. And if Romney was the top guy, then the campaign shouldn't have ever claimed he had completely separated himself from the firm in 1999. Obviously, we don't know if he was making day to day management decisions, but that isn't the point: the point is that unless Bain's SEC filings were false, Romney was Bain's top corporate officer, and the buck stopped with him. (Of course now, even though he continues to make $20 million a year from Bain, Romneyland pretends that he has no responsibility for anything the company ever does, unless they decide that it's something they want to take credit for.)

If this really were as simple as a quirk in the law, then why did Romney's campaign refuse to comment in the Globe's article? Clearly, it's because this isn't about "a quirk in the law." Compare what Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul says...

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/12/1109033/-Romneyland-responds-This-is-nothing-more-than-a-quirk-in-the-law

39 replies, 3992 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Romneyland responds: 'This is nothing more than a quirk in the law' (Original post)
ProSense Jul 2012 OP
Enrique Jul 2012 #1
Igel Jul 2012 #18
truebrit71 Jul 2012 #36
xtraxritical Jul 2012 #22
sharp_stick Jul 2012 #2
hifiguy Jul 2012 #3
Xyzse Jul 2012 #4
TeamPooka Jul 2012 #5
myrna minx Jul 2012 #6
ProSense Jul 2012 #10
aint_no_life_nowhere Jul 2012 #7
progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #8
siligut Jul 2012 #17
rustydog Jul 2012 #9
klook Jul 2012 #39
young_at_heart Jul 2012 #11
DCKit Jul 2012 #12
Raven Jul 2012 #13
Maven Jul 2012 #14
Igel Jul 2012 #21
rocktivity Jul 2012 #35
VWolf Jul 2012 #15
CanonRay Jul 2012 #16
JBoy Jul 2012 #19
grantcart Jul 2012 #20
Avalux Jul 2012 #23
JHB Jul 2012 #24
cwydro Jul 2012 #25
kentuck Jul 2012 #26
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #27
lumpy Jul 2012 #28
BlueToTheBone Jul 2012 #29
BeyondGeography Jul 2012 #30
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #31
bupkus Jul 2012 #32
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #33
Ganja Ninja Jul 2012 #34
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #37
ThoughtCriminal Jul 2012 #38

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:47 PM

1. did his blind trust sign the documents? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:36 PM

18. No, one of the other managing directors signed.

Romney's signature's not on them. Just that one managing directors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:35 PM

36. Showing him to be the CEO, Chairman of the Board and sole share-holder, no?

Why do you insist on defending Rmoney on this? This is the second post I've seen from you today splitting this hair. From the article itself : "A Romney campaign official, who requested anonymity to discuss the SEC filings, acknowledged that they “do not square with common sense.” But SEC regulations are complicated and quirky, the official argued, and Romney’s signature on some documents after his exit does not indicate active involvement in the firm."

His campaign admitted that he did in fact sign "some" documents after he left. Happy now?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/07/11/government-documents-indicate-mitt-romney-continued-bain-after-date-when-says-left/IpfKYWjnrsel4pvCFbsUTI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:58 PM

22. An amended return is quite clearly labeled on top as "amended return". You can't miss it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:48 PM

2. I really hope there's something to this

If it's all true this one story could bring the pukes to their knees even before the convention.

The internal wailing would destroy downticket morale and suppress the RW vote more than any racist GOP voter ID scam could ever hope to accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:50 PM

3. Drip, drip, drip.

The floodgates will open. I predict by the end of September.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:52 PM

4. I just hope you're right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:52 PM

5. Mitt, like his father...

will never be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:52 PM

6. Ah, yes. The IRS and the SEC are, yanno, quirky that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:05 PM

10. Quirk =

"we're in deep shit!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:54 PM

7. Even if he wasn't calling the shots after 1999

the fact that Bain listed him as its President and CEO gave him an affirmative duty to understand at all times what the company was doing in his name. As Reverend Al would say: "nice try, but we gotcha."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:55 PM

8. if he's signing documents, he IS in charge!!

Lame-ass response btw, "He was too busy working to make the Olympic Games among the most successful ever held." I love the word "among" Do they mean top 24? top 10? Not the best ever.. but among the best ever. What a bunch of bs.

There had to be some incredibly backroom deals going between Bain's money and Utah, and the LDS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:23 PM

17. As far as I have read he helped the Olympics by obtaining federal money

And I have no doubt there was backroom deals, or as Romney would call them, "quiet room" deals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 12:56 PM

9. If he is so proud of success while heading Bain Capital, Why would his team be so defensive

if we learn he was heading the vulturesRus group three years longer than he brags about? That would be, by Rawmoney's statements a good thing, not something to be ashamed of, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 05:51 AM

39. Excellent point

which I would like to see Dem spokespeople use when dealing with Repuke Yelling Heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:06 PM

11. There's something 'quirky' about this!

Romney's secrets seem to be multiplying every day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:09 PM

12. So, I'm really not unemployed? Then why don't I get checks from my former employer...

 

like Rmoney does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 01:15 PM

13. I wonder if The Boston Globe got their hands on

Bain's disclosure statements. A some point investors would be shown a statement outslining the status of the company and a description of who was in charge. I don't think Romney can wiggle out of this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:09 PM

14. A "quirk"???

That's all they've got?

How does a statement YOU MADE to the SEC have anything to do with the law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maven (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:57 PM

21. Because sometimes the laws dictate what you have to say?

It's clear that Romney owned 100% of the stock in Bain-something-or-othe VI, and that that part "VI" was the sole manager of Bain Investments, Inc. Bain Investments was a conglomerate of a number of pieces (hence the "VI") and held an irrevocable power of attorney from PEP (Australian).

Some of the details and structure are laid out in documents included by reference; they're "exhibits" and weren't in the dump of the SEC filings made public on the Internet.

The stock, in the filings, had nominal value of $0.01 per share. So Bain Investments had nominal worth of around $1,300. Everything after that is investor money: Romney's or others. The SEC filing said nothing about how that was allocated or how investment decisions were made.

A Factcheck blurb pointed out that usually those investors who are active in managing a takeover are those shown on the take-over documents--something we agree with, in trying to say Romney was important in GTS Steel. After all, if there are 14 managing directors and Romney's 1/14 in every decision, his importance is 1/14--but for GTS he was one of a small number actually calling the shots and making the decisions on his own. (Then we say that what matters is the CEO, even if that's not actually the case for Bain, because it is the case for other corporate structures. We're blinded by our goals, and then revel in our blindness.)

Exactly what the terms of Romney's appointment as CEO was aren't clear. It's also unclear what his duties were, since he didn't sign the SEC filings. Nunnelly did.

But there are times when the federal filings aren't exactly accurate de facto, even if they are necessarily truthful de jure.

I was involved in one non-profit that had hefty revenues. I was on the Board, and at one point was chair. While chair, we fired the CEO. Or said we did. In fact, he was fired but if he challenged it it meant he was effectively just on administrative leave. He had a signed contract with all kinds of benefits and a decent salary: If he accepted the dismissal, he was gone; he challenged it so he was on leave. He had absolutely no operational control; he wasn't even allowed on the property after I confiscated his keys, revoked his passwords and access codes, and escorted him from the building. Yet he continued to be listed as "Director," with final authority over all decisions, because that was the law.. It wasn't until his contract ran out that we could remove his name from the reports we filed with the government: It didn't matter that he had no control. He was the Director until either the lawsuits cleared and the court declared his contract cancelled or until it ran out. That was a quirk in the law. Strictly speaking, if we'd been sued the plaintiff could have given us notice by serving the director on leave, and nobody actively involved in the organization would have a clue.

Until the entire mess is made public, all we have are claims as factual as Team Obama's declaring, based on hearsay, that Romney signed the SEC filings himself. Or the claim that every CEO must, per force, know every decision made in the organization. Nice rhetoric, if you can afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:31 PM

35. But the difference in your case is that your CEO was FORCED out, and you can PROVE it

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 09:46 AM - Edit history (3)

Presumably, he didn't get to put his signature on anything after you escorted him off the premises. And most important, if you needed to prove that he was CEO in name only, you had a copy of the severance agreement to wave around.

Romney claimed to have left Bain, period. If it really WAS an "administrative leave," WHY didn't he say so...because he was, in reality, FIRED???


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:20 PM

15. To the 1%ers, laws are "quirky" and the constitution is "quaint" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:22 PM

16. A "quirk" than can net him 5 years in the Federal pen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:48 PM

19. Explaining things away as a "quirk" is an age-old ruse. If you will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:55 PM

20. There it is the NDD that is so helpful


Non-denial denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:59 PM

23. It's simple, really. Documents don't lie.

If Romney signed documents as CEO and dated them AFTER the date he supposedly left Bain, it's not a "quirk in the law". It means he's a liar and should be prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:06 PM

24. Wasn't he responsible to the shareholders to make sure 'quirks' didn't happen?

A 'quirk in the law' can cost a lot of the shareholder's money. Wasn't it part of his job as CEO to make sure he and his people stay on top of 'quirks'? To navigate around these financial rocks, snags, and shoals to keep the Good Ship Bain from running aground?

So basically, he's admitting some big holes in his vaunted business acumen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:09 PM

25. I wish something would come of this

but I suspect it will mean nothing in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:10 PM

26. A "quirk" equals a bald-faced lie.

in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:13 PM

27. Well, that quirk seems to make Mitt a felon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:13 PM

28. I think we can figure out why he hasn't disclosed his tax returns.

n

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:19 PM

29. You know that silly little quirk in the law...

It's called a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:25 PM

30. In other words, guilty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:25 PM

31. See ...

I predicted in another thread, earlier today, the romney response:

Aww, come on ...

By way of analogy, all romney did was start sleeping with a woman without telling her that his divorce wasn't final yet!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:25 PM

33. So far we have "Quirkey" and "Playing games"

What's next?

Romney reminds me of Captain Stern....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 03:30 PM

34. I'll have to remember that the next time I get hauled before a judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:24 PM

37. You can bet that if someone else was Bain's top corporate officer, rMoney's name would be gone

and there's would have prominent placement.

CEO's, corporate presidents, COOs... those guys are narcissistic power-mad greedheads. There's no way they'd let someone else's name stand at the top of the chain if THEY were really the top guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:38 PM

38. George Bush really wasn't President from 2001-2009

Just a "Quirk" in the law. Come to think of it, it was a pretty quirky interpretation of the law that made that possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread