Skip to main content

I'll be quick about this.

On August 12, 2011, Mitt Romney filed this report with the Federal Election Commission. On the 27th page it states:

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.
This statement is false. A lie.

As Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshal reported on July 10th, Securities and Exchange Commission filings show Romney listed as the CEO, president, and sole owner of Bain capital. You are not "retired" if you are the CEO and president of a company. Other SEC docs indicate that Mitt Romney drew a salary of "over $100,000" for being CEO of Bain. That, by definition, is not being retired. These SEC documents also state that Romney's "principal occupation" was being the CEO of Bain Capital. That, by definition, is not being retired.

Being CEO and President is not having" any active role" or not being involved "in any way". If you are the sole owner of a private entity, you are legally responsible for that entity. You are "involved" in that entity. Had Bain Capital participated in an illegal action, Mitt Romney would have been held financially and possibly criminally liable for that action.

Even with this just this evidence, Mitt Romney ought to be arrested for lying to a federal agent. A crime that carries a penalty of 5 years maximum in prison.

More beyond the cover for those who seek it.

But for all the legal twisting and squirming that Mitt's surrogates have been doing to protect him from the legal jeopardy that he put himself in- they cannot escape the fact that Mitt Romney, in sworn testimony to Massachusetts election officials, stated that he served on the board of the LifeLike corporation and returned to Massachusetts to serve in that capacity after he left "retired" in 1999 to save the Olympics. Presumably and almost certainly, he served on its board because he owned shares in the company through his ownership of Bain Capital.

That by definition is "being involved" in a Bain Capital entity. Even he served on LifeLike's board in the capacity of an individual investor (and not in his Bain capacity), he would still be "involved" with this Bain entity as an individual investor.

There is much, much more evidence out there to contradict Romney's claim (which came today in the form of Ed Gillespie's PREPOSTEROUS claim that Mitt Romney "retired retroactively" from Bain Capital. But that's not what this blurb is about.

This blurb is about arresting Mitt Romney.

Either he lied to the SEC and state of Massachusetts in the early years of the past decade, or he lied to the FEC on August 12, 2011. Mitt Romney from the information available to us, is guilty of a federal crime. He needs to go to court to defend his innocence.

Now, I'm not suggesting anyone attempt a citizen's arrest of Mitt Romney (the Secret Service would quickly stop you). What I'm suggesting is that we start asking questions of the FEC and Justice Department. Perhaps we should start by phoning in, and asking the FEC these questions:

1) Has the FEC investigated the discrepancies between Mitt Romney's FEC filing in 2011 and Bain's SEC filings in the early 2000's?

2) If the FEC has not begun an investigation (or the person on the phone won't state whether they have or not) ask whether this person knows about these discrepancies.

3) If they do not know, inform them of the discrepancies by stating: "In the early 2000's Bain Capital listed Mitt Romney as their owner and CEO, who drew a salary of over $100,000. Yet in 2011, Mitt Romney filed a document with the FEC stating that he retired from Bain in 1999. It appears likely that Mitt Romney lied to the FEC in 2011. The FEC should investigate these discrepancies."

4) If they do know of the discrepancies, ask why they have yet to launch an investigation, and state that they should launch an investigation.

I believe we should start a political and organizational movement to give the government the political will to arrest Mitt Romney. I should state upfront that I don't necessarily want to lead that movement, but I am willing to lend my voice and limited knowledge of politics to it. I will also add that the Obama campaign is absolutely NOT the correct vehicle to express this frustration through or toward. Asking a sitting president to call for the arrest of his political opponent looks weak and in the long run could set a dangerous precedent.

I believe the correct vehicle for this movement is the Occupy movement. Think about it. A wealthy member of the 1 percent believes he is above the law and would have us sit idly by while he clearly and flagrantly violates the law. If Joe poor man lies to the DEA during a drug bust, he goes to jail- even if he was just a witness to the illegal activity. However, if Mitt Romney lies to the FEC just because he wants to be president, he goes on scott-free, possibly to the presidency. We should at least expect the people running to lead us to be truthful.

If we don't demand some type of justice here, then what are we about? What is this nation about? Would it be lies, and justice for everyone but the privileged?

That is all.

Originally posted to Alexander Dukes on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 01:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by Mitt Romney Bain Chronicles and The Bain Files.

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

  •  It's going to have to come from The People (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, FiredUpInCA, Churchill

    Because it sure as hell isn't going to get the attention it deserves, ro the hard quetions being asked, by the mainstream media.

    Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. ~ Yoda Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

    by Cinnamon on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 02:07:57 PM PDT

  •  Arrest him after the election (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delilah, rubyduby7, boilerman10
  •  There is no way that the current (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, libnewsie

    Justice Department could prosecute him.  Imagine the outcry if Eric Holder announced an investigation of Mitt Rmoney.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 02:20:05 PM PDT

  •  I think a little realism would be in order (5+ / 0-)

    Have you forgotten what kind of nation this is, what kind of people we are? We pardoned Nixon for his crimes, for the good of the country; we overlooked Clinton’s felonies, because it was just sex; and we ignored Bush’s war crimes, because we want to look forward, not backward.

    And you want to put Romney in prison for an ambiguous situation regarding his relationship with Bain Capital after 1999?  I realize that Romney is not president, but only a candidate, and therefore may not deserve to be above the law the way actual presidents are, but your proposal is just not realistic even at that.

    We have an election coming up.  If the American people would, contrary to their past behavior, actually arrest Romney and put him in jail, then they will not vote for him, and that will be good enough.  And if they vote him into office? Then I rest my case.

    •  NO! Nixon's pal Ford pardoned Nixon!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We were prepared to see Dick in Leavenworth but when he was pardoned, we grumped, chafed and made sure Ford was replaced in November of '76, which really was a mistake as a 2nd Ford term would have assured us NO REAGAN!

      Be that as it may.

      The nation we save from Republican sharpsters will be our own. We need a Democratic Congress, and to reelect President Obama....this won't be easy...we better get started NOW!

      by boilerman10 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:37:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is basically true... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a realist at heart, but I guess the reason I wrote this was because I'm tired of seeing people just get away with illegal acts just because they're rich and white. Its extremely frustrating when you see people get put behind bars for years for marijuana charges and crack charges even though their social situation doesn't offer alot of choices for routes out of that life- and yet we see bankers and financiers do trillions of dollars worth of damage to our economy and they get no years in jail.

      Mitt Romney is the posterchild for the wealth gap in this country. Deep down, he thinks he's smarter than us, and  he thinks the laws we set up to protect our economy from his brand of vanity don't apply to him.

      It would be different if he just came out and apologized or came clean. But he's still lying about it and not taking responsibility, its really kind of insulting. I actually think if he were arrested and prosecuted, that Obama should grant him a pardon after the election... its more about the point than the jail time.

  •  What's with the selective reading? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris

    You can be involved, including being a CEO on paper, without being involved in operations. This ire is misplaced.

    •  Nothing to see here, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      everybody just move along.  Yeah, everybody does it.

      •  Where exactly (0+ / 0-)

        is the "lie"?

        •  Huh??? Statements compared to signatures (0+ / 0-)

          on SEC doc's.  We could, of course, always give him the  benefit of the doubt...nice guy that he is. Heck, he's being pilloried unfairly by those meany leftists.  You're probably right deb, he wouldn't lie, all that evidence is just fake or irrelevant and we should ignore it. We understand deb.

          •  Erm (0+ / 0-)

            The statements were that he wasn't involved in operations while maintaining ownership. And?

            •  Wow, And?...all those copyrighted reports from (0+ / 0-)

              Mother Jones, David Corn, The Washington Post etc.  are just conjecture.  
              Wonder if he had any business deductions for Bain since '99?  Maybe he'll let America see.  Maybe he won't.  Maybe, as an American, he doesn't have too and that should be good enough for us.  
              Personally, I think he'll phoney up some partial returns and let America decide (based upon Citizens United free speech corporate $'s telling us what the truth is) because there won't be an impartial arbiter, considering the IRS won't comment.  
              Heck, maybe someone from McCain's campaign will leak copies of the originals.  That'd be cool.  Every day spent on his corruption is a day not spent directing his  full bore attacks against the American people (oh, I mean President Obama). Whaddaya think, Romney's really a nice guy just misunderstood and the object of that nasty media.  Yeah, evidence  and I didn't present a single evidentiary fact.  Sorry deb, if you're serious look it up, if you're not ...see ya.

        •  you haven't been following this story have you? nt (0+ / 0-)

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 06:03:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  the CEO, by definition, is involved in operations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      libnewsie, eXtina

      there isn't a term non-executive Chief Executive Officer.  The CEO is always either involved in the operations, or has delegated some of that authority to a Chief Operating Officer.  However, the delegation does not mean that the CEO is not involved in the operations.  He is simply supervising the person who is running the operations, thus he is legally responsible for the operations.

      80 % of success is showing up

      Corporate is not the solution to our problem

      Corporate is the problem

      by Churchill on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 05:11:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thin, CEO = cheerleader, schmoozer, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        figurehead. In substance, most aren't involved in operations.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 15, 2012 at 07:15:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The CEO (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, Churchill

        is whatever the board agrees with the CEO is, really. There's no official SEC definition of CEO. Indeed, COO may run the operations, as you pointed out.  

        That's really a very very weak argument, especially when going as far as "felony".

        •  the executive that is the Chief is responsible for (0+ / 0-)

          all the operations.  He may be a figurehead, or cheerleader, but he or she is in fact the senior executive officer, or Chief Executive Officer, or the corporation.

          80 % of success is showing up

          Corporate is not the solution to our problem

          Corporate is the problem

          by Churchill on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:59:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Minor point: a person (0+ / 0-)

    isn't a "felon" until he or she has been convicted of a felony.

  •  No, just a liar. (0+ / 0-)

    It is plausible that he went on temporary leave, had no involvement over time, and then revised his status as 'retired' from.

    (Consider that short term 'break' from a lover, that in retrospect was permanent.)

      I think he's a weasel and a liar, but I haven't seen proof of wrong-doing that would stand-up in court.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site