Mitt guilty of felony perjury?

At least he wasn't writing crib-notes on the palm of his left hand...

Democracy4Sale wrote: At least he wasn't writing crib-notes on the palm of his left hand...

lol Guilty!

Was always doing that in school so I wouldn't forget when I got home. "prom tonight" "rifle team"

So all of the conservative posters who cited factchecker as proof that Mitt was not involved with Bain during 1999 - 2002. Guess what, they retracted their "Pinocchio's" and stated that it is up to Mitt to prove that he had no involvement.

"But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response."

"Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


So Mitt, show us your papers!

Something the Dog Said wrote: So all of the conservative posters who cited factchecker as proof that Mitt was not involved with Bain during 1999 - 2002. Guess what, they retracted their "Pinocchio's" and stated that it is up to Mitt to prove that he had no involvement.

"But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response."

"Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


So Mitt, show us your papers!

Imagine my surprise....

(I guess this means that Factcheck.org goes back to the column of "biased", "partisan", and "irrelevant" to Righties?)

A quick review of your link indicates that going forward they may not comment on individual claims regarding Romney's time at Bain, but I didn't see where they had retracted any of their Pinocchio's for earlier claims including the three that they awarded for Obama's 11 July 2011 attack ad.

And if you bothered to read those Pinocchio's, they were based on the assumption that Romney was not involved with Bain after 1999. That assumption has now been negated, and if Romney fails to prove up that he was no longer involved with Bain, those assumptions are negated and the claims against Romney will be considered true. The ball is in Mitt's court. Mitt, show us your papers!

Something the Dog Said wrote: So all of the conservative posters who cited factchecker as proof that Mitt was not involved with Bain during 1999 - 2002. Guess what, they retracted their "Pinocchio's" and stated that it is up to Mitt to prove that he had no involvement.

"But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response."

"Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


So Mitt, show us your papers!

Well, doesn't that just stir up NAZI phases...

Also notice that REAL CLEAR POLITICS had a banner for supporting Romeny the RINO. WTH???? Non Biased my Arse!
So, archer, and whomever it was that quoted RCP polls, and the averages, I don't know what to say. I used to trust that site, now NOT so much.

TPP wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So all of the conservative posters who cited factchecker as proof that Mitt was not involved with Bain during 1999 - 2002. Guess what, they retracted their "Pinocchio's" and stated that it is up to Mitt to prove that he had no involvement.

"But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response."

"Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


So Mitt, show us your papers!

Well, doesn't that just stir up NAZI phases...

Not so much...Arizona maybe...

TPP wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So all of the conservative posters who cited factchecker as proof that Mitt was not involved with Bain during 1999 - 2002. Guess what, they retracted their "Pinocchio's" and stated that it is up to Mitt to prove that he had no involvement.

"But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response."

"Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


So Mitt, show us your papers!

Well, doesn't that just stir up NAZI phases...

Also notice that REAL CLEAR POLITICS had a banner for supporting Romeny the RINO. WTH???? Non Biased my Arse!
So, archer, and whomever it was that quoted RCP polls, and the averages, I don't know what to say. I used to trust that site, now NOT so much.

So now you know how the driving while brown crowd feels in Arizona. Mitt has no problems with forcing those with brown skin to be required to show their papers, so why should he feel picked on when requested to show his tax papers.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

TPP wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So all of the conservative posters who cited factchecker as proof that Mitt was not involved with Bain during 1999 - 2002. Guess what, they retracted their "Pinocchio's" and stated that it is up to Mitt to prove that he had no involvement.

"But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response."

"Moreover, as we have previously noted:
— a news release was issued by Bain Capital in July 1999 quoting Romney on the departure of Bain partners. The news release described him as being on “part-time leave of absence.”
— the 1999-2001 annual reports of Staples and Marriott International, on whose boards Romney served, continued to list him as heading Bain and various Bain funds. The descriptions are based on a questionnaire that the board director must personally provide."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html


So Mitt, show us your papers!

Well, doesn't that just stir up NAZI phases...

Also notice that REAL CLEAR POLITICS had a banner for supporting Romeny the RINO. WTH???? Non Biased my Arse!
So, archer, and whomever it was that quoted RCP polls, and the averages, I don't know what to say. I used to trust that site, now NOT so much.

So now you know how the driving while brown crowd feels in Arizona. Mitt has no problems with forcing those with brown skin to be required to show their papers, so why should he feel picked on when requested to show his tax papers.

Hey... what the hell... I show my papers every time I cash a check, get on a plane, enter a foreign country, when I apply for a job, when I file taxes, when I apply for credit, when I renew my passport, when I get a mortgage, when I vote, when I...

Those "brown people" can grace us with the same courtesy.. and by the way... Mitt don't have to show jack if he doesn't want to.