Let’s face it, Mitt’s past has caught up with him. Gingrich was right (Lord, the pain that phrase causes). Bain capital was a vulture capital
enterprise and Mitt was in the middle of it.
His problem is that he has given contradictory information.
He signed SEC filings that he was President, CEO, Chairman of the Board, and sole stock holder in Bain from 1999- 2002.
In sworn testimony to Mass. election board, which was considering whether Mitt was a Mass. resident or not, he and his lawyer testified that Mitt’s leave of absence was temporary and he was still participating in meeting. Flight records show he attended board meetings or phone conference calls. They determined he was still a Mass. resident.
But now and in 2007 he has claimed that when he left for the Olympics in 1999, it was a permanent break. He had NO, NONE, NADA business dealing with Bain after 1999 and those SEC filings were just details…..
Problem is, several business deals happened from 1999-2002 with Bain, its subsidiaries and its invested firms. Those deals led to closures, bankruptcy, and off shoring. How much was Mitt involved? He says not a whit. But his filings with federal agencies and testimony before Mass election board say otherwise.
He can’t have it both ways.
If not at all, then he lied to Mass officials and took huge salaries from Bain, just for breathing air. If he did participate in decisions,then he is lying now and in 2007. Too many people were involved for it
to be in question for long. The demand for minutes of those meetings is starting to grow.
Then there are the tax returns.
They will show a huge fortune placed off shore and an effective tax rate less than Mitt’s gardeners. He can’t release them, political suicide. When a Rep Gov of Alabama calls for you releasing your tax forms, the
jig is nearly up.
R
Technically — and as everyone should know by now the Mittster has long gotten by on technicalities — it may not be correct to state:
For example on the Stericycle 13-D filing, it was disclosed that he was the CEO, etc., he didn’t sign on those dotted lines — others a Managing Director or Attorney-in-Fact signed. With one exception and that was for “PEP Investments Pty, Limited” (PEP) – New South Wales limited company. An almost negligible investor in the deal at $84,678. (Would guess that it had something to do with legal requirements in New South Wales or Australia.)
A potentially damning filing is Romney’s MA financial disclosure for 2002 (filed in 2003). Went through it a few days ago but failed to note if he signed it and now can’t find it on-line.
The really delicious part of all this is that, at this point, skating by on technicalities does nothing to stem the hemorrhaging from the damage already done, let alone what Team Obama no doubt has on tap, just waiting for the right moment to unleash it. No matter what he says or does about this Romney will look shifty, weak, and guilty as hell of SOMETHING.
In fact the more he grasps at technicalities and complicated explanations, the worse he looks. Very few people understand the complex structuring of venture capitalist deals; everybody understands “The buck stops here” and trying to have it both ways.
Oh, yeh, as to your point on who signed — even if Romney had an agent sign for him, as CEO/president/owner he’s still legally liable for their actions, right?
Bain Capital, Inc. would be legally liable, but not Mr. Romney personally even if he’d personally signed the damn filing. It’s why he created all those corporate persons and believes they are real people.
My point is that lack of precision in critiquing financial slimeballs gives them an opening to slither away. Thus, “Bain Capital, Inc, wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney, was the General Partner for several entities involved in a Stericycle Preferred Stock purchase” is correct. “Romney signed SEC filings for a Bain purchase of Stericyle” is incorrect.