WaPo Fact Checkers on Romney/Bain: It Can't Be True Because It Would Be Too Awful To Contemplate

[ProSense]

WaPo Fact Checkers on Romney/Bain: It Can't Be True Because It Would Be Too Awful To Contemplate

by eXtina

Mitt Romney told us that he left Bain Capital in 1999. He told the SEC that he was its
"sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002 and signed documents to that effect.

Mitt Romney cites as his defense against The Boston Globe's story pointing out this discrepancy the 'multiple times' this has been debunked by independent fact checkers.

Which consists chiefly of the Washington Post, which published their 'debunking' in January, drawing a distinction between Bain the management firm and Bain proper, and whether Romney was involved in managing the company or whether he was a figurehead drawing an annual salary of $100,000 for doing nothing.

Now that the Globe article has appeared, they repeat their original 'fact check' saying in an exasperated tone that they've already covered this.

We’re considering whether to once again take a deeper look at this, though it really feels like Groundhog Day again. There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)

And they then move on from the minutiae of legal technicalities of partnerships to addressing the question of lying to the SEC. Here is the incredible way that they address this question and dispute its probability:

To accept some of the claims, one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings — potentially worth millions of dollars — so he could say his retirement started in 1999.

So. The truth is what you choose to believe it to be.

It can't be true because you'd have to believe Romney lied. It's too preposterous to believe, therefore it can't possibly be true. (Although I can see how Romney would rather swallow glass than give up three years of retirement earnings).

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/13/1109473/-WaPo-Fact-Checkers-on-Romney-Bain-It-Can-t-Be-True-Because-It-Would-Be-Too-Awful-To-Contemplate

Wait, the factcheckers are upset that they have to do more comprehensive research?

The testimony Romney prefers to forget
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002940631

Jennifer Granholm uncovered evidence linking Mitt to Bain in 2003
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002940521

[malaise]

1. Willard has really

fucked himself with this one.
It is huge.

[riverwalker]

2. WaPo factchecker Glenn Kessler contacts

[e-mail]
#FactCheckThis (Twitter)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Put, Sir: And A Damned Poor Excuse For 'Fact-Checking'

I have absolutely no difficulty accepting the man lied, and by doing so committed a criminal offense, in pursuit of his own interest and with a perfect assurance nothing would ever happen to him in consequence....

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

[11 Bravo]

4. I believe the particular "sir" to whom you are replying is, in fact, a "ma'am", but ...

other than that, I agree with every word of your post.

[Flying Squirrel]

5. It would mean he cared more about power than money.

He doesn`t, does he? lol this is directed at the average person who would not believe Rmoney would willingly give up 3 years of retirement income because the average normal person wouldn`t do so. But once you have as much money as Rmoney, it`s a small price to pay - look at all the money he`s injected into his own campaigns. He knows he`ll never have to worry about money and he`ll always be able to make it up later if he wins the big prize of the Presidency - something he`s probably been eyeing since long before he ran for Governor. It`s the power, stupid. Yes he would give up 3 years of retirement income if he thought it would improve his chances as a politician.

[Marr]

6. Here's how the defense has gone. It's bizarre:

1. "If you're saying he lied about his tenure at Bain, you're saying he committed a felony. That is loony."

2. Lies proven

3. "So what? Only a lunatic would say that's a felony."