Which lie did Romney tell?

Either he quit working with Bain in 1999 and he LIED to the SEC (a felony)

or

He continued to work with Bain until 2003 and is responsible for the outsourcing and bankruptcies that occurred in that time period and LIED about it being someone else's fault.

You can't have it both ways.... so which is it?

2012-07-15T14:43:43Z

Actually no, it WASN'T him that pulled the Olympics out of bankruptcy.... the US government did that.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444876-salt-lake-city-olympics-earmarks-a-double-edged-sword-for-romney?lite

But while we are on the subject of the Olympics perhaps we SHOULD take a very close look at business dealing between Bain companies and Olympic sponsorships.

2012-07-15T14:46:26Z

And here it is
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/13/1109486/-Follow-The-Olympics-Money-Bain-Romney-1999-2001

2012-07-15T14:56:41Z

To the person attacking the source.... is the article WRONG? No it isn't. The US government DID spend 1.5 BILLION on the Olympics that year. Romney DID lobby hard for federal money... in fact he spent a few million to get that money.

Its NOT a secret.

darrin b2012-07-15T14:38:57Z

Favorite Answer

I'll never believe that Romney simply signed his name on SEC forms as CEO and sole owner without knowing what was going on at Bain.

No businessman would do something so foolish.

Plus, it's been proven that he attended at least one board meeting after his supposedly leave of absence.

Only the gullible would believe that it took over 4 years to hammer out a golden parachute deal for Romney, who was a founder of the company.

Bain officially announced him leaving the company in 2001.

Whether it was prestige, money, or both, Romney earned something for continuing to have himself listed as CEO and sole owner of Bain during his so-called leave of absence.

And as far as CNN meeting with 4 Bain employees, do anyone really think these people want to lose their jobs by telling the truth about Romney still being an active CEO?

Anonymous2012-07-15T14:34:59Z

I imagine that he left in 1999, but his name was still on record. I don't quite understand why his name was listed until 2003. That seems like a long time..It is pretty much of a moot point. Republicans will vote for him no matter what. Most Democrats won't vote for him. We Independents make the difference and we will decide which candidate will be POTUS. We are not blinded by party loyalty.


I bet the public never demands to see his BC or his college transcripts. They have only demanded that of one American President.

BadWolf632012-07-15T14:45:24Z

As the WASHINGTON POST, a liberal newspaper, said:

"Remember, Romney did not leave Bain Capital as part of a long-term, planned succession process. Instead, his departure was fairly sudden — borne of a desire to help salvage an Olympic Games that was $1.4 billion in the hole and tarred by a massive bribery scandal. The very first reports of Romney being considered for the Salt Lake City job were on Feb. 2, 1999. Just nine days later, he officially took over.

Not surprisingly, Bain Capital hadn’t worked out all the details of Romney’s departure. It eventually would discard the CEO position in favor of a horizontal management committee made up of numerous partners, and provide Romney with a golden parachute that included limited partnership interests in all Bain-related funds raised through 2009 (including the option for Romney to invest additional monies). But none of that was in place when Romney took the Salt Lake City job.

Moreover, unwinding a private equity firm’s ownership structure is extremely complicated. The “firm” itself is largely a legal construct of convenience, since it doesn’t pay salaries, make investments or do much of anything else. Instead, what matters are the individual funds.

In the case of Bain Capital’s funds, it’s reasonable to assume that Romney was considered a “key man,” meaning that each fund’s limited partners could have voted to end the fund’s investment period — or take over fund management themselves — if a super-majority felt it prudent. But that didn’t happen, and Bain saw no reason to expend massive administrative effort to amend existing funds. Instead, it asked Romney to sign documents when necessary, and made the managerial/ownership changes on new funds going forward….

The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html#pagebreak

P.S.

LOL@BSNBC

is that the best "unbiased" source you could find?

Edit:

Again READ THE ARTICLE from the Washington Post:
"Remember, Romney did not leave Bain Capital as part of a long-term, planned succession process. Instead, his departure was fairly sudden — borne of a desire to help salvage an ***Olympic Games that was $1.4 billion in the hole and tarred by a massive bribery scandal.***"

...and he DID IT.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html#pagebreak

mommanuke2012-07-15T14:36:25Z

Romney never learned the lesson "always tell the truth and then you won't have to remember what you said." Back in 2002, when he was running for governor, there were people trying to disqualify him as not being a resident of MA. As a response to this, Romney is seen saying that he often returned home to attend board meetings and if he could not be there in person, he did it by phone. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40602_Romney_Testified_in_2002_That_He_Attended_Bain_Board_Meetings/comments/

So it's obvious that he is lying now or he was lying then and wasn't qualified to run for governor.

Anonymous2012-07-15T16:12:58Z

I'm struggling to understand the problem here.

Romney leaves Bain to take over planning for the Olympics. He appoints someone in his place to run things.

Why do you assume that by doing this he has to relinquish his title? He own's the damn company! By law SEC filings must be submitted by the CEO and attested to by the CFO. It's sort of like when Obama is on the golf course and his aids tell him he needs to come to the White House to oversee the murder of Bin Laden.....it's not necessary for him to be there. Other people are running the show and have it under control. But they still need his signature on the paperwork! Big deal.

Silly libs

Show more answers (17)