Mitt Romney told us that he left Bain Capital in 1999. He told the SEC that he was its
"sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002 and signed documents to that effect.
Which consists chiefly of the Washington Post, which published their 'debunking' in January, drawing a distinction between Bain the management firm and Bain proper, and whether Romney was involved in managing the company or whether he was a figurehead drawing an annual salary over $100,000 for doing nothing.
Now that the Globe article has appeared, they repeat their original 'fact check' saying in an exasperated tone that they've already covered this.
We’re considering whether to once again take a deeper look at this, though it really feels like Groundhog Day again. There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)And they then move on from the minutiae of legal technicalities of partnerships to addressing the question of lying to the SEC. Here is the incredible way that they address this question and dispute its probability:
To accept some of the claims, one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings — potentially worth millions of dollars — so he could say his retirement started in 1999.So. The truth is what you choose to believe it to be.
It can't be true because you'd have to believe Romney lied. It's too preposterous to believe, therefore it can't possibly be true. (Although I can see how Romney would rather swallow glass than give up three years of retirement earnings).
This is the state of today's media. The 'fact checkers' are even more useless than the reporting they're checking.