Mitt Romney's Signature Appears On Bain SEC Filings During Time He Said He Left Bain
Source: Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- Between 1999 and 2001, Mitt Romney, then the CEO of Bain Capital, signed at least six documents that the private equity firm filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The documents run in direct contradiction to a claim that Romney has made repeatedly: that he had nothing to do with Bain, and therefore no responsibility for Bain investments, during that period.
It's also a claim he made in August 2011 on the federal disclosure form he filed as part of his presidential bid. Romney didn't leave any wiggle room: "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee [for the 2002 Winter Olympics]. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."
That is false.
SEC files include at least six instances of Romney signing documents after February 1999, proving -- unless the signatures were forged -- that his claim to not have "been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way" is wrong.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/mitt-romney-bain-sec_n_1671819.html
Dalai_1
(1,301 posts)thank you for posting this!
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)sakabatou
(42,158 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)sakabatou
(42,158 posts)unblock
(52,253 posts)the lie would then be that he wasn't involved in the decisions to outsource.
but that wasn't in a federal document, that's "just" a political lie.
and so he was involved in the outsourcing after all.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He signed federal disclosure forms in Aug 2011 as part of his presidential bid where he said he left Bain in 1999. This is in direct contradiction to the SEC documents.
Either the federal disclosure form was falsified, or the SEC documents were falsified.
unblock
(52,253 posts)it's politically terrible for rmoney, no doubt about that.
but in terms of legal technicalities, they can easily argue that he did in fact "retire" from bain and wasn't actively involved in the operations and so on, but given that he was the owner, he still had an interest and was involved, but as an owner, yada, yada, yada.
my understanding is that the disclosure forms were vague and non-technical enough to give him enough wiggle-room, legally.
again, politically, not so. he definitely said he wasn't involved when in fact he did have at least enough involvement that he knew or should have known about the outsourcing. and in any event the lack of candor about the extent of his involvement or lack thereof is damaging as well.
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)When we buy a house, a car, join the service, sign any legal papers we commit ourselves to that responsibility. How is Romney not responsible to the SEC?
Don't believe the spin his very well paid lawyers put out. It is dishonest and fraudulent to sign legal papers again and again, try to hide them to deceive someone for your own personal gain. "Wiggle room" is room to lie to us. This lie abuses our trust.
He lied to prove he was a resident of Mass. to run for Governor by saying he made regular trips back from Utah for business SPECIFICALLY - BOARD MEETINGS. What board meetings? Guess.
He is caught on paper. It's not muddy. It's clear. It is a felony to sign off on the validity of financial reports to the Security and Exchange Commission. His intent was to deceive again, this time to make a run this time for President. His word is worthless. When he uses his signature to lie it is proof of fraud.
classykaren
(769 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)for the whole nation to replay on TV and the internet.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)He set up friendlies to ask him a few questions, but I guarantee it will be ALL offense.. acting like the President is picking on him, because the left hates people with money. And then maybe he'll make his big VP announcement.. or talk about the neato name for his campaign theme: USA COMEBACK TEAM! (or some such nonsense.)
Frankly, his desperation move to get some network interviews today to squelch this, is like trying to pee on a wildfire in an 80 mph dry wind.... drip. drip. drip.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)24601
(3,962 posts)smarts, money, women & charitable contributions - is pretty much true. The IRS understands that it's a subjective question and doesn't bug me much about it.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . by blurring both the distinction between strategic organizational management and routine operational management, and the distinction between top-level, strategic investment decisions (i.e., those a company makes on behalf of itself) and investment decisions made on behalf of clients. Most CEOs of most companies are not the day-to-day operational managers (that role generally being given over to a President or Managing Director, but things like acquisitions of other companies and SEC filings are not mere daily operational functions. Acquisitions of other firms are top-level strategic and organizational steering functions. When a person signs an SEC disclosure form as CEO of a financial firm, he is making a material representation both that he is in a position to warrant the truth of the disclosures, and that the disclosures are true to the best of his knowledge. If he was CEO and signed the forms as such, the argument that he had no direct knowledge of the things disclosed simply will not wash. And if indeed he was not the CEO when he signed the forms as such, and really did not have such knowledge, then he committed an act of fraud in signing those documents. He cannot have it both ways.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)MIDNITERIDER1438
(113 posts)Hi, please check out our new Google blog that I created. FB doesn't support it's group page efforts, so my veterans page went exactly nowhere. Thanks for your time. http://serpline.blogspot.com/2012/07/romney-lies-about-missing-3-years-at.html
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Igel
(35,320 posts)Overseas
(12,121 posts)Igel
(35,320 posts)Hence the problem: He was officially CEO of Bain Investment as well as shareholder of more than 10% of the stock. So in some cases he had to sign twice--once for Bain and once for himself.
He had to file whenever certain changes occurred. Even if he weren't CEO--something that might not have been possible--he'd have to have signed.
I had to sign stuff I had no control over. We'd ceded control over certain things as the Board in the CEO's contract, but still we were responsible for reporting what occurred. I checked: Yup, these things happened, so I could certify that they happened; these statements were true, and I'd certify them as true. The lawyer said "sign this" and I plopped my John Igel on the form. Only happened a couple of times, but it happened. Most of the time the organization's lawyers signed for us.