FactCheck.org's felony flip-flop

[Enrique]

The first one to bring up the word felony was FactCheck.org:

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/

In fact, if the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999.

So the Obama camp says ok, maybe Romney committed a felony.

So then FactCheck consults an expert to put an end to all this "felony" nonsense. (why didn't they need an expert the first time?)

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/

But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.

[SoutherDem]

1. When was Factcheck.org purchased by the Koch Brother?

Or are they just saving face because they screwed up on fact checking the original story and don't want to live up to it?

[The Magistrate]

2. So They Go To Pedophile U. For Their 'Expert', Eh?

"Romney loves America like a tick loves a dog."

[rug]

6. The University of Pennsylvania is not Penn State.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. U Penn is a private school.

[The Magistrate]

10. My Apologies To the Place Then, Ma'am

Though I still think very little of the craw-fishing by Fact-Check....

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. No question.

Common mistake, too.

[uponit7771]

3. FC.org stepped in it this time, their piece defending rMoney was disgusting mainly admitting to

...the SEC filings of him being CEO etc but dismissing it as there being no evidence rMoney was in active management of the firm as if the SEC filing claims didn't mean shit.

They and WAPO were trying to make up to the rMoney crew and they couldn't

[ProSense]

4. This:

<...>

Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.

We would reassess our judgment should somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions or had any active role (not just a title) at Bain after he left to head the Olympics. But nothing we’ve seen directly contradicts Romney’s statements — which he has certified as true under pain of federal prosecution — that he “has not had any active role” with Bain or “been involved in the operations” of Bain since then.

Factcheck is full of shit. I mean, they're refuting evidence that shows he likely had direct involvement, but adding a caveat that they'll "reassess" if "somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions"?

I guess this doesn't count:

<...>

In response to questions from Mother Jones, a spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time." (The Romney presidential campaign did not respond to requests for comment.)

But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec

Or this:

Breaking: Rmoney flown in for board meetings in 2002
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/12/1109287/-Breaking-Rmoney-flown-in-for-board-meetings-in-2002

This is starting to remind me of how Factcheck.org handled Bush trying to privatize Social Security.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100246745

[LiberalFighter]

19. In response to your first excerpt

Yesterday on "The Last Word" I think, Lawrence had an ex SEC commissioner on that refutes Jill Fisch's claim.

I would be asking why I should take the word of Fisch over former SEC Commissioner Roberta Karmel?

[ProSense]

21. Interesting, thanks. I

still can't wrap my head around the dismissal of SEC filings in favor of opinions. It's like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and claiming there is no jar there or that it's not your hand.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Apparently in the Boston Globe there is even more in regards to Mitt's residency issue.

Remember when he was running for Governor and his residency was in question during his stint with the Olympics? Part of his testimony apparently was that he was on temporary leave from Bain and he was intending on returning to Massachusetts. He also had to pay the nearly $50,000 in state taxes he didn't pay because he filed Utah tax returns.

Someone try to suggest that he was spending too much time running the Olympics and couldn't be at two different places at the same time. I wish someone had pointed out that Romney likely has his own fleet of jets to take him wherever he wants.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Now that I have researched FactCheck I would consider it a tainted group.

When it's parent organization was created by Republicans. That those heavily involved had experience with the Wall Street Journal, AP, CNN, USA Today, or it appears most of their staff have Pennsylvania media background. Makes me think there might be some Mellon Scaife connection.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. And another K&R

[SDjack]

7. Looks like in USA a fiduciary has the right to lie to customers. n/t

[Dawson Leery]

9. Robert Parry on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101635170

[DallasNE]

12. FactCheck.Org Has Really Lost It

I'm not sure whether FactCheck.Org failed to provide the University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor with the complete quote or if it is the Professor that is showing his partisan bias by not answering the question asked. Below is the statement from the Obama campaign team.

“Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony." "Or," she said, "he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments,” including layoffs and the outsourcing of jobs.

What I have bolded above is at the heart of the ongoing controversy and was indeed the original point FactCheck.Org was addressing. In fact, FactCheck.Org is now disclaiming a point that was first made by them and not the Obama campaign so this latest gem they put out is disingenuous at best.

[Enrique]

16. this makes them look like a dishonest politician

Leaving out that part of the quote is just silly, they're obviously missing the point on purpose. They seem to be reluctant to do what they must do: retract their "all wet" assessment of Obama's attacks.

[joshcryer]

13. I saw this too, I think it's wishy-washy at best.

Though they are basically correct that no charges will be fired.

[Hugabear]

14. Looks like FactCheck is becoming a right-wing propaganda machine

I look forward to all the FactCheck articles defending Rmoney...by the time they're done, they'll make him out to be some sort of fucking saint.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. In factcheck.org's world of cocktail parties with hedge fund managers I'm sure they think that

opening new factories in China or India, having multiple off shore bank accounts and falsely providing information to the Securities and Exchange Commission are at most normal human failings that we have ALL been guilty of on occasions. I suspect in the world where they simply live, move and operate that these are at most mere faux pas. Come on now, how many people do you know who hasn't done things like this on any number occasions? Admit it, we all have. At least in their little world.

[NNN0LHI]

17. This is hilarious

[truebrit71]

18. This is officially the moment that Factcheck.org shot itself in the foot...

...rather than admitting that they were in fact wrong about their initial assessment that the Obama campaign had not been accurate in it's ads, they are now doubling down and have painted themselves straight into a corner...

[Nye Bevan]

20. I actually find those Factcheck links to be well-argued and persuasive.

And I wouldn't accuse Factcheck of suddenly becoming right-wing hacks on the basis of this one story. Check their other material, there is plenty of anti-Romney stuff there.

It's a mistake to doggedly insist that something is true, just because it would help your guy, when the facts say otherwise. Like I knew Rathergate was false after about one day (when I typed the memo myself into MS Word with the default settings) but to this day there are still DUers who argue otherwise. But there was plenty of other stuff to attack Bush with and there is plenty of other stuff to attack Romney on.

[DallasNE]

24. This Is A Silly Assessment

What FactCheck.Org did in their original assessment is to look at this as a he said/he said story and concluded they took at face value what Romney said because to do otherwise would mean that Romney committed a felony. You may find that as persuasive but I find it unprofessional. Next they used a 3rd party person to accuse the Obama campaign of making the claim that Romney committed a felony and saying that is false. That is hardly well argued because they are knocking down the point they originally brought up as why Obama was wrong. That is a dog chasing its own tail.

What we do know is that Romney has filed forms showing he was the CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital for the same period that Romney has filed a form showed that he resigned from Bain Capital in February 1999. FactCheck.Org has not made any comment on the conflict in Romney's own disclosure forms. Why? Romney has the power to clear this up by releasing his 2000 and 2001 federal income tax returns. On them he had to indicate whether he was an active or passive manager with different tax consequences for each. The guess is that Romney claimed active management of Bain on his tax returns for the favorable tax treatment and supported that with his SEC filings that said he was CEO, sole owner, etc of Bain Capital. Regardless, Romney has a problem, possibly legal. Until there is transparency on this issue Romney will have have problems because his various filings are in conflict and that is what he can't run away from.

[Nye Bevan]

26. It's entirely possible, actually likely, that there is something devastating to Romney

in those unreleased taxed returns. If there isn't, why not release them?

[Enrique]

27. I agree, they overlook the conflicting statements

Romney contradicts himself all over the place and FactCheck decides not to notice. They just took his side on this one.

[emulatorloo]

30. Factcheck is digging itself into a hole

Way too quick to dismiss the SEC forms story. Their claims that this is nothing do not make logical sense. It stinks of fact-avoidance. Don't understand why they are doubling down.

[Enrique]

25. I agree with your attitude

however I think that attitude, which we share, is getting in the way of your thinking if you found their argument persuasive. There are so many flaws in their argument that it's difficult to discuss. I think their attitude is the problem as well, they don't like the Bain attacks, so they decided to debunk them.

It's interesting that you bring up Rathergate because I see similarities too. They didn't like the criticisms of Bush's national guard record so they did some poor reporting on that story as well, not just the Dan Rather story but earlier attacks, going back to when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter.

[Blue Meany]

28. The Obama campaign's mistake was to assert this themselves

rather than to say "According to factcheck.org..."

[Enrique]

29. FactCheck is not an authority on reporting laws

FactCheck is the one that made the mistake. Maybe Brooks Jackson thinks it is inconceivable that Mitt Romney might committ a felony, but his trust in Romney is not a fact.

[Blue Meany]

31. No FactCheck is not an authority on law, but it would have had at least as great an

impact without putting the campaign's own credibility on the line. FackCheck couldn't very well deny that they had said that.