Skip to main content

Mitt Romney holds up Boston Herald after winning gubernatorial race in 2002
Mitt Romney's sworn testimony to qualify him
for the ballot in 2002 is causing problems
in 2012 (Jim Bourg/Reuters)
On his financial disclosure documents, Mitt Romney claims he retired from Bain Capital after he started work on the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. "Since February 11, 1999," the document states, "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."

As we've learned over the past couple of weeks, Romney actually remained the sole owner and top corporate officer for Bain Capital until 2002, when he signed a retroactive severance agreement—one that continues to pay him $20 million annually, to this very day. His campaign's explanation?

This is nothing more than a quirk in the law. When Governor Romney took over the Olympics, he was not involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way. He was too busy working to make the Olympic Games among the most successful ever held.
Well, if you call owning the firm and remaining its top corporate officer "a quirk in the law," then I guess it's a quirk, all right. But it's the kind of quirk that completely undermines the campaign's and the candidate's claim to have been completely severed from Bain as of Feb. 11, 1999.

And now there's more.

It turns out that in June of 2002, Mitt Romney testified before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in order to prove that he met residency requirements to run for governor. During that testimony, Romney said that while he was working on the Olympics, he served on three corporate boards of directors. And yes, you guessed it, two of those companies were affiliated with Bain: Staples and LifeLike, a doll manufacturer in which Bain held a stake.

Bain, a private equity firm, held a stake in the LifeLike Co. until the end of 2001, including during the period in which Romney claimed to have no business involvement with Bain entities. Bain had heavily invested in LifeLike, a company that Romney identified personally as an opportunity, in 1996 and sold its shares in late 2001. His involvement with LifeLike contradicts his assertion that he had no involvement with Bain business. His testimony is supported by his 2001 Massachusetts State Ethics Commission filing, in which he lists himself as a member of LifeLike's board
So despite Romneyland's claim that he had nothing to do with any Bain entity after February of 1999, Romney clearly did. Moreover, the notion that Romney would sit on LifeLike's board and would have nothing to do with Bain's decision to sell its shares in 2001 defies credulity. So it's no wonder that as of last night, Romneyland had started changing its tune about Mitt's ties to Bain. Actually, they didn't change their tune. They shut their lips:
The Romney campaign repeatedly declined to say Thursday evening whether the Republican presidential candidate attended any meetings or had any contact with Bain Capital during the time he ran the Olympic Games.
And the fact that they are clamming up pretty much says it all.

If Romneyland were just saying that Mitt wasn't the guy running Bain on a daily basis, I guess that would be fair enough. But that's not what they are saying. They are saying he had absolutely nothing to do with Bain whatsoever in any capacity at all. They are saying he had no responsibility for anything that took place at Bain or at any entity related to Bain after Feb. 11, 1999. And even despite Mitt Romney's refusal to release anything more than the bare minimum required by law, we can already see that claim is bull. So this is just the beginning of the story. We're nowhere near the end.

And we still haven't explored that Chinese outsourcing company in which Bain invested millions through Mitt Romney's Bermuda shell company. And that happened in 1998, while even Mitt Romney admits he was running the firm.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 06:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Mitt Romney, (31+ / 0-)

    if he were smart, would fire his entire staff, lock, stock and barrel right now.

    He is waking on a tightrope over the Grand Canyon that is tied on both ends to some scrub overhanging the cliffs.

    Problem for his is, he doesn't seem to get it.  He's never, ever been faced with this kind of adversity before, and he has no idea what to do.  He's relying on his "people", who are clearly buffoons.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 06:35:15 AM PDT

  •  It isn't quite the slam dunk we wish it were. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, pollwatcher, mungley

    I, too, got quite excited when I saw the Politico story. But on a second reading, I realized that it doesn't conclusively tie Mitt to Bain. It ties him to companies where he, personally, had a seat on the board. Yes, those companies were invested in by Bain. However, the Romney campaign is right this minute no doubt working on the word formulation that says this was about Mitt's personal stewardship of those companies, and has nothing to do with Bain itself.

    •  Yeah, but in order to explain this mess, (22+ / 0-)

      he has to get into the weeds of details, dates, and definitions.

      That's never good for a candidate.

      It's not a slam dunk, but it is very, very damaging.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 06:37:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The corporate media has collectively decided . . . (6+ / 0-)

      that Romney is telling the truth, and that it is their duty to explain all this away. Viz. John King. He is laying down the official responsible journalistic position, which is that Romney is telling the truth and the Obama campaign is manufacturing a phony issue.

      They aren't going to budge, believe me. This is going nowhere.

    •  No smoking gun! This could backfire! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608

      I'll repeat my recent posts:

      Remember what happened to Dan Rather in 2004!

      The Obama campaign needs to run away from this 1999 thing, UNLESS they have conclusive evidence the Romney participated DIRECTLY in Bain decisions after 1999.  It's ok to let the media run with it, but the campaign should stay away!

      Romney will march out every employee at Bain after 1999 and there will be Democrats denying Romney had anything to do with Bain.  They'll admit that he sat on the board of some companies owned by Bain, but so what?!  Rich people sit on all kinds of boards.  They'll show Democrats who sit on the boards of some nasty companies.

      This reminds me of 2004, and until there's a smoking gun, Obama should run away.

      •  If he had nothing to do with it then he lied to (7+ / 0-)

        the SEC.
        Either way Gov. rMoney does not take our laws seriously because he thinks himself above the law.

        Please Vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012.

        by mungley on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dan Rather has no relationship to this matter. (7+ / 0-)

        It is not relevant.

        Mitt Romney needs a rationale for his candidacy. As governor, his state was 47th out of 50 in job creation. This is the only political service he has ever engaged in : 1 term as governor. He did not run again because he could not win.
        He is running as a person who can create jobs. Since he cannot bolster that claim by pointing to his record as governor, he must and does point to Bain. He has taken credit for the jobs created after 1999 at Staples. Yet, he denies responsibility for loading American companies with debt, pillaging them, firing all the workers, and shipping their jobs overseas. Much of this took place from 1999 to 2002. However, SEC filings show that he was chairman of the board, sole shareholder, and CEO of Bain Capital through 2002, including creating five new partnerships.
        He was legally responsible as CEO, sole shareholder, and chairman of the Board for Bain Capital's actions. It was his company and he ran it. He drew a paycheck of more than $100,000 as an executive for Bain Capital during this time. He flew in to attend meetings for Bain.

        Mitt Romney, therefore, has contradicted himself and the facts, repeatedly. His claims to be responsible for Staples jobs growths are at odds with his denial for being responsible for the rest of Bain Capital's activities during the 1999 -2002 time period. His claims to not be responsible for Bain Capital's activities during that time period are at odds with his legal status that he attested to in filings to the SEC, his paycheck, the five new partnerships he formed , and the board meetings he attended.

        All of this is thoroughly documented.

        If he denies that he was responsible for Bain Capital's activities during 1999-2002, then he lied on his filings to the SEC which is a felony. If he acknowledges that he was responsible for Bain Capital's activities during that time period, then he has been lying to the American public to whom he said he was not responsible for Bain Capital during that time period (see Maddow video of 2002 governor debate for instance).

        And this does not even bring up the testimony he gave regarding his residency for the 2002 governor campaign.

        Mitt Romney and his allies will spend about $1billion attacking the President over this mediocre (at best) economy, mediocre largely due to Republicans (they caused it, they made fixing it hugely difficult). The economy is not going to get much better. If this is a referendum on President Obama and the economy, the President will lose. The only way to avoid that is to make sure voters realize that there is a choice. And the other guy is unacceptable. And he must be defined now so that the negative ads they run later do not turn the election in Romney's favor.

        This is the only way that President Obama can win this election. There is no other viable path for winning.

        •  Dan Rather has everything to do with this (0+ / 0-)

          Dan Rather lost his job, 60 minutes got a huge black eye, not because they were wrong, but because they didn't have the quality of proof they needed to support the facts.

          Obama has a gazzilion other aspects of Bain (jobs, China, dismantling companies...) that they have plenty of hard proof to go after Romney with.  And the polls show those attacks are working.

          But there isn't hard proof that Romney was involved with ANY managerial decisions after 1999.  If the campaign goes after this, and this is all they have while Romney parades out every single employee of Bain to say he had nothing to do with the company after 1999, this becomes a Dan Rather style trap which could sink this campaign.

          The Obama campaign should not emphasize anything to do with this 1999 stuff, just state the facts about the documents, let the press fight it out, and continue attacks along the other lines of Bain.

          •  As CEO, sole shareholder, and Chairman of (0+ / 0-)

            the Board of Directors, he was responsible for Bain Capitals' activities, legally and morally. This continued through 2002. To allow him this out for all of the vulture capital work that Bain Capital did during this time makes no sense. The Bain attacks center on what took place from 1999 to 2002. That is when much of the vulture capital activies of Bain Capital took place: the loading up with debt, firing the workers, emptying the pensions, ....

            To eliminate that is to neuter the attack: which is exactly what Mitt Romney wants you to do.
            The President has won before. Have you directed a successful Presidential campaign before ? I thought not.
            His record and judgment on this is superior to yours.
            Stop handwringing.

            Dan Rather did nothing involving Bain Capital . So, saying he has everything to do with this makes no sense.
            You do not seem to understand political reality. And no, neutering the Bain attacks will not help the President win reelection. It would help Mitt Romney.

      •  The typeface on those SEC docs (0+ / 0-)

        makes me suspect that they are forgery...

        Come on, get real here.   This is about as well documented a lie by a politican as it gets.

    •  That's a long stretch though. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ahumbleopinion, mmacdDE, IM

      He is sole owner (stockholder), President and CEO of Bain Capital at that time.
      He sits on the board of companies controlled by Bain and makes decisions about those companies that directly affect Bain's investments.
      Bain is an investment firm. The actions at the companies held by Bain matter tremendously to Bain itself. Bain's only concern about a company is profit.  They did not intend to sell dolls for the betterment of the community. They sold dolls for the betterment of Bain.

      Please Vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012.

      by mungley on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:51:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Totally, but it takes a lot of explaining to... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mungley

        ...get there in the low-info voters' eyes. OTOH, it will take an awful lot for HIM to explain it away, too. I'm glad that OFA has good strategists, because this seems like a potential minefield.

        "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

        by newinfluence on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:58:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On the contray (0+ / 0-)

          I think this one is very easy to understand.  It may even be misleadingly easy to understand in a way that hurts Romney, though I neither give him that much credit really, nor do I have any sympathy.  "Romney said he was gone from Bain, but he still owned the company and was CEO for three more years."  That's what it boils down to, and no matter where the corporate press comes down on the issue or how the Romney campaign spins it, it's still gotta leave that uneasy feeling of "did this guy lie to me?" for a lot of voters.

      •  The betterment of Bain's stockholder (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vote4Obamain2012

        Who happened to be Mitt Romney.

    •  The companies were "entities" of Bain. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012

      "...it's difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

      by Mayfly on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:11:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He was obviously there to represent Bain's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012

      interests.  He got onto the board using Bain's money.   If Bain really were an independent company rather than a shell for Mitt Romney it would be highly unlikely that they would leave him on as director of the companies that they had a major interest in once he was no longer in their employ.    Board membership is the only way that stockholders influence the companies that they own, so if Mitt were actually an employee (and not the owner of Bain) they would not want a potential competitor running one of "their" companies.

  •  I'm guessing that he spent most of his time... (0+ / 0-)

    managing the 2002 Olympics. Mittens just wanted to wet his beak a little bit with some Bain investments.

    Frankly, I thought the Obama campaign jumped the shark yesterday when they called him a felon.

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 06:42:26 AM PDT

  •  Romney lies, credibility dies. n/t (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwjjd, annieli, ExStr8, SaintC, Matt Z

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 06:43:21 AM PDT

  •  I wonder if any of this would smell fishy to a (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, ExStr8, JeffW, judyms9, Matt Z

    Professional like securities lawyer or director of a corporation.  There must be a minority of GOP who favor the lower taxes and business connections but don't want to see their candidate in blatant unethical conduct.

    Because some of this seems like it's done.  Hillary Clinton, for example, in her move to NY in 2000 didn't seem like she was being unethical, but it did seem like a very cynical move that she could do because of her money and connections.

    Obviously this is evidence that Romney lied to voters, but that's like finding evidence that Pigpen is dirty. If you're hanging with Pigpen, you knew that already.

    I'm just not sure if it's evidence of anything more.

    •  It does not necesssaril "smell fishy" if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hunter Huxley

      you look at what is actually in the facts and you understand corporate structure.  First, Romney is not saying this:

      So despite Romneyland's claim that he had nothing to do with any Bain entity after February of 1999
      Romney is saying he retained ownership but essentially took a leave of absence to run the Olympics without divesting himself of ownership, but was not active in the day-to-day operations or management.  If you understand corporate structure, there's nothing "fishy" about that.   There's a difference between operational management on the one hand, and ownership or sitting on the Board or holding a corporate office on the other hand, especially when you are dealing with someone who is an owner, board member, and/or officer of some affiliate entity in a structure that may have dozens of such entities.   The facts are worthy of investigation, as certain Board members or officers - -but not all -- can be involved in day to day management.   I completely understand, however, that superficially it can be made to look like a contradiction.  The distinction Romney is making is a subtlety that probably gets lost in the campaign rhetoric but sounds pretty reasonable to lawyers who deal with corporate structures (like I do) on a fairly regulator basis.  

      Being on a Board of Directors of a corporation, by the way, has nothing to do with day-to-day management or operational control.  It can be (if you ALSO hold a position with the company) but it doesn't have to be.  Look at Wal-Mart's Board, which includes the CEO of Coke and of Marriott.  They clearly aren't running Wal-Mart.  Hilary Clinton sat on Wal-Mart's board for a time -- she wasn't "running" Wal-Mart.

      I understand, however, that the subtleties of such things are probably going to be lost, and that it's much too good of a campaign story to die down.  I just want to make clear that, while the story clearly is worthy of investigation to make sure the facts come out accurately, it doesn't automatically smell fishy if you understand corporate structure and operations.  That was the point of the WaPo article, I think.

      •  So why are they backing down now & declining (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat

        to say whether he attended any Bain meetings?  I think they realize there may be documents out there that show he attended Bain meetings.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:42:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The point is that (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not even sure what you are talking about when you say "Bain meetings."  

          First, what is "Bain"?  There were apparently dozens of Bain entities.  Some may have just been holding companies -- i.e., they had no operations, just held investments.  

          Second, what "meetings"?  If they were for a company that had operations, and they were meetings to discussion management, that's problematic for Romney.  If it's just an occasional Board of Directors meeting, that's not as problematic, as Board members don't run companies.  

      •  I work with Setting up Corporations, LLCs (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, lysias, IM

        and the like. I work for someone who owns a Publicly Traded Co.

        It does smell fishy to me.

        "Nothing to do with any Bain Entity"

        Romney is saying he retained ownership but essentially took a leave of absence to run the Olympics without divesting himself of ownership, but was not active in the day-to-day operations or management.
        Romney remained President in name- and had the ability to retain control over the day to day operations as any president does. If he let something happen and didn't like it, but let it go he ratified it. Also, in private equity I find it completely impossible that most things do not go through ownership/board. I do not think Wal-Mart is a good comparison.

        We are talking about a business that requires high level decisions as you are investing billions. At worst he was having a proxy make decisions for him which is the same as him doing it. At best he chose not to fill out his vote cards so let things pass.

        You cannot own or be a director without having 1. the ability to vote via electronic means these days or 2. your non-vote matter.

        I could say a ton about the structure. If he was Pres he is in charge. I don't think there is such a thing of being an "inactive" owner of an entity like Bain.

        •  First, what Bain entities (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, lysias

          did he sign those SEC filings for? WaPo says this today:

          However, we have identified at least six filings that Romney did sign during this period: a April 13,, 1999 13D filing by Pirod Holdings regarding an investment in Rohn Industries; a Jan. 3, 2000 13D filing by VMM Merger Corp. regarding an investment in VDI MultiMedia; a Feb. 14, 2000 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund IV regarding Wesley Jessen Visioncare; a Feb. 13, 2001 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding Integrated Circuit Systems; a Feb. 14, 2001 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding ChipPAC; and a November 12, 1999 13G filing (first reported by Mother Jones) by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding Stericycle.
          What kind of companies where those, what operations did they have, and who was running those?  Legitimate questions, but I don't know that we have answers.  

          I don't think he is saying he wasn't voting on Boards where he sat. But in my experience Boards just vote on very high level things, not day-to-day operations.

          On any of the companies where he sat on the Board, would that Board have  voted on a proposal for investment in a company that did outsourcing?  I just don't know the answer to that.

          I think it's simplistic, however, to just say "Romney's SEC filings prove he was running Bain!"  That's not only so vague as to be meaningless (what "Bain" are you talking about?) but it's not correct.  There may be something to look into.  

          •  I only disagree as to the nature of what (0+ / 0-)

            Goes to the board. Bear in mind this is a private equity Company. The day to day decisions are not acquisitions, shifts in company culture. They are day to day operations of Bain, payroll, assessing possible acquisitions, books. There are very few "day to day operations" in a sense as compared to a company producing a product with thousands of employees.

            The actions at issue in the overall debate are things that I find it impossible did not require Unanimous Consent.

            Day to Day is a misnomer to me in a company like this. I highly doubt the veep could decide to cut jobs from an acquisition and outsource them. It would have to be a part of a merger plan approved by the board or the members (including Romney or his Proxy).

          •  Aslo I would add Romney cannot run (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kayfromsouth

            from the statement that as Owner/President/CEO

            you had the ability to prevent things that are now being debated in the public forum as unsavory.

            If I am 51% owner and skiing the Alps. I am CEO. You decide to outsource our call-center to India. I can hit the slopes but I am going to get word as I don't think that is a day to day operative decision ever. Same as the nature of an acquisition.

            And I could technically nix your plans before they happen. I am in control.

            I do not see how Romney could not have at least stopped (and by not doing so ratified) the alleged debunked claims.

            •  Sometimes that's absolutely true. (0+ / 0-)

              But not all people who hold a title CEO do that.  From WaPo today:

              Despite the furor, we did not see much new in the Globe article. We had examined many SEC documents related to Romney and Bain in January, and concluded that much of the language saying Romney was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” was boilerplate that did not reveal whether he was actually managing Bain at the time. (For instance, there is no standard definition of a “chief executive,” securities law experts say, and there is no requirement for anyone to have any responsibilities even if they have that title.)
              I think that bolded sentence is a true statement.  Having a title of CEO can, but does not necessarily, mean that you are active in the operations. I think it USUALLY, but not always, means what you say.  But I have seen situations from time to time where someone designated as "CEO" does nada with respect to running a company -- someone else (sometimes the COO) can do that.

              So, I agree that what you describe can be true.  And it probably is true more often that not.  But it is not true in some situations.  We don't yet have all the facts here.    

              •  I understand how you are parsing my points (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NancyK

                but we are not speculating as to ownership/or ability to control.

                The speculation is about action.

                My point is even if you are on hiatus you have the ability to stop things. That is not speculation in any case.

                A company cannot go against a 100% owner/Board Member.

                He can claim he didn't know.

                He can claim he did not want.

                He cannot claim he lacked the power to prevent.

                There is simply no way. even if you don't operate your title has a meaning. More egregious he was the 100% owner.
                There is no speculation as to what he could have prevented.

              •  Also the bolded part is seriously misleading (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IM

                Sure you can alter in  your organizing docs the meaning. But I know of no companies where someone is telling the CEO what to do.

                Sure there are VP's running Companies, CFO's running companies. But to say that it "Can be" a hollow title is a dog that doesn't hunt.

                If it were superfluous then all of his accoplishment as Bain CEO are then subject to question?

                You can define president using different sentences just the same they may have slightly different meanings but I don't think a VP is going to tell the President how it is.

                Most importantly these are positions of influence. Nomatter the definition. And even more importantly control. The dialogue can fairly be that he did not use these positions to influence or control the outsourcing of jobs. As 100% owner or CEO his disagreement would have been a huge deal and (as owner prevented).

                •  More often, when the CEO is not managing, (0+ / 0-)

                  he/she is just an owner, sort of passive, leaving the day-to-day operations to somebody else.  Nobody's "telling the CEO what to do."  The CEO has just stepped out of active management.  Again, this is not the typical CEO set up. But I've seen it happen.  

                  Again, let me give an example.  I'm in New Orleans.  Tom Benson is the "Owner/Chairman" of the Saints.  He may well be designated the "CEO," for all I know.  But he's got a zillion other investments (including the Hornets now.)  Nobody thinks he's running that team. Rita Benson LeBlanc clearly did the business, Mickey Loomis -- EVP -- ran the team. From what I understand, Benson's pretty much out of that, besides showing up at games. His activity is a sliding scale -- going down each year, I think.

                  The point being, certain titles like "CEO" often means managing operations, but does not necessarily mean that.  And it can mean different levels of involvement in different companies.  Designating Romney as CEO is enough to ask questions -- not to draw definitive conclusions.  

                  •  So you do not believe that if (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tonedevil

                    Tom Benson found out about "Bounty-gate" he could have swiftly stopped it?

                    Also. Even if Romney was neither CEO or president he still had a say in halting company operation.

                    To me his ownership is most damning. And is conclusive.  He absolutely controls the makeup of the company and the board. If he doesn't want them destroying companies well, he can get a whole new board as he controls it.

                    If I own 100% of the Saints I don't care who is in charge of FB operations, I pay their salary, if I don't want them to continue to do or not do something there is no running from I can say something about it. If it is a big deal well I look like I have my head in the sand while taking the money created.

                  •  I'd say making "personnel decisions" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NancyK

                    as he told Boston Herald in 1999 is pretty "day to day operations".

          •  If he signed a 13D he was running the company (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glynis

            No question about it.  That is the document that you sign when you acquire a signficant holding in another company.  

            That is the whole issue, anyway -- which is the nature of the companies that Bain invested in.   Romney is actively partcipating in those investments.

            He lied.   End of story.

          •  Romney in his own words (0+ / 0-)

            from David Corn's reporting on Stericycle:  "On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions."

      •  Let's not lose track of the real issue here (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scarvegas, NancyK

        Which is whether Romney can be held responsible for Bain's investment decisions from 1999-2002.

        And on that point, I think the answer is clearly yes.

      •  I don't think this is just superficial (0+ / 0-)

        Never mind "day-to-day management." If being CEO of a company doesn't entail "any active role with any Bain Capital entity," what on earth does it mean?

        Yes, that's a naive question. But I think it's a perfectly reasonable one.

      •  Umm...look at what Bain is saying. (0+ / 0-)

        Bain, likely at Romneyland's request, is saying that he wasn't involved in anything: "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies."  That's a direct quote from Bain.  So while Romney may not have said the exact words Jed wrote, he didn't write it as a quote, and attributed it to Romneyland which most certainly includes what Bain is saying now on his behalf.

        contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

        by barath on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:55:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two different things (0+ / 0-)
          absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies
          You can retain ownership interest in a company, and even a Board position, without being involved in that.

          And again, which of the dozens of Bain entities did he supposedly retain involvement in the management or investment activities?  

          These are completely legit questions.  I just don't have the answers.

          •  I'm just defending what Jed wrote (0+ / 0-)

            which is that Romneyland is denying involvement with any Bain entity: that's exactly what the Bain statement says.  And "Bain entity" includes its portfolio companies.  If he's attending board meetings of portfolio companies, that's involvement.

            contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

            by barath on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:07:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's where I think Jed is wrong (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think Romney is denying "any involvement."  He's clearly never denied that he retained his ownership interests, and that's "involvement."  

              Here's what Romney put on his 2011 disclosure:

              “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's not at all the same thing as not having "any involvement."  You can be an owner (like a passive investor) in a company and that's "involvement," but not an "active role" or "being involved in the operations."  Same for being on the Board.  For example, I don't think the head of the Walt Disney Company, who sits on the Berkshire Hathaway Board, has an "active role" in the running of Berkshire Hathaway.  
              •  The documents Jennifer Granholm (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IM

                examined last night on the War Room differentiated between active participation and passive participation. And about six of them, if I remember correctly, specified active participation. Check those out. All were AFTER 1999.

                •  I've been looking (0+ / 0-)

                  Here's the WaPo summary of those, posted today.  They point out that the filings can, or cannot, be something nefarious -- we don't know.  

                  We consulted with securities law experts, with many years of experience with these forms. One expert examined this document at our request. He suspected that someone had simply duplicated a filing that had been made many times before, though he acknowledged, “it looks inartful in retrospect.” He pointed out that the titles are basically meaningless, that someone can be listed as a chief executive and actually have no responsibilities whatsoever.
          •  Can you really? (0+ / 0-)

            I get what you were saying in your other posts about different entities, etc, but isn't management and investment oversight exactly in the wheelhouse of a board member's responsibilities? They are responsible for setting the mission and seeing that the mission is adhered to. They oversee the performance of the chief executive. They monitor financial health and see that the company's financial resources are adequate and well-utilized. They set and monitor broad-stroke goals for the corporation.

            Can you be an active, attending board member and have Bain's statement be true?

            "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

            by newinfluence on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, look at who is on the Boards of (0+ / 0-)

              some major corporations.  Very often, it includes people who are busy doing operational management of other companies.  See Exxon, for example.  Or GM. or even Berkshire Hathaway.

              Many Boards have some people who are also involved in running that company, but many others who are not.  The Board functions more in a supervisory role, and is interested more in protecting the investment of the owners (shareholders) and to make sure that they receive a return on their investment, not necessarily to run the company.

              •  The thing is U are talking about a Different Game (0+ / 0-)

                the Boards role is very different than just giving someone a position and a salary.

                Same with their acquisitions. When Bain acquired EDGAR (which I think is very shady) they required 3 seats on their Board. I can assure you they have a say. That is part of their willingness to inject capital.

                I have sat down with Companies like Blue Point. They will give you Billions but they take Control of your Board and consequently your Company.

                I do not think analysis of normal board decisions is equivalent at all.

                •  We are both simply speculating (0+ / 0-)

                  which is exactly my point.  

                  My original point is that Jed said Romney was denying "any involvement."  That is not true, as Romney put on his 2011 disclosure:

                  “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 is NOT denying "any involvement." It is denying an "active role" or being "involved in the operations."  An owner/investor has involvement, but may or may not have an active role in the operations of the company.  

                  Whether being on a board of a particular company means you have an "active role" in the operations of that company is not clear.  Some Board members do, some don't -- I don't think there are facts out there with respect to the specific entities where Romney sat on the Board.  

                  •  My Speculation is based on dealing (0+ / 0-)

                    with Equity Companies and the roles they take.

                    You are right if you ask me to show you a vote etc I don't have one.

                    But I am sure you agree the probability that the structure and use of equity injection and Board Membership are totally opposed to the concept of the do-nothing Board Member (Voinovich at Ben Venue).

                    You take Board Positions to inject your power and culture.

                    The acquisitions themselves would require board/ownership approval (and the plans most likely).

                    If I were vegas I would say what I am saying is about 3:1.

                    •  Again, I have two points, which I stand by. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ClevelandAttorney

                      1.  Jed's statement that Romney was denying "any inolvement" is not correct.

                      2.  I do not think it's ok to call someone a liar based on guesses and speculation about what might have happened, even if you think that speculation is more likely than not.  I think more facts are necessary here.  

                      •  Fair Enough (0+ / 0-)

                        As to 1 I don't know the precise words and agree they are important.

                        2. I don't believe I have called him a liar. I believe I have presented a strong case for his likely involvement.

                        I'd add I do not believe you can deny that due to the positions he held he could have prevented outsourcing. He did not. Whether he was watching the "Ice Dancing" finals. I would say curling but it's kind of cool. Like the Sport I may have a chance in if it's all I did at any age.

                        If he had 100% ownership he could stop what was done as claimed by Obama. He did not. I don't think the facts matter much to most voters when that is the reality.

                      •  I will stipulate (0+ / 0-)

                        to your points

                        if you stipulate

                        that

                        1. A comparison of the use of board members after a private equity injection to a normal board member in name only is misleading

                        2. The day-to-day operations do not include for any company acquistions and their details those require board action

                        3. At the end of the day he profited from things he could have stopped nomatter how active or inactive he could have asserted control (as 100% owner).

                        •  My response. (0+ / 0-)

                          1.  I agree that board members for different types of companies are different, and board members of a private equity company look at different things from the board members of Wal-Mart.  I was looking for a name that people would recognize -- Berkshire Hathaway, which has a number of Board Members who are clearly not running the operations of that company, may be been a closer comparison if we want to use a name people know.

                          2.  Depends on (1) the size of the acquisition; and (2) (more importantly) what you mean by "details."  No Board gets involved in all the "details" of an acquisition, even a huge acquisition.  I seriously doubt that the Board of Chevron got involved in the "details" of the acquisition of Texaco.  

                          3.  See item 1.  And if you want to argue that he PROFITED from offshoring, that's a far more supportable statement -- based on what we know now -- than to say he "outsourced" or "engaged in outsourcing."  The former implies a more passive investor role.  The latter implies an active, decision making role -- and that we don't know yet.  

                          I guess I don't like when partisans on either side take a fact and stretch it beyond what is supportable in order to score political points.  

                      •  I disagree with #1 (0+ / 0-)

                        Bain does explicitly say that:

                        ... [Romney] has  not  been  involved  in  the  operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

                        "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

                        by newinfluence on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 09:23:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The key words are (0+ / 0-)

                          "involved in the operations."  If I own a company, but hire somebody to run it and don't do anything more, I'm "involved" with the company (owning is involvement), but NOT "involved in the operations" of the company -- the person I've hired is the one "involved in the operations."  

                          •  Yet the SEC filings indicated that he was the... (0+ / 0-)

                            controlling person of the portfolio company. If he is legally responsible as Chairman and CEO, is he not accountable for the business and affairs (even if not day-to-day) of that corporation? In certifying that his principle occupation is President, CEO, and COB, did he not assume that responsibility?

                            "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

                            by newinfluence on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 09:41:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know if you've seen this info, (0+ / 0-)

                            and whether it changes your view. This is regarding his 2002 filings:

                            Of the 35 entities, 15 are designated as “passive.”  The rest do not have that designation.
                            http://current.com/...

                            "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

                            by newinfluence on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 10:21:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I'd add it is IMPOSSIBLE to get Mezzanine Capital (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      newinfluence

                      or whatever you'd like to call it without losing a lot of control.

                      I know because we've considered. The companies chose bankruptcy over control by private equity. Yes, they will increase profits but they are now in control. So the Board positions are critical in the Companies they acquire.

                      Not to mention the ownership/board positions are critical in the acquirer because they are active not passive. Most actions require unanimous consent.  Show me any company that has bylaws that indicate acquisition or infusion into another company of billions is a day to day operation, or hell doesn't require unanimous consent.

                      At the end of the day I don't get what you are defending. He was being paid as President, still owned while they did x. He greatly profited from the moves including not caring about shipping jobs oversees.  He was in a position to stop it. He didn't. Let them defend.

  •  One leak opens then another and another and more (9+ / 0-)

    then the dam breaks.....

  •  He and his truths doing the tango . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, JeffW, apimomfan2

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:07:52 AM PDT

  •  Next up (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow, ExStr8, judyms9, Matt Z, newinfluence, IM

    the Olympics?

    Once Mittens' credibility on the Bain issue is shredded, hopefully the next target is his stewardship of the Olympics.  Which apparently is all tied into Bain, as well.

    •  Bain and taxpayer subsidies. (0+ / 0-)

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:47:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hope so (0+ / 0-)

      Every time I hear his people say that Salt Lake was one of the most successful Olympics ever I want to scream. It was federal giveaways that made those games possible. In Romney's words, he got "free stuff from the government."

      "Mitt Romney isn't a vulture capitalist: vultures only eat things that are dead." -S. Colbert

      by newinfluence on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:15:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is more on the Olympics yet to come out. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IM, tcdup

        Stefanie Cutler (yesterday):

        “When he left the Statehouse in Massachusetts, he and his senior staff took all the hard drives with them. And with those hard drives were really the record of the governorship of Mitt Romney. So that broke precedent in Massachusetts. And then finally, Mitt Romney’s Olympic record [is] less than wholesome, shall we say, in terms of the decisions that were made there, the contracts that were signed, and the basic operation of how Mitt Romney ran the Olympics,” she said.

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

  •  distraction alert with Condi VP meme from GOP (4+ / 0-)

    getting desperate, W. Mitt rMoney

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:22:34 AM PDT

  •  I'm confused. Which financial documents did he lie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    simaramis

    on?  Were the docs in 2002 part of an SEC filing?

    He told the elections board that he was involved with Bain entities, and then he told the SEC at some point that he was sole owner and President and manager, and then he said he had nothing to do with Bain on financial docs that he signed for what?

    Jesus, how does he keep all these lies straight?

    Have you googled Romney today?

    by fou on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:24:01 AM PDT

  •  I just want to note that this is not (0+ / 0-)

    what Romney ever said:

    So despite Romneyland's claim that he had nothing to do with any Bain entity after February of 1999
    Criticism is fair, but you need to have facts straight.  Romney said he was not involved in operational management after February of 1999, as I understand it.  I don't think he's ever disputed that he retained his ownership interests and positions with some of the Bain entities.  

    It is worth investigating whether he was telling the truth about his involvement in operations or day-to-day management after February of 1999. But criticism needs to be directed to what the actual issue is.  

    •  Why did he sign on six agreements then? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lysias, IM, askew

      Haven't heard of an Executive taking leave of absence and then asked to to sign the agreement. Wouldn't he have been apprised of what the agreements were for and the need for his signature? Who paid for the air tickets to the meetings he attended on the Boards of Staples and other companies? Was he paid remuneration by Bain or by Staples for attending the Board meetings? What was the actual figure he was paid (Range is $100,000 and above) for the no show at Bain? Wish Stef Cutter and the Obama team releases a 5 questions to Mitt everyday till he is forced to release his tax records. I am willing to bet my house that he will never release his tax records. There is too much skirting on the edges and fudging going on. That the Repub trolls spent a pile on Obama's birth cert but not willing to wait even a week for us to ferret out the SEC filings just shows the panic they are in.

      •  All legitimate questions (0+ / 0-)

        All I'm saying is that if you want to call Romney a liar,

        1.  You have to accurately describe what he said that you contend is the lie, and

        2.  You have to have the true facts, as you contend, absolutely straight and clear.  

        All of those points you raised are questions.  My only point is that sitting on a Board of Directors of certain entities can, but does not necessarily equate with operational control or management of that company's activities.  The CEO of Marriott and of Coke sit on the Wal-Mart Board, but clearly aren't involved in the management or operations of that company.  So being on a Board of some Bain entities (which ones?) does not, in and of itself, prove him a liar.  

        •  I have prepared presentations for Board meetings (0+ / 0-)

          I have prepared presentations for Board meetings and many times it is operational issues that discussed apart from M&A and growth plans. Sales for regions/geographies, deals in the pipeline/closed, people count, HR & Regulatory issues etc. Release of the tax returns and some of the Board minutes that he attended will shed light on many of the questions that have arisen. My feeling is that Romney was paid an extraordinary amount of money for a person "on leave" and most of it was squirrelled away in the Caymans/Bermuda tax shelters. The Obama team is beating upon the offshoring business because that resonates better with the American populace but follow the money trail..

  •  "Not involved in day to day operation" is irreleva (9+ / 0-)

    nt; we don't care about the day to day operaiotn, but the big decisions, like buying companies, closing factories, outsourcing operations, nopt payi8ng pensions, etc.  NONE of those transactions could have occurredwithout Mitt's signature.  Nobody is going to sell or buy a big asset to Bain wihotut proof that there is authority fro mthe top....and that means at least the CEO, if not the entire Board of Directors, also Mitt.

    SCANDAL: Bush Supreme Court nominee Roberts upholds Romney's individual mandate! Another politically motivated decision!

    by Inland on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:37:59 AM PDT

    •  Exactly. This WHOLE situation is (5+ / 0-)

      one nasty self inflicted wound from Rmoney's camp. ALL of it.  They were the ones that set the year 1999 as the hill they were prepared to die on. They were the ones who claimed that he was gone from Bain in February 1999.

      "Gone" as in left the company to save the Olympics.

      Not only do the SEC documents show he was still at Bain in 2002 (in one form or another), he's on tape claiming that he can still prove residency for MA through Bain companies in order to become Governor.

      Talk about amateur hour!!!

      •  David Corn's comment is that nobody in Mitt 2012 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kayfromsouth

        has any understanding of Mitt's business(es).  They don;t know what he's done, much less why he's done.  But who can blame them?  This is stuff that you have to be in the top .01 to have even heard about.

        On the other hand, I bet Mitt never saw the need to share anything about business with his political staff.  

        SCANDAL: Bush Supreme Court nominee Roberts upholds Romney's individual mandate! Another politically motivated decision!

        by Inland on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If not Romney, who were the Miscreants running (5+ / 0-)

    Bain Capital during 1999-2002?

    Who were they, and where are they now?

    Any still part of Romney's inner sanctum?

    Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:38:51 AM PDT

  •  Haha (0+ / 0-)

    Romney was not running Bain on a daily basis, that was Phillip Green.  Romney was just the Food & Beverage chairman.  
    *I sure hope someone gets this movie reference.

    "I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking." Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by djbender on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:39:30 AM PDT

  •  It's important to say why the lie is important. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, mmacdDE

    I think I read every diary about how Mittens lied and how the Ballot Commission ties in etc. but it's important to say why all of this matters.  Now my parents who watch cable news are all ears about this.  However I think someone needs to close the deal.  I know the details but don't have the money soundbite ...yet.

  •  I sure hope this doesn't cause problems at (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    the Republican National Clusterfuck™

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:46:04 AM PDT

  •  Want to know why he had to prove MA residency? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    barath, polecat, ukit, mmacdDE, Buckeye Nation, IM

    It looked like he claimed Utah residency.

    TPMhas the story.

    Massachusetts requires a 7 year residency to run for governor. But Romney had a little problem. He claimed his Utah mansion as his primary residence from 1998 to 2000. This got him a 45% break on his property taxes - a savings of $54,000.

    When Romney got caught it was blamed on a clerical error and Romney offered to pay the tax difference. How convenient.

    There was a hearing and the outcome was that Romney was determined to be a Massachusetts resident. I certainly think his connections helped that decision.

    The Boston Globe reported that Romney's Massachusetts mansion was in Mrs. Romney's name and Romney had obtained a Utah driver's license and even considered running for office in Utah.

    It seems Romney is always seeking ways to save those taxes - even if a little lie is involved. He's always the victim of something (“So we went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property,” said Romney. “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.)

    Romney's life seems to be filled with issues that raise ethical questions.

  •  mittbot should suspend his campaign and race off (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jdsnebraska

    to DC for important meetings on the fragile economy.

    Mitt Romney deserves a lot of credit for creating Mitt Romney.

    by A Runner on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:47:21 AM PDT

  •  your final paragraph is where I want to go (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, kayfromsouth
    And we still haven't explored that Chinese outsourcing company in which Bain invested millions through Mitt Romney's Bermuda shell company. And that happened in 1998, while even Mitt Romney admits he was running the firm.
    and when exactly did he stop making money from outsourcing?  Did he outsource jobs from Mass while governor?
  •  Subpoena the Board's minutes..just him BEING there (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, ClevelandAttorney

    impeaches his financial disclosure.

    But we can't prosecute ... no.  It would be deemed political.

    The guy is a crook (on top of everything else).  What can we do about it?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:52:17 AM PDT

  •  New meme: SPIRO T. ROMNEY (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, DerAmi, mmacdDE

    Starting to make Agnew look good.

    NOW we know why McCain didn't pick him in 2008.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:53:33 AM PDT

  •  Romney always seems to have a paperwork issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pamelabrown, askew

    Remember after he released his 2010 tax return he had to amend his financial disclosure form because he failed to disclose interest from his Swiss bank account.

    His campaign called it a minor discrepancy.

    He must have some incompetent people making all these favorable "errors."

  •  did Mitt sign anything 'under penalty of perjury'? (0+ / 0-)

    IF he did, something like issue an SEC filing in which he lied on it, THIS IS A FELONY.  Of course the statute of limitations has run out, but still, IT WAS A FELONY AT THE TIME.

    This will STOP THE ROMNEY TRAIN and run it backwards for a week or so.

    80 % of success is showing up

    Corporate is not the solution to our problem

    Corporate is the problem

    by Churchill on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:56:05 AM PDT

  •  Ok Here is an example from a LEXIS NEXIS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat

    LLC Agreement about what is "not" day to day.

    So these are things that require unanimous consent. Ie what kind of coffee maybe he didnt decide, putting billions into a company, I think he voted.

    Let's see the operating agreement and the minutes. If the board is doing something it already is not the "day to day operations" I have to think with about 99% certainty acquisitions and sales are not day-to day.

    So I'd say lets see the minutes/operating agreement (bylaws in some states).

    one (1) Person to act as President, one (1) person to act as Vice-President, and one (1) or more persons to act as Secretary and/or Treasurer of the Company.  Any Person designated as an Officer hereunder shall serve until removed by unanimous Vote of all Members, or until such Person shall die, resign, or otherwise become unable to act or to continue to act as an Officer of the Company.  
    If you are President you are still President until removed. So he must have been removed in 2002.
    4.3  Voting by Members.  Except for day-to-day or routine business of the Company, which power has been vested in the Managing Members pursuant to Section 4.2 hereunder, no Member shall have the right to take any of the following actions or to otherwise act for or bind the Company without the unanimous approval of all of the Members of the Company:

    (i)    Assign, transfer, pledge, compromise, or release any claim of the Company except for full payment;

    (ii)    Arbitrate, or consent to the arbitration of any of the Company’s disputes or controversies;

    (iii)    Execute or deliver any contract to sell the Company’s property;

    (iv)    Execute any note or mortgage or encumbrance of the Company’s property;

    (v)    Execute or deliver a lease, as lessor or lessee, of property;

    (vi)    Borrow of money on behalf of the Company;

    (vii)    Execute or deliver any contract for the purchase of any services, supplies and/or other property in an amount greater than One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00);  

    (viii)    Execute or deliver on behalf of the Company any bond, mortgage, guarantee, indemnity bond, surety bond, accommodation paper, or accommodation endorsement;

    (ix)    Execute or deliver any general assignment for the benefit of creditors;

    (x)    Dispose of the good will of the Company; or

    (xi)    Any other act which would make it impossible to carry on the business of the Company.

    I add any other act as usually putting billions into a company includes that. These are again things that require unanimous consent OUTSIDE the "day-to-day". To me a company like Bain the Day to Day operations may be in gathering data etc or running acquisitions to an extent but not the moves that are important in this debate they require in any company i've seen, unanimous consent of the members board or sh's (which any would include Mitt).
  •  Dems are fighting fire with fire...finally. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ukit

    Watch for control freak Romney to avoid contact with all but Fox and fully vetted friendly functions.  He may find reasons to avoid or cancel out of debates in the future.  Watch for it.  The reasons will be family related so that it will be de classe' to inquire too much.  This guy's a weasel through and through.

    Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

    by judyms9 on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:57:19 AM PDT

  •  Pierce the corporate veil. There is no difference (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny

    between "Bain" and "Romney."

    Thus we can start asking for full disclosure on everything Bain does and did.

    Clearly the 1999 cutoff wasn't real, so was the 2002 cutoff real?

    Is Bain STILL Romney?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:58:47 AM PDT

    •  yes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat

      Sole-stock-owner.

      President.  Chairman of the Board.  CEO.

      Doesn't that mean he answers to nobody?  Doesn't that also mean, that as a corporate entity, even though he must release minutes of board meetings to stock-holders, HE IS THE ONLY STOCK-HOLDER.


      "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:35:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mitt has people for this (0+ / 0-)

    And he will enjoy firing them.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 07:59:30 AM PDT

  •  Maybe it's time to give credit where credit is due (6+ / 0-)

    Maybe the reason Romney and staff look so bad is because Obama's team is so good.

    After all, Hillary Clinton was no babe in the woods....

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:01:18 AM PDT

    •  "How Romney Walked Into A Bain Trap" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark
      The episode has a bit of a "Welcome to the NFL" quality, and while it's foolish to speculate whether Obama or his SuperPAC allies had a hand in the timing of stories or surfacing of research, Chicago showed its grasp of the rhythm of a general election, and Boston is reeling and flailing around to change the subject.
      http://www.buzzfeed.com/...
    •  I think obama's team excels at research (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, IM

      And they don't release it themselves. They plant clues. They set a path, and leave bait, so the msm or the public themselves find it.

      This is the teacher in him. A good teacher doesn't just tell you what they're trying to teach you. They give you the tools and let you find things yourself.

      Those are the things that stick.

      Not only that, when you find something, you usually want to share it. When you're trying to change somebody's views, having them find out a piece of info gives it more weight than if you just told them. YOU arent a credible source. Something they figure out themselves is unimpeachable.

      •  The Professor as political operative (0+ / 0-)

        Nicely put.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:17:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  um, sometimes, yes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark

        Sometimes they release the hounds.

        Like Ms. Cutter.


        "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  no babe, but she could have hired (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      Bill's staff, but chose to go her own way.  Shows leadership to make your own way.  But her choice of people wasn't too awfully good.

      Exemplary candidates people tend to attract exemplary staff.  And exemplary leaders hire them.


      "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:37:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WOW! An actual usurper (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, AlyoshaKaramazov

    Romney is caught in liars Hobson's Choice or Prisoners Dilemna. To protect the lie that he left Bain in 1999, he lied in 2002 to determine his eligibility to be governor.

    I'm particularly interested in tax years 1999,2000, 2001, and 2002. Lying is a natural thing for Willard. Lying to state officials or the SEC didn't matter because he was running for governor, er president for Pete's sake!

    •  yes, for Pete's sake. (0+ / 0-)

      and Pete may be the only one who ends up voting for the lying prick.


      "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:39:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Either Romney lied, or Bain lied (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE

    Either Romney lied in his financial disclosure, or Bain lied in its SEC filings. I don't see another way to resolve this.

  •  Now can we get CNN to cover this mini-scandal (0+ / 0-)

    honestly? They still cling to their bogus narrative.

    Mitt Romney deserves a lot of credit for creating Mitt Romney.

    by A Runner on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:15:38 AM PDT

  •  To us, he looks like a greedy, dishonest, (0+ / 0-)

    prick.

    But to Republicans...................to Republicans, he looks like a weak, inept candidate, who should release his god-damned tax returns.


    "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 08:17:22 AM PDT

  •  Does Romneyland admit he was %100 owner of Bain? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ukit

    The documents that I have seen say that he was Bain's shole shareholder during the time in question.   Doesn't that mean that he was the sole owner?    In the end, Bain's job is to do what is in the best interest of its shareholder(s), which was Mitt.    There is no way to escape responsibility if this is true, so really the discussion of anything else is moot.    It was his company, not just a company that he worked for.

    Anything else is simply to claim that Romney was so clueless that he had no idea what the people who were managing the company that he created (took over) did with it, which is not a quality that  you want in a President.

    Do they claim that these documents are wrong, or that they represent a different Bain?

  •  "LifeLike" (0+ / 0-)

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

  •  All because he felt like lying about a date (0+ / 0-)

    Rmoney didn't need to lie.  It is all so stupid.

    His campaign decided that it would be useful to end his involvement at Bain as of 1999.  So all of the crappy stuff that Bain did before 1999 was Rmoney's fault, sure, and it certainly didn 't help him in his race against Teddy in 1994.  But if he said 1999 instead of 2002, why that would blunt the Obama campaign's ability to cite several nasty things Bain did in those three years.  So they made that a priority.  Sort of like a double-reinforced blast door on a grass hut. The pre-1999 stuff was not in dispute.

    By lying about 1999, Rmoney opens up questions about a more serious lie, to the SEC.  Of course he was not dumb enough to lie brazenly to the SEC.

    What he could have said:  "I gave up my active day to day management of Bain in 1999 to work on the Olympics.  I still held legal positions there due to my ownership interests, and occasionally talked to the firm, but other people were actually running the company.  So I was not aware of everything that the Bain portfolio companies did."

    But he didn't.  He just made up a convenient lie instead. And the web grew tangled.

  •  Clarification? (0+ / 0-)

    I've read the Boston Globe stuff. Does anyone know what is the difference between Bain Capital and the various versions of Bain Capital VI named in the SEC filing?

  •  LifeLike is so life like that (0+ / 0-)

    it's about to kick Mitt in the ass.   But the real coup de grace is going to be his off-shore accounts.  Americans just aren't going to believe that a presidential candidate should be sheltering hundred of millions from American taxes by stashing them in tax havens.  So the big question is:  who is going to be the GOP candidate?  Ron Paul?

  •  IDK why but this reminds me of Arrested Developmen (0+ / 0-)

    t

    In the small portion about the band Tobias was in and its ownership/the confusion.  It made me laugh re-reading:

    In the mid '90s, Tobias formed a folk music band with Lindsay and Maebe which he called Dr. Funke's 100 Percent Natural Good Time Family Band Solution. The group was underwritten by the Natural Food Life Company, a division of Chem-Grow, an Allen Crayne acqusition, which was part of the Squimm Group. Their motto was simple: We keep you alive.
  •  What Romney told Boston Herald in 1999 (0+ / 0-)

    from David Corn's reporting on stericycle "On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions."

    That should be the quote that sinks him.

  •  pshaw............... (0+ / 0-)


    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

  •  SLC Open Records Request (0+ / 0-)

    The records of the SLC Olympic Organizing Committee were made subject to the Utah open records law following the bribery scandal. I suspect that they are still in an archive somewhere. Having worked with people who have multiple positions simultaneously, I know that they tend to use the communications systems of the office for more than just that office's business. Accordingly, I would bet that the fax and telephone logs of the Committee would provide ample evidence of daily contact between Romney, Bain and its vassal companies. Being in a country on the other side of the Earth, I can't do it myself, but I'd love to see someone in SLC do the legwork.

  •  weasel words (0+ / 0-)

    "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."

    Active.  Operations.

    It seems clear that the campaign aimed to gloss over the issue with a perhaps-technically-true or at least spinnable version of the truth as indicated above.  He was not "actively" (whatever that means) involved in "operations" (whatever that means) during the time frame in question.  It seems they never thought they'd be challenged on it; or if they were, that the vague wording would leave the claim impossible to disprove.

    I think they just plain forgot the optics.  Even if somehow letter-true, who is going to believe that someone could own a company and be CEO of it, and be paid by it, without having any real input into what it does?  It breaks the rules of common sense.  And further, if this whole thing were completely normal and above-board, why use such weaselly phrases in the first place?  Why not just describe the actual arrangement under which Romney was operating?  That the campaign didn't do that, but instead chose to leave the impression that Romney had no longer any ties to Bain AT ALL, suggests deceit all by itself.

    I kinda think this will stick, if the Dems don't fuck it up.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site