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

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

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

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.

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

will never be President.

"we're in deep shit!"

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."

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.

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

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?

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

Romney's secrets seem to be multiplying every day!

like Rmoney does?

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.

That's all they've got?

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

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.

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

Non-denial denial.

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.

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?

but I suspect it will mean nothing in the end.

in this instance.

n

It's called a crime.

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

What's next?

Romney reminds me of Captain Stern....

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.

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