Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:37 AM Jul 2012

Why it matters when, exactly, Romney left Bain

Why it matters when, exactly, Romney left Bain

By Steve Benen

It was easy to miss, but there was an interesting spat last week between President Obama's campaign and the Annenberg Center's FactCheck.org. The campaign had run an ad holding Mitt Romney responsible for a series of Bain Capital layoffs, which FactCheck.org rejected as unfair -- the layoffs, the website's editors said, occurred after Romney left Bain.

Obama's team stood by the claim, sending a six-page letter (pdf) to the FactCheck.org editors, defending their argument in great detail. FactCheck.org was unmoved and said the campaign's claim was still wrong...Who was right, the Obama campaign or FactCheck.org? As of this week, the evidence clearly favors the former.

Mother Jones' David Corn has done some excellent reporting of late, uncovering ample evidence that Romney didn't leave Bain until 2002, three years after his ostensible departure date. Josh Marshall moved the ball forward yesterday, as well.

The gist of the disagreement comes down to this: There's no question that numerous public filings and some contemporaneous press references say Romney was still running things at Bain after 1999. But his campaign insists that whatever securities filings may have said, in practice, he was so busy running the 2002 Winter Olympics that he actually had no role at Bain after early 1999. That's possible in theory. But there's no evidence for it besides self-interested claims by Romney. And there's plenty of documentary evidence to the contrary. After all, what you tell the SEC is really supposed to be true.

But here's the thing. I've found yet more instances where Romney made declarations to the SEC that he was still involved in running Bain after February 1999. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet noted these.

What Josh highlighted were two SEC filings from July 2000 and February 2001 in which Romney listed his "principal occupation" as "Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc." At the risk of putting too fine a point on this, one cannot be gone from Bain in February 1999 and also be the managing director of Bain in February 2001.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/11/12680323-why-it-matters-when-exactly-romney-left-bain
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
1. Yeah that's all well and good, but did you hear that Justin Bieber got a traffic ticket??
Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
Jul 2012

...the M$M in this country are a running joke of suck-ass lameness and banality...

Following up on this story would involve some hard-work, and in the end can't Obama just show us his birth certificate because, you know, THAT was really newsworthy...

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
4. Isnt this a violation of DU's Fair Use rules ?
Wed Jul 11, 2012, 09:54 AM
Jul 2012

Didnt DU just go through an intense legal battle defending itself on this very subject ? ....

As much as I agree with the story itself, your willingness to place DU in legal jeopardy is somewhat troubling ...

Respect DU ....

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. Hey
Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:00 AM
Jul 2012
Isnt this a violation of DU's Fair Use rules ? Didnt DU just go through an intense legal battle defending itself on this very subject ? ....

As much as I agree with the story itself, your willingness to place DU in legal jeopardy is somewhat troubling ...

Respect DU ....

...I edited the OP so you wouldn't have to go through the day concerned. Now you can focus on the issue.

Thanks.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
8. It says that they are highly adept at splitting hairs...
Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:32 AM
Jul 2012

...not good when you are supposedly the 'arbiter of political fact vs fiction'...

uponit7771

(90,347 posts)
9. FC.org is still saying that OWNING a company is not the same thing as controling it...they and WAPO
Wed Jul 11, 2012, 10:44 AM
Jul 2012

...are being VERY VERY disingenuous on this issue.

The also say regardless of what the biggest liar in presidential candidate history says about him controlling the company via the SEC that there's little evidence that he did so after 1999.

I no longer trust them

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why it matters when, exac...