Will this Allred/Romney/Sternberg divorce thing go anyhere?

[TheCowsCameHome]

Fox Boston is leading with it, in between innings of the World Series.

Any thoughts?

[brooklynite]

1. No

[WinkyDink]

2. No.

[enough]

3. No. (nt)

[randome]

4. I'm starting to have my doubts.

Even if Romney testified that Staples was worthless, that might have been true at the time. It's only when the company shortly after went public that he and his buddy made millions.

So I see plenty of space in which to obfuscate and distract from the facts.

I was seeing his performance in the last debate as that of a whipped dog and thought this might have something to do with it. I'm not so sure anymore.

[Dkc05]

5. Waste of energy. The election is over

we will win a landslide. something that happened in 1988 will not influence anybody. I think based on information and polling we should have a landslide. Focus on getting votes and not digging up something that will not increase voters.

[WillowTree]

6. Doubt it. Few take Allred seriously anymore. Publicity whore, pure & simple.

[madaboutharry]

7. It depends on the testimony.

If Romney intentionally under valued the worth of Staples stock to help his friend in the divorce, maybe it will.

[hrmjustin]

8. If the courts allow them to talk yes. The issue is perjury.

He supposedly testified that Staples was not worth anything so that his friend did not have to pay his wife much after the divorce. A few weeks later Romney and the ceo of staples told Goldman that it was worth a lot of money, and both men made a fortune off of it. He lied under oath.

[randome]

9. I keep hearing 'a few weeks'. What time frame does that actually mean?

[hrmjustin]

10. I believe I read 4 weeks.

[kestrel91316]

20. Lying under oath: IOKIYAR.

[kansasobama]

11. No and not with the current Dem strategists

Obama will get more traction with Murdoch than with this. Mitt will be able to stall.

I have my doubts about Axelrod group even cashing in on Murdoch. They are still playing web ad, not ads in swing states.

Obama is doing better despite his strategists who have been so-so. Obama will help us win with his effort.

[Cha]

25. I gotta ask, kansaaobama, why you

are pushing this anti-Obama advisers all over this board?

Where are you getting this? "The Current Dem Strategists" Are doing a Great Job and DO have ADS in Swing States! Why are you saying they don't?

Tired of you bad mouthing Axelrod.

[Shrike47]

12. No.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook not so good". n/t

[riverwalker]

14. we know more tomorrow

TV cameras will be allowed.

[budkin]

15. No chance

What's the story? Rimney is a liar and an asshole? That's not news.

[crunch60]

23. no, Romney's lies are not news, but it does show a long history of lying and deception for his

own profit. The totality of the lies are what count, and they are adding up, and that's a good thing. Can you imagine what this sleaze would do to the American public if given the chance? The present GOP are a a clear and present danger to our democracy.

[libdem4life]

16. Maybe it's not just about the election...I think the wife deserves her day in court.

And yes, it could be timed for maximum effect. Perhaps his pompous speech at the RNC sparked something in her. From what I read, she's been screwed, blued and tatooed for decades.

[crunch60]

24. I agree, she deserves her day in court, I think Allred knows this and is working in her behalf, good

timing to get the wife some justice.

[femmocrat]

17. Nope.

It is too late to influence the election and he would just lie about it anyhow.

Although, people should remember that Clinton was impeached over less.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

18. No. EOM

[kestrel91316]

19. You mean the RMONEY PERJURY thing??

One would hope so, but I doubt it.

The MSM wouldn't pursue Bush's drinking and cocaine problem, so why would they care about a little felonious fibbing??

[doc03]

21. Nope n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

22. I'd like to see what they have like the transcripts

of Romney's deposition and his testimony in court. Supposedly Allred already has them but wants the gag order lifted so she can quote from them. Apparently she thinks it's worth pursuing so I'll wait and see.

[SoCalDem]

26. Nope..

It might have been interesting if it had been coupled with the tax return fury.... as a way to bolster the secretiveness and the double-dealing..

It's too late now.

The ONLY thing that moves the needle now would be the release of 2009 taxes..the "long form"

The people who plan to vote for Mittens are aware that he's a cheating, lying bastard and they are okay with it.

The ones who haven't "decided", will eventually decide on race, or stay home

[geek_sabre]

27. Nope.

A- I don't think you can testify to the future value of a stock in a divorce settlement. In divorce cases, what matters is current value, which was $2.25 per at the time. IF the judge lowballed her share based on $2.25 being too high, it will be apparent not in Mitt's testimony, but in the court's decision. You can't use later value of the stock to prove what he stated at that time, under oath, was untrue. If there was testimony from someone else, which disagreed with that assessment, then that would be something, but again, she wouldn't be entitled to future value, but current value.

B- The ex-wife made the bad decision to sell the stock prematurely, and is trying to undo it in court. If it comes out that Romney was her financial advisor, then there'd be something. It just seems that she's playing for money now, and using the pressure of the national political stage to get money she's not legally entitled to.

C- At this point, its all "she say" in a VERY ugly, drawn out divorce that started in 1987 and was finalized in 2002. The timeline will shed some light, but I can't see how this will end up looking bad for anyone but the Stembergs.

D- This isn't the first time Allred has exploited the political newscycle to get a punch in for her client. I hope that Obama stays out of it completely.

E- There's more than enough to destroy Romney that actually involves him and his decisions. TAX RETURNS? ABORTION SCANDAL?

[Glimmer of Hope]

28. I am curious to know why the Boston Globe wants this information.

Perhaps it small piece of a bigger story they are working on.