Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999 (and) has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.The Globe story was based on government documents filed by Bain Capital itself. Those described Governor Romney as remaining at the helm of Bain Capital as its sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president until 2002. The story also cited state financial disclosure forms filed by Romney that showed he earned income as a Bain executive in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
More: Boston Globe will not issue correction to Romney - POLITICO.com
The Bain Shadow Years Loom Larger
by David S. Bernstein
Increased scrutiny of this discrepancy potentially hurts Romney in a number of ways.
First of all, there's Romney's "buck stops here" problem; the buck never seems to stop with him. Everything bad that's ever happened under him -- especially involving Bain -- he always blames on other people, and that just isn't very Presidential. The shadow years look like that in a huge way.
It also reinforces the image of Romney as part of the specially insulated corporate overlord class, who get to manipulate the rules so that they always end up the winner. (I have previously dubbed this "Romney's no-lose life"). He apparently was able to make a lot of money (or at least, what seems like a lot of money to most people) for being president, owner, and investor in a company while actually being off in Utah doing a completely different full-time job.
And, of course, he was apparently freely signing off on anything required of the president and owner, without, apparently, feeling like that meant he actually had any responsibility for anything happening at the company. It looks like legal, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities don't really mean anything to super-wealthy executive types -- not like when regular people sign employment documents, or mortgage documents, and so on.
The elevation of the shadow years issue will also increase pressure significantly for Romney to release additional personal financial information, including the tax returns that would indicate his income from Bain Capital sources during that time.
More: The Bain Shadow Years Loom Larger - Talking Politics
Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999 (and) has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.The Bain Shadow Years Loom Larger
by David S. Bernstein
Increased scrutiny of this discrepancy potentially hurts Romney in a number of ways.
First of all, there's Romney's "buck stops here" problem; the buck never seems to stop with him. Everything bad that's ever happened under him -- especially involving Bain -- he always blames on other people, and that just isn't very Presidential. The shadow years look like that in a huge way.
It also reinforces the image of Romney as part of the specially insulated corporate overlord class, who get to manipulate the rules so that they always end up the winner. (I have previously dubbed this "Romney's no-lose life"). He apparently was able to make a lot of money (or at least, what seems like a lot of money to most people) for being president, owner, and investor in a company while actually being off in Utah doing a completely different full-time job.
And, of course, he was apparently freely signing off on anything required of the president and owner, without, apparently, feeling like that meant he actually had any responsibility for anything happening at the company. It looks like legal, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities don't really mean anything to super-wealthy executive types -- not like when regular people sign employment documents, or mortgage documents, and so on.
The elevation of the shadow years issue will also increase pressure significantly for Romney to release additional personal financial information, including the tax returns that would indicate his income from Bain Capital sources during that time.
More: The Bain Shadow Years Loom Larger - Talking Politics
The truth has been out there for some time...that doesn't prevent our LYING president from LYING yet again and getting his easily duped minions to join in!
Pretty sad when you think about...just how low can this man go?
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.
UPDATE: Fortune obtained the offering documents for a Bain Capital Fund circulating in June 2000, as well as a fund in 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the key investment professionals. As Fortune put it, the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain -- which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.
For interested readers, below is a summary of what we, FactCheck.org and Fortune magazine have previously concluded.
Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain - The Washington Post
Oh..and
The Globe story was based on government documents filed by Bain Capital itself. Those described Governor Romney as remaining at the helm of Bain Capital as its sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president until 2002. The story also cited state financial disclosure forms filed by Romney that showed he earned income as a Bain executive in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
More: Boston Globe will not issue correction to Romney - POLITICO.com
in documents from July 2000 and February 2001
Romney listed his “principal occupation”
as “Managing Director” of Bain
I'll put this in large print, like a first grade reader. Maybe it will sink in with a different format.
By DYLAN BYERS |FactCheck.org
7/12/12 11:43 AM EDT
FactCheck.org is standing by their assessment that Mitt Romney did not actively manage Bain Capital after February 1999, despite today's Boston Globe report that he was CEO there until 2002.
"We see little new in the Globe piece. So far, nobody has shown that Romney was actually managing Bain — even part-time — during his time at the Olympics, or that he was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said," Brooks Jackson, a co-author of the FactCheck piece, told POLITICO today.
(It's on my clipboard, so when dealing with a retard, repetition is apparently required, again.)
I'll put this in large print, like a first grade reader. Maybe it will sink in with a different format.
By DYLAN BYERS |
7/12/12 11:43 AM EDT
FactCheck.org is standing by their assessment that Mitt Romney did not actively manage Bain Capital after February 1999, despite today's Boston Globe report that he was CEO there until 2002.
"We see little new in the Globe piece. So far, nobody has shown that Romney was actually managing Bain — even part-time — during his time at the Olympics, or that he was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said," Brooks Jackson, a co-author of the FactCheck piece, told POLITICO today.
FactCheck.org
(It's on my clipboard, so when dealing with a retard, repetition is apparently required, again.)
Bump.
You can do better than that. How so?
its simple, a critical thinking exercise; if he is on leave, why would knowledge be of any help or matter?
Help? Good question; don't know what kind of authority he would have if something he didn't approve of was going on.
Matter? Plenty, if he cares about how it looks to the voting public what his company was doing in his name. And if he was still named as sole stockholder, would what they did in his absense not be considered done in his name?
If not during his leave of absense, then at some later point he either had to know what Bain - his company - was doing to make the big bucks. If he really didn't know...well, that doesn't look too good for him, either.
That's the point the guy I quoted was making.
That sounds about like what I've heard him say on U-tube a few times.The left wants us to believe a successful businessman is worse for the USA than a habitual liar who has never ran any business and loaned hundreds of billions of other people's money to alternative energy businesses that went under.
I don't think it's gonna work.
Indeed. and in his own writings described working in the private sector was like "being behind enemy lines..."
The only persons lying are Pubs, as always....duh duh duh DUPES!
By DYLAN BYERS |
7/12/12 11:43 AM EDT
FactCheck.org is standing by their assessment that Mitt Romney did not actively manage Bain Capital after February 1999, despite today's Boston Globe report that he was CEO there until 2002.
"We see little new in the Globe piece. So far, nobody has shown that Romney was actually managing Bain — even part-time — during his time at the Olympics, or that he was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said," Brooks Jackson, a co-author of the FactCheck piece, told POLITICO today.
FactCheck.org
So, what is the issue?Erm..
Romney..and now Bain..said he left in 1999. Yet he filed as Chief executive and sole share holder with SEC, make him responsible for Bain's business decisions.
So..either Romney lied to SEC or to the people.
Your pick.
Both aren't true.
