Mitt guilty of felony perjury?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?

You're right Dog - the word "lie" isn't to be found in those articles - the articles instead demonstrate that there is no truth to be found in the allegation. Another distinction without a difference where the left must cling to the lack of a specific word being used when it is readily apparent to all that thedefinition of the word.itself has been satisfied. One would think you had more dignity than that, but events have demonstrated otherwise.

Well it's the nuance with folks like Dog. Sort of the same nuance as a Dog sniffing at butts, and a Dog sniffing at a pile of sh*t. It's damn close to the same thing... but not quite.

Hey, twin why didn't ya stop by at breakfast & say HI?, ya said HI to SC... I'm hurt & feel left out.

TPP wrote: Hey, twin why didn't ya stop by at breakfast & say HI?, ya said HI to SC... I'm hurt & feel left out.

I don't even know what you look like, or how to find you (or who you are). I guess I could walk around asking if anyone has seen TPP... but I suspect that they would think I was drinking rather early in the day... is it ever too early?

And besides... it may have not been a very good idea to actually introduce myself publicly to anyone from 285. Now there's this matronly looking older woman standing in my driveway with a shot gun in one hand and a guitar in the other.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?

You're right Dog - the word "lie" isn't to be found in those articles - the articles instead demonstrate that there is no truth to be found in the allegation. Another distinction without a difference where the left must cling to the lack of a specific word being used when it is readily apparent to all that thedefinition of the word.itself has been satisfied. One would think you had more dignity than that, but events have demonstrated otherwise.

Actually the articles do not "demonstrate" that there is no truth. Instead the articles cite that documents "demonstrate" that Mitt was listed as COB, CEO, President and Managing Director of Bain and/or its entities from 1998 - 2002. That is inconvertible proof. The question that is ambiguous to the "factcheckers" is whether that is sufficient to prove that Mitt was "actively" managing those entities despite those titles being applicable. They also admit that their opinion is preliminary at this time and they will be reviewing additional evidence. Their primary "evidence" is that in 2011, Mitt signed a document he had not been actively involved with Bain or its entities since 1999 under threat of felony perjury. Their opinion is largely based on Mitt's word that he was not involved.


Further evidence that has come forward at this time includes financial disclosure statements that Mitt received $100,000 salary in addition to investment income as a Bain executive in 2001, 2002. Why was he receiving a salary if he was no longer an executive? Why was he listed as CEO, COB, President and managing director if he was not responsible for the activities of the company? Can you name any other example where an individual who has the titles of Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President and Managing Director has no responsibility for the activities of the company?

Just today, a document has been discovered filed with the Massachusett's secretary of state in 2002 (after he had been sworn in as governor) that lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."

Hmm, sounds like he had responsibilities there.
Documents have also been found that were signed by Mitt himself in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 where he signed on behalf of Bain investing in a number of companies. Sounds like he had responsibility there.

No doubt that if he released the relevant tax returns, it would show salary from Bain during that time. Even Republican counterparts are demanding that he release those documents if he has nothing to hide. Instead, he refuses to release them, the first presidential candidate since before his father to do so.

Printsmith, I realize this is just part of your campaign of personal attacks against me. The only dignity that is being harmed is that of yourself in these attacks.

So even top Republicans believe that Mitt is hiding something.

"“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

On the ABC roundtable, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd had a similar take.

“There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.”

“Many of these politicians think, ‘I can do this. I can get away with this. I don’t need to do this, because I’m going to say something and I don’t have to do this,’” Dowd said. “If he had 20 years of ‘great, clean, everything’s fine,’ it’d all be out there, but it’s arrogance.”

In the last week, several Republicans have advised Romney to release his returns. That list includes former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who called for “total transparency” and said he releases all his tax returns. On “Fox News Sunday,” the Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol added his voice to the list as well, calling for Romney to “release the tax returns tomorrow” and “take the hit for a day or two.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... ething.php

What could make Mitt so afraid?

Do you have a link for these "facts"?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Where do any of those articles say that those are lies?

You're right Dog - the word "lie" isn't to be found in those articles - the articles instead demonstrate that there is no truth to be found in the allegation. Another distinction without a difference where the left must cling to the lack of a specific word being used when it is readily apparent to all that thedefinition of the word.itself has been satisfied. One would think you had more dignity than that, but events have demonstrated otherwise.

Actually the articles do not "demonstrate" that there is no truth. Instead the articles cite that documents "demonstrate" that Mitt was listed as COB, CEO, President and Managing Director of Bain and/or its entities from 1998 - 2002. That is inconvertible proof. The question that is ambiguous to the "factcheckers" is whether that is sufficient to prove that Mitt was "actively" managing those entities despite those titles being applicable. They also admit that their opinion is preliminary at this time and they will be reviewing additional evidence. Their primary "evidence" is that in 2011, Mitt signed a document he had not been actively involved with Bain or its entities since 1999 under threat of felony perjury. Their opinion is largely based on Mitt's word that he was not involved.


Further evidence that has come forward at this time includes financial disclosure statements that Mitt received $100,000 salary in addition to investment income as a Bain executive in 2001, 2002. Why was he receiving a salary if he was no longer an executive? Why was he listed as CEO, COB, President and managing director if he was not responsible for the activities of the company? Can you name any other example where an individual who has the titles of Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President and Managing Director has no responsibility for the activities of the company?

Just today, a document has been discovered filed with the Massachusett's secretary of state in 2002 (after he had been sworn in as governor) that lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."

Hmm, sounds like he had responsibilities there.
Documents have also been found that were signed by Mitt himself in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 where he signed on behalf of Bain investing in a number of companies. Sounds like he had responsibility there.

No doubt that if he released the relevant tax returns, it would show salary from Bain during that time. Even Republican counterparts are demanding that he release those documents if he has nothing to hide. Instead, he refuses to release them, the first presidential candidate since before his father to do so.

Printsmith, I realize this is just part of your campaign of personal attacks against me. The only dignity that is being harmed is that of yourself in these attacks.

Blazer Bob wrote: Do you have a link for these "facts"?

Yes.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote: Do you have a link for these "facts"?

Yes.

Well in that case Romney is a felon and and Obama can't loose.

If you misplaced the link, perhaps you can find it here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/se ... 3A11&hl=en

That liberal rag, Forbes, published a commentary regarding 35 questions that Mitt must answer before this question goes away.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/20 ... go-away/4/

So even conservatives are turning on Mitt over this issue.

Here are few of the questions that Forbes wants answered:
re you contending that an individual can simultaneously be the CEO, president, managing director of a company, and its sole stockholder and somehow be “disassociated” from the company or accurately classified as someone not having “any” formal involvement with a company?

2. You have stated that in “Feb. 1999 I left Bain capital and all management responsibility” and “I had no ongoing activity or involvement.” It depends on what the definition of “involvement” is, doesn’t it? Clearly you were involved with Bain to the extent that you owned it. Are you defining “involvement” in a uniquely specific way that only means “full-time, active, 60-hours-a-week, hands-on manager?”

3. How exactly are you defining “involvement?”

4. Surely someone from Bain occasionally called you up and asked your opinion about something work related from 1999 to 2002. Wouldn’t that qualify as “involvement,” if only on a minor level?

5. You earned at least $100,000 as an executive from Bain in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings according to filings with State of Massachusetts. Can you give an example of anyone else you personally know getting a six figure income, not dividend or investment return, but actual income, from a company they had nothing to do with?

6. What did you do for this $100,000 salary you earned from Bain in both 2000 and 2001?

7. If you did nothing to earn this salary, did the Bain managers violate their fiduciary duty by paying you a salary for no discernible reason?

8. Are there other companies that pay you six figures a year as earned income, not investment income, for which you have no involvement?

9. In 2002, you are listed as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors LLC in its annual report. What does this mean?

10. On the very day after you took over the Winter Olympics, the Boston Herald reported that “Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions.” Do you now contend this was factually inaccurate?

17. According to the Boston Globe, “In a November 2000 interview with the Globe, Romney’s wife, Ann, said he had been forced to lessen, but not end entirely, his involvement with Bain Capital.” Did your wife misspeak?

23. Every time a reporter asks you “why were you listed by Bain in sec documents as the CEO in 2000-2002″ You respond that everyone knows you were no longer the active manger after Feb. 1999 and that you owned stock in Bain but did not manage anything. That may well be, but that doesn’t answer the question as to why Bain listed you as ceo, president and managing director. Why won’t you answer a simple question that involves basic facts that are undisputed?

24. Why do SEC documents claim you were Chief Executive Officer, President, and Managing Director of Bain Capital 2000 and 2001 if you were merely the sole owner?

28. True or false, it is a felony to lie on SEC filings?


Don't you think the American public is entitled to these answers?