rMoney commits felony

[Symmetry]

1. Were the SEC filings accurate? As in, could it be possible that Bain Capital didn't update its files regarding Romney until 2002? This does happen. So, if that's the case, then the following statement is true: "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."

Like I said with Sym, job titles are one thing, but job descriptions are another. It could be the case that Romney really didn't do much, even if he held all those job titles (assuming that's even true) up to 2002.


"As the sole stockholder, chairman of the board, CEO, and President, I feel that he is still responsible for the actions of his company, even if he wasn't involved in the day to day operations of the firm."

2. What's he responsible for? Has his firm committed some crime?

1. I don't think you understand. It's not Bain submitting documents about Romney. It's Romney submitting documents about Romney and Bain. "Between 1999 and 2001, Mitt Romney, then the CEO of Bain Capital, signed at least six documents that Bain filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
He clearly held these 4 positions.

2. He is responsible for everything the company did. I don't know of any crime committed by the firm, unless you realize that he was the firm, and so it was he that committed the crime.

This might actually make it to a felony charge. And it's just the silly paperwork sort of thing to take him down. I understand what he's saying, that "he was just the owner etc on paperwork but the other guys did everything cause he was too busy". But when it comes down to government paperwork, you have to do whats correct on paper. So even though he wasn't in charge of day to day operations, when bain's lawyer drew up bains sec filings, it listed romney, and romney had to sign it. So when he submitted his 2011 election filing, he can't state he retired from bain on feb 11, 1999, when he was still the ceo up till 2002. You dig? He should get a felony charge for bad paperwork. He should have stated on his 2011 election filing that he retired from Bain in 2002.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 71819.html

Edit: The reason why he's lying on the paperwork and claiming he left in 1999 instead of 2002, is as follows:

The documents place Romney in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy. Romney has tried to distance himself from this period in Bain's history, saying on financial disclosure forms he had no active role in Bain as of February 1999.

So, he was off by 3 years? What's the impact of that error, if it's true?

I know people are jumping the gun about CRIMINAL FELONY FOR NOT FILLING OUT GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK EXACTLY AS REQUIRED, but seriously? That's the issue?

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

[Night Strike]

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Except it obviously doesn't. If it did, it would have been investigated and charges filed back in 2002 when the story first broke. When it comes to investment groups like Bain Capital, just because a person's name is listed as CEO doesn't mean they're actively managing the actions of the group. They may have to be involved in signing certain paperwork because of their formal title for legal purposes, but that doesn't mean they have an active role in what is actually going on in the company. And that's exactly what Romney has claimed happened and what all the other evidence indicates happened.

Romney was asked to take over control of the Olympics in 1999. He left Bain Capital 9 days later to do so, which is way faster than most change-of-leadership takes place in complicated corporate structures. It threw the managing leadership into disarray, but they recovered to continue the business as it was. Romney did not have any time to take care of the day-to-day management of the group, but he retained his title and shareholder position in case he chose to return to the group after the 2002 Olympics finished. When they finished, Romney instead chose to run for governor of Massachusetts, so he formally signed over leadership to the other group managers. Those actions in 2002 only formalized what had happened in practice in 1999. Nothing illegal took place because Romney was not actively managing any of the accounts the group had invested in. He was solely managing the Olympics while his name was necessary to sign certain documents for the remainder of Bain management.

[Symmetry]

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Except it obviously doesn't. If it did, it would have been investigated and charges filed back in 2002 when the story first broke. When it comes to investment groups like Bain Capital, just because a person's name is listed as CEO doesn't mean they're actively managing the actions of the group. They may have to be involved in signing certain paperwork because of their formal title for legal purposes, but that doesn't mean they have an active role in what is actually going on in the company. And that's exactly what Romney has claimed happened and what all the other evidence indicates happened.

Romney was asked to take over control of the Olympics in 1999. He left Bain Capital 9 days later to do so, which is way faster than most change-of-leadership takes place in complicated corporate structures. It threw the managing leadership into disarray, but they recovered to continue the business as it was. Romney did not have any time to take care of the day-to-day management of the group, but he retained his title and shareholder position in case he chose to return to the group after the 2002 Olympics finished. When they finished, Romney instead chose to run for governor of Massachusetts, so he formally signed over leadership to the other group managers. Those actions in 2002 only formalized what had happened in practice in 1999. Nothing illegal took place because Romney was not actively managing any of the accounts the group had invested in. He was solely managing the Olympics while his name was necessary to sign certain documents for the remainder of Bain management.

So he had a clear role, and a position, but had no clear role. Was he getting a salary?

Dude, you'll have to accept that your position is tortuous. If he only formally handed over leadership in 2002, then it's obviously untrue to say that he wasn't formally the leader after 1999.

[Night Strike]

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Except it obviously doesn't. If it did, it would have been investigated and charges filed back in 2002 when the story first broke. When it comes to investment groups like Bain Capital, just because a person's name is listed as CEO doesn't mean they're actively managing the actions of the group. They may have to be involved in signing certain paperwork because of their formal title for legal purposes, but that doesn't mean they have an active role in what is actually going on in the company. And that's exactly what Romney has claimed happened and what all the other evidence indicates happened.

Romney was asked to take over control of the Olympics in 1999. He left Bain Capital 9 days later to do so, which is way faster than most change-of-leadership takes place in complicated corporate structures. It threw the managing leadership into disarray, but they recovered to continue the business as it was. Romney did not have any time to take care of the day-to-day management of the group, but he retained his title and shareholder position in case he chose to return to the group after the 2002 Olympics finished. When they finished, Romney instead chose to run for governor of Massachusetts, so he formally signed over leadership to the other group managers. Those actions in 2002 only formalized what had happened in practice in 1999. Nothing illegal took place because Romney was not actively managing any of the accounts the group had invested in. He was solely managing the Olympics while his name was necessary to sign certain documents for the remainder of Bain management.

So he had a clear role, and a position, but had no clear role. Was he getting a salary?

Dude, you'll have to accept that your position is tortuous. If he only formally handed over leadership in 2002, then it's obviously untrue to say that he wasn't formally the leader after 1999.

The only people claiming Romney was anything more than the formal leader is Obama and his cohorts. Every source from that time and Romney himself states that Romney had no role in actively managing the group. That's all the SEC cares about, which is exactly why Romney has not committed a felony. If he did, he would have already been charged long ago.

[Symmetry]

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Except it obviously doesn't. If it did, it would have been investigated and charges filed back in 2002 when the story first broke. When it comes to investment groups like Bain Capital, just because a person's name is listed as CEO doesn't mean they're actively managing the actions of the group. They may have to be involved in signing certain paperwork because of their formal title for legal purposes, but that doesn't mean they have an active role in what is actually going on in the company. And that's exactly what Romney has claimed happened and what all the other evidence indicates happened.

Romney was asked to take over control of the Olympics in 1999. He left Bain Capital 9 days later to do so, which is way faster than most change-of-leadership takes place in complicated corporate structures. It threw the managing leadership into disarray, but they recovered to continue the business as it was. Romney did not have any time to take care of the day-to-day management of the group, but he retained his title and shareholder position in case he chose to return to the group after the 2002 Olympics finished. When they finished, Romney instead chose to run for governor of Massachusetts, so he formally signed over leadership to the other group managers. Those actions in 2002 only formalized what had happened in practice in 1999. Nothing illegal took place because Romney was not actively managing any of the accounts the group had invested in. He was solely managing the Olympics while his name was necessary to sign certain documents for the remainder of Bain management.

So he had a clear role, and a position, but had no clear role. Was he getting a salary?

Dude, you'll have to accept that your position is tortuous. If he only formally handed over leadership in 2002, then it's obviously untrue to say that he wasn't formally the leader after 1999.

The only people claiming Romney was anything more than the formal leader is Obama and his cohorts. Every source from that time and Romney himself states that Romney had no role in actively managing the group. That's all the SEC cares about, which is exactly why Romney has not committed a felony. If he did, he would have already been charged long ago.

So he was formally the leader, but didn't do anything? And the stuff he signed after you think he had no role in the company, was just coincidence?

Sound like he'll be an impressive president.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. Were the SEC filings accurate? As in, could it be possible that Bain Capital didn't update its files regarding Romney until 2002? This does happen. So, if that's the case, then the following statement is true: "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."

Like I said with Sym, job titles are one thing, but job descriptions are another. It could be the case that Romney really didn't do much, even if he held all those job titles (assuming that's even true) up to 2002.


"As the sole stockholder, chairman of the board, CEO, and President, I feel that he is still responsible for the actions of his company, even if he wasn't involved in the day to day operations of the firm."

2. What's he responsible for? Has his firm committed some crime?

1. I don't think you understand. It's not Bain submitting documents about Romney. It's Romney submitting documents about Romney and Bain. "Between 1999 and 2001, Mitt Romney, then the CEO of Bain Capital, signed at least six documents that Bain filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
He clearly held these 4 positions.

2. He is responsible for everything the company did. I don't know of any crime committed by the firm, unless you realize that he was the firm, and so it was he that committed the crime.

This might actually make it to a felony charge. And it's just the silly paperwork sort of thing to take him down. I understand what he's saying, that "he was just the owner etc on paperwork but the other guys did everything cause he was too busy". But when it comes down to government paperwork, you have to do whats correct on paper. So even though he wasn't in charge of day to day operations, when bain's lawyer drew up bains sec filings, it listed romney, and romney had to sign it. So when he submitted his 2011 election filing, he can't state he retired from bain on feb 11, 1999, when he was still the ceo up till 2002. You dig? He should get a felony charge for bad paperwork. He should have stated on his 2011 election filing that he retired from Bain in 2002.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 71819.html

Edit: The reason why he's lying on the paperwork and claiming he left in 1999 instead of 2002, is as follows:

The documents place Romney in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy. Romney has tried to distance himself from this period in Bain's history, saying on financial disclosure forms he had no active role in Bain as of February 1999.

So, he was off by 3 years? What's the impact of that error, if it's true?

I know people are jumping the gun about CRIMINAL FELONY FOR NOT FILLING OUT GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK EXACTLY AS REQUIRED, but seriously? That's the issue?

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Sure, felony under US law for actions of very little consequence, if such allegations prove to be true. Serious stuff! Never mind killing US citizens without due process! Where was the anger? How about bombing civilians plus a few military targets in Libya? Anyone? No, no, no. This guy Romney, he didn't file his papers correctly! What are the consequences? Dead innocent children? No regard for the US judicial system and the Constitution? No, sir. The consequences are... practically none! But it's illegal.

Hahaha, legality only matters when applied to the opposition; never mind the home team and its actions.


Again, why do some people think like this? They can so fixated on hating/disliking a certain person and his actions, yet refuse to, or remain apologetic about, the actions of other equally important people. It's really interesting.

[Phatscotty]

be careful everyone. this is exactly the reason why things are so messed up, and this is exactly why we share some of the blame for it.

While our country is in rough shape and there is much work to do, our "leader" is trying to make the election and affect our decision on something that happened 10-15 years ago at some company, and it doesn't have anything to do with the challenges we face as a nation today. It's our fault because many time this works, and we don't pick someone based on an irrelevant skeleton in someone's closet, or what they said in a soundbite 30 years ago, or based on how smooth someone can talk, or how someone looks.....

Jobs, the economy, our debt level...these are the things that, if we focus on them, we can have a say in affecting. If we let them get away with distracting us in ways like these, then it's our fault for taking our eyes off the ball.

[Symmetry]

1. Were the SEC filings accurate? As in, could it be possible that Bain Capital didn't update its files regarding Romney until 2002? This does happen. So, if that's the case, then the following statement is true: "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."

Like I said with Sym, job titles are one thing, but job descriptions are another. It could be the case that Romney really didn't do much, even if he held all those job titles (assuming that's even true) up to 2002.


"As the sole stockholder, chairman of the board, CEO, and President, I feel that he is still responsible for the actions of his company, even if he wasn't involved in the day to day operations of the firm."

2. What's he responsible for? Has his firm committed some crime?

1. I don't think you understand. It's not Bain submitting documents about Romney. It's Romney submitting documents about Romney and Bain. "Between 1999 and 2001, Mitt Romney, then the CEO of Bain Capital, signed at least six documents that Bain filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
He clearly held these 4 positions.

2. He is responsible for everything the company did. I don't know of any crime committed by the firm, unless you realize that he was the firm, and so it was he that committed the crime.

This might actually make it to a felony charge. And it's just the silly paperwork sort of thing to take him down. I understand what he's saying, that "he was just the owner etc on paperwork but the other guys did everything cause he was too busy". But when it comes down to government paperwork, you have to do whats correct on paper. So even though he wasn't in charge of day to day operations, when bain's lawyer drew up bains sec filings, it listed romney, and romney had to sign it. So when he submitted his 2011 election filing, he can't state he retired from bain on feb 11, 1999, when he was still the ceo up till 2002. You dig? He should get a felony charge for bad paperwork. He should have stated on his 2011 election filing that he retired from Bain in 2002.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 71819.html

Edit: The reason why he's lying on the paperwork and claiming he left in 1999 instead of 2002, is as follows:

The documents place Romney in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy. Romney has tried to distance himself from this period in Bain's history, saying on financial disclosure forms he had no active role in Bain as of February 1999.

So, he was off by 3 years? What's the impact of that error, if it's true?

I know people are jumping the gun about CRIMINAL FELONY FOR NOT FILLING OUT GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK EXACTLY AS REQUIRED, but seriously? That's the issue?

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Sure, felony under US law for actions of very little consequence, if such allegations prove to be true. Serious stuff! Never mind killing US citizens without due process! Where was the anger? How about bombing civilians plus a few military targets in Libya? Anyone? No, no, no. This guy Romney, he didn't file his papers correctly! What are the consequences? Dead innocent children? No regard for the US judicial system and the Constitution? No, sir. The consequences are... practically none! But it's illegal.

Hahaha, legality only matters when applied to the opposition; never mind the home team and its actions.


Again, why do some people think like this? They can so fixated on hating/disliking a certain person and his actions, yet refuse to, or remain apologetic about, the actions of other equally important people. It's really interesting.

Of course, but that other people did things equally bad or worse and went unpunished seems like a poor reason not to enforce the law with regards to a person.

[Juan_Bottom]

be careful everyone. this is exactly the reason why things are so messed up, and this is exactly why we share some of the blame for it.

While our country is in rough shape and there is much work to do, our "leader" is trying to make the election and affect our decision on something that happened 10-15 years ago at some company, and it doesn't have anything to do with the challenges we face as a nation today. It's our fault because many time this works, and we don't pick someone based on an irrelevant skeleton in someone's closet, or what they said in a soundbite 30 years ago, or based on how smooth someone can talk, or how someone looks.....

Jobs, the economy, our debt level...these are the things that, if we focus on them, we can have a say in affecting. If we let them get away with distracting us in ways like these, then it's our fault for taking our eyes off the ball.

I'd rather turn some of that inward criticism to the people who champion Romney. It says something about their ability to choose their own leaders.

[Juan_Bottom]

Recent Obama ad

[Phatscotty]

I think the most interesting thing is the hypocrisy of some people, to be drooling all over Romney's past records, but when it comes to Obama's past records, they get very defensive and say that we have no need or no right to see Obama's past records, followed by all kinds of excuses.

Of course, I don't expect anything different

[Phatscotty]

Recent Obama ad

But look how many jobs Romney created in the Olympics. Obama's ad does not want to talk about that, because it was tens of thousands of jobs created more than they could ever try to pin on Romney outsourcing. On the other hand, Obama who has promised that unemployment would not rise above 8%, has ONLY known unemployment ABOVE 8% for his entire term. That is much worse than a broken promise, it's also a piece of evidence that Obama had no clue what he was talking about, which is usually the case when someone, like Obama, did not have 1 minute of executive experience.

Romney has TONS of executive experience.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. Were the SEC filings accurate? As in, could it be possible that Bain Capital didn't update its files regarding Romney until 2002? This does happen. So, if that's the case, then the following statement is true: "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."

Like I said with Sym, job titles are one thing, but job descriptions are another. It could be the case that Romney really didn't do much, even if he held all those job titles (assuming that's even true) up to 2002.


"As the sole stockholder, chairman of the board, CEO, and President, I feel that he is still responsible for the actions of his company, even if he wasn't involved in the day to day operations of the firm."

2. What's he responsible for? Has his firm committed some crime?

1. I don't think you understand. It's not Bain submitting documents about Romney. It's Romney submitting documents about Romney and Bain. "Between 1999 and 2001, Mitt Romney, then the CEO of Bain Capital, signed at least six documents that Bain filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
He clearly held these 4 positions.

2. He is responsible for everything the company did. I don't know of any crime committed by the firm, unless you realize that he was the firm, and so it was he that committed the crime.

This might actually make it to a felony charge. And it's just the silly paperwork sort of thing to take him down. I understand what he's saying, that "he was just the owner etc on paperwork but the other guys did everything cause he was too busy". But when it comes down to government paperwork, you have to do whats correct on paper. So even though he wasn't in charge of day to day operations, when bain's lawyer drew up bains sec filings, it listed romney, and romney had to sign it. So when he submitted his 2011 election filing, he can't state he retired from bain on feb 11, 1999, when he was still the ceo up till 2002. You dig? He should get a felony charge for bad paperwork. He should have stated on his 2011 election filing that he retired from Bain in 2002.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 71819.html

Edit: The reason why he's lying on the paperwork and claiming he left in 1999 instead of 2002, is as follows:

The documents place Romney in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy. Romney has tried to distance himself from this period in Bain's history, saying on financial disclosure forms he had no active role in Bain as of February 1999.

So, he was off by 3 years? What's the impact of that error, if it's true?

I know people are jumping the gun about CRIMINAL FELONY FOR NOT FILLING OUT GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK EXACTLY AS REQUIRED, but seriously? That's the issue?

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Sure, felony under US law for actions of very little consequence, if such allegations prove to be true. Serious stuff! Never mind killing US citizens without due process! Where was the anger? How about bombing civilians plus a few military targets in Libya? Anyone? No, no, no. This guy Romney, he didn't file his papers correctly! What are the consequences? Dead innocent children? No regard for the US judicial system and the Constitution? No, sir. The consequences are... practically none! But it's illegal.

Hahaha, legality only matters when applied to the opposition; never mind the home team and its actions.


Again, why do some people think like this? They can so fixated on hating/disliking a certain person and his actions, yet refuse to, or remain apologetic about, the actions of other equally important people. It's really interesting.

Of course, but that other people did things equally bad or worse and went unpunished seems like a poor reason not to enforce the law with regards to a person.

There's plenty of laws in the US which no one enforces because they're inconsequential, or because there's more valuable laws to enforce. In New Orleans, it's illegal to practice voodoo in the city limits, and it's also illegal to murder people. Which law should be enforced with more resources? The relative consequences do matter, and that's completely evident with law enforcement and the use of such resources.

Since resources for enforcing law and order are scarce, then it makes sense to place a priority on enforcing the law in regard to the consequences of any crime. Of course, the court should be involved with Romney and this allegation. However, the reactions among people is telling. They'll jump on something so minor, and completely overlook their Main Man when he kills innocent civilians.

[Symmetry]

There's plenty of laws in the US which no one enforces because they're inconsequential, or because there's more valuable laws to enforce. In New Orleans, it's illegal to practice voodoo in the city limits, and it's also illegal to murder people. Which law should be enforced with more resources? The relative consequences do matter, and that's completely evident with law enforcement and the use of such resources.

Since resources for enforcing law and order are scarce, then it makes sense to place a priority on enforcing the law in regard to the consequences of any crime. Of course, the court should be involved with Romney and this allegation. However, the reactions among people is telling. They'll jump on something so minor, and completely overlook their Main Man when he kills innocent civilians.

That some crimes get overlooked ain't a good reason to ignore a crime. Nor is it a good idea to dismiss a potential felony on the basis of the idea that someone he's competing against politically might well be getting away with something worse.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's plenty of laws in the US which no one enforces because they're inconsequential, or because there's more valuable laws to enforce. In New Orleans, it's illegal to practice voodoo in the city limits, and it's also illegal to murder people. Which law should be enforced with more resources? The relative consequences do matter, and that's completely evident with law enforcement and the use of such resources.

Since resources for enforcing law and order are scarce, then it makes sense to place a priority on enforcing the law in regard to the consequences of any crime. Of course, the court should be involved with Romney and this allegation. However, the reactions among people is telling. They'll jump on something so minor, and completely overlook their Main Man when he kills innocent civilians.

That some crimes get overlooked ain't a good reason to ignore a crime. Nor is it a good idea to dismiss a potential felony on the basis of the idea that someone he's competing against politically might well be getting away with something worse.

What I'm saying is this: crimes are overlooked for many good reasons. Sometimes, the law itself is stupid. Sometimes, the consequences of that crime are trivial. Sometimes, there's more important laws to enforce. I'd say this applies in Romney's case, but that doesn't mean that his alleged perjury should not be investigated.

Like I said, yeah, this should be investigated. As far as "getting away with something worse" is concerned, not much surprises me after Bush 2 and Obama, so I'm relatively unconcerned with that slippery slope argument.

But this has been my main point: I have a hard time believing that people are so hypocritical. They demand justice for the most insignificant of crimes (for Romney), yet their demands for justice concerning the much more significant actions of Obama are completely lacking. His supporters tend to remain completely silent or unreasonably apologetic for those times.

[Symmetry]

There's plenty of laws in the US which no one enforces because they're inconsequential, or because there's more valuable laws to enforce. In New Orleans, it's illegal to practice voodoo in the city limits, and it's also illegal to murder people. Which law should be enforced with more resources? The relative consequences do matter, and that's completely evident with law enforcement and the use of such resources.

Since resources for enforcing law and order are scarce, then it makes sense to place a priority on enforcing the law in regard to the consequences of any crime. Of course, the court should be involved with Romney and this allegation. However, the reactions among people is telling. They'll jump on something so minor, and completely overlook their Main Man when he kills innocent civilians.

That some crimes get overlooked ain't a good reason to ignore a crime. Nor is it a good idea to dismiss a potential felony on the basis of the idea that someone he's competing against politically might well be getting away with something worse.

What I'm saying is this: crimes are overlooked for many good reasons. Sometimes, the law itself is stupid. Sometimes, the consequences of that crime are trivial. Sometimes, there's more important laws to enforce. I'd say this applies in Romney's case, but that doesn't mean that his alleged perjury should not be investigated.

Like I said, yeah, this should be investigated. As far as "getting away with something worse" is concerned, not much surprises me after Bush 2 and Obama, so I'm relatively unconcerned with that slippery slope argument.

But this has been my main point: I have a hard time believing that people are so hypocritical. They demand justice for the most insignificant of crimes (for Romney), yet their demands for justice concerning the much more significant actions of Obama are completely lacking. His supporters tend to remain completely silent or unreasonably apologetic for those times.

Hypocrisy is kind of a given in politics, but being hypocritical about politicians (Romney should only be investigated if Obama is too) seems a little silly, and ultimately circular,

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 71819.html

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.

[Symmetry]

Ouch Juan, you didn't have to go so far as to give NS and Scotty facts.

[Night Strike]

Ouch Juan, you didn't have to go so far as to give NS and Scotty facts.

We weren't disputing any of those things. What we're saying is that Romney was not actively involved in the decision making of the managers at Bain Capital during those years, which is why he is not guilty of any felony for failure to report involvement. He reported his title and his earnings, and he reported that he was not an active manager of the investments. Both statements can be and are true.

[bedub1]

I don't get this as an answer. The issue is surely the timing, and that said timing may well constitute a felony under US law.

Except it obviously doesn't. If it did, it would have been investigated and charges filed back in 2002 when the story first broke. When it comes to investment groups like Bain Capital, just because a person's name is listed as CEO doesn't mean they're actively managing the actions of the group. They may have to be involved in signing certain paperwork because of their formal title for legal purposes, but that doesn't mean they have an active role in what is actually going on in the company. And that's exactly what Romney has claimed happened and what all the other evidence indicates happened.

Romney was asked to take over control of the Olympics in 1999. He left Bain Capital 9 days later to do so, which is way faster than most change-of-leadership takes place in complicated corporate structures. It threw the managing leadership into disarray, but they recovered to continue the business as it was. Romney did not have any time to take care of the day-to-day management of the group, but he retained his title and shareholder position in case he chose to return to the group after the 2002 Olympics finished. When they finished, Romney instead chose to run for governor of Massachusetts, so he formally signed over leadership to the other group managers. Those actions in 2002 only formalized what had happened in practice in 1999. Nothing illegal took place because Romney was not actively managing any of the accounts the group had invested in. He was solely managing the Olympics while his name was necessary to sign certain documents for the remainder of Bain management.

So he had a clear role, and a position, but had no clear role. Was he getting a salary?

Dude, you'll have to accept that your position is tortuous. If he only formally handed over leadership in 2002, then it's obviously untrue to say that he wasn't formally the leader after 1999.

The only people claiming Romney was anything more than the formal leader is Obama and his cohorts. Every source from that time and Romney himself states that Romney had no role in actively managing the group. That's all the SEC cares about, which is exactly why Romney has not committed a felony. If he did, he would have already been charged long ago.

No, because the felony didn't occur until August 11th, 2011.

Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011 wrote: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. 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.

See here. This is what's illegal. Romney did have an ACTIVE role in the company. He ACTIVELY signed documents. This document is like your "resume". And when the company you work for finds out you lied on your resume, you get fired. In this case, you get arrested for felony.

But look how many jobs Romney created in the Olympics.

Yeah, and Al Gore invented the Internet.

[Juan_Bottom]

WAIT WAIT WAIT

So you believe that he was "the sole shareholder, chairman, chief executive officer, and president, yet he had nothing to do with that investment for years... other than collect the salary of a sole shareholder/president.
And that is the type of leader you want running the country?

But look how many jobs Romney created in the Olympics.

The Olympics lost money.

[Night Strike]

No, because the felony didn't occur until August 11th, 2011.

Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011 wrote: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. 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 still doesn't conflict with what happened during the time period. He can not be involved in operations within the entity and still be listed as a manager on their paperwork. He can even sign his name on documents to fulfill SEC and other requirements without actually having an active role with the entity.

Have you even read the links I posted that have countered this same post you keep bringing up?

[BigBallinStalin]

There's plenty of laws in the US which no one enforces because they're inconsequential, or because there's more valuable laws to enforce. In New Orleans, it's illegal to practice voodoo in the city limits, and it's also illegal to murder people. Which law should be enforced with more resources? The relative consequences do matter, and that's completely evident with law enforcement and the use of such resources.

Since resources for enforcing law and order are scarce, then it makes sense to place a priority on enforcing the law in regard to the consequences of any crime. Of course, the court should be involved with Romney and this allegation. However, the reactions among people is telling. They'll jump on something so minor, and completely overlook their Main Man when he kills innocent civilians.

That some crimes get overlooked ain't a good reason to ignore a crime. Nor is it a good idea to dismiss a potential felony on the basis of the idea that someone he's competing against politically might well be getting away with something worse.

What I'm saying is this: crimes are overlooked for many good reasons. Sometimes, the law itself is stupid. Sometimes, the consequences of that crime are trivial. Sometimes, there's more important laws to enforce. I'd say this applies in Romney's case, but that doesn't mean that his alleged perjury should not be investigated.

Like I said, yeah, this should be investigated. As far as "getting away with something worse" is concerned, not much surprises me after Bush 2 and Obama, so I'm relatively unconcerned with that slippery slope argument.

But this has been my main point: I have a hard time believing that people are so hypocritical. They demand justice for the most insignificant of crimes (for Romney), yet their demands for justice concerning the much more significant actions of Obama are completely lacking. His supporters tend to remain completely silent or unreasonably apologetic for those times.

Hypocrisy is kind of a given in politics, but being hypocritical about politicians (Romney should only be investigated if Obama is too) seems a little silly, and ultimately circular,

I'm not talking about the politicians being hypocritical. I'm talking about the people being hypocritical, which isn't a silly observation. In fact, it's a useful observation for actually determining the primary motivations of people and their opinions toward public figures. For a large number of people, it's really not about justice, or enforcing certain laws. It's about cheering for one's team with little regard for facts or for being logically consistent. It's a story of confirmation bias.

"YEAH, MY PRESIDENT IS THE MAN!!"

He supplied weapons to terrorists in Libya.

"UM WUT, NO." or "..."

He just committed an extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.

"UM WUT, NO." or "..."


[Romney allegedly wrote 1999 instead of 2002 on some files].

"OH, ROMNEY SUCKS. ROMNEY'S EVIL. HE SHOULD BE TRIED FOR PERJURY."


Wait, what about all the acts and consequences of Obama?


"UM WUT, NO." or "..." (or dodge question), or "but being hypocritical about politicians (Romney should only be investigated if Obama is too) seems a little silly, and ultimately circular" (which wasn't my position either).

[Phatscotty]

This whole thing is a non-issue

[Phatscotty]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 71819.html

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.

your picture says 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Earlier you were saying 2002!!!!!!!!!!!

OMFG FELONY COMMITTED BY JUAN BOTTOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!