Raees wrote: Wow, you sure read a lot into a single post. Where did I say it was gospel?
Here's another source then:
Mitt Romney’s sworn testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit against Staples founder Tom Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday at Norfolk Probate and Family Court.
The suit was filed in 1990 by Stemberg’s ex-wife, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, who sought to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and began trading at 10 times the stock value she had received in the divorce a year earlier. Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified during the lawsuit in June 1991; the nature of his testimony was not immediately clear on Thursday.
The Globe filed a motion on Oct. 15 to unseal Romney’s testimony, which was impounded along with all other case files from the Stembergs’ 10-year legal battle.
At the time of his testimony, Romney was the owner and chief executive of Bain Capital, a private equity firm that invested $650,000 in Staples to help the office supply company open its first store in Brighton in 1986. In total, Bain Capital invested about $2.5 million in Staples and reaped a $13 million profit when the company went public in 1989. Romney also sat on the Staples board of directors, where he was “probably the most valuable member,” Stemberg told the Globe in a 1994 interview.
So what does this 2nd source have to do with your first source?
Your first story says Romney was implicated of perjury and stock fraud. The second story makes no mention of it, that story only talks about the records being unsealed.
The first story says Romney testified during the divorce proceedings. The second story says Romney testified later in a post-divorce lawsuit because the woman wasn't happy with the Staples stock she got and wanted to amend their divorce agreement.
I don't see a story here yet. The two "sources" do not even seem consistent with each other. But I guess the Boston Globe has the transcript of Romney's testimony now and let's see what, if anything, they make of it in some later story.
Raees wrote: Wow, you sure read a lot into a single post. Where did I say it was gospel?
Here's another source then:
Mitt Romney’s sworn testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit against Staples founder Tom Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday at Norfolk Probate and Family Court.
The suit was filed in 1990 by Stemberg’s ex-wife, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, who sought to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and began trading at 10 times the stock value she had received in the divorce a year earlier. Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified during the lawsuit in June 1991; the nature of his testimony was not immediately clear on Thursday.
The Globe filed a motion on Oct. 15 to unseal Romney’s testimony, which was impounded along with all other case files from the Stembergs’ 10-year legal battle.
At the time of his testimony, Romney was the owner and chief executive of Bain Capital, a private equity firm that invested $650,000 in Staples to help the office supply company open its first store in Brighton in 1986. In total, Bain Capital invested about $2.5 million in Staples and reaped a $13 million profit when the company went public in 1989. Romney also sat on the Staples board of directors, where he was “probably the most valuable member,” Stemberg told the Globe in a 1994 interview.
So what does this 2nd source have to do with your first source?
Your first story says Romney was implicated of perjury and stock fraud. The second story makes no mention of it, that story only talks about the records being unsealed.
The first story says Romney testified during the divorce proceedings. The second story says Romney testified later in a post-divorce lawsuit because the woman wasn't happy with the Staples stock she got and wanted to amend their divorce agreement.
I don't see a story here yet. The two "sources" do not even seem consistent with each other. But I guess the Boston Globe has the transcript of Romney's testimony now and let's see what, if anything, they make of it in some later story.
Its simple raees likes to call others out when they are wrong or do not put out sources etc. Its only right when he posts it. He put out BS on this, basically lied when you get right down to it. Romney has not been implicated in nothing. Testimony has not even be unsealed yet. So raees are ya lying or just made a mistake. Its one or the other. Must be. ORRRRRRR print your facts to back up your BS..
Take a breath. Like sands through the hour glass, this is Raees,
[youtube:2yt763zl][/youtube:2yt763zl]
navycpo7 wrote:
pineinthegrass wrote:
Raees wrote: Wow, you sure read a lot into a single post. Where did I say it was gospel?
Here's another source then:
Mitt Romney’s sworn testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit against Staples founder Tom Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday at Norfolk Probate and Family Court.
The suit was filed in 1990 by Stemberg’s ex-wife, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, who sought to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and began trading at 10 times the stock value she had received in the divorce a year earlier. Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified during the lawsuit in June 1991; the nature of his testimony was not immediately clear on Thursday.
The Globe filed a motion on Oct. 15 to unseal Romney’s testimony, which was impounded along with all other case files from the Stembergs’ 10-year legal battle.
At the time of his testimony, Romney was the owner and chief executive of Bain Capital, a private equity firm that invested $650,000 in Staples to help the office supply company open its first store in Brighton in 1986. In total, Bain Capital invested about $2.5 million in Staples and reaped a $13 million profit when the company went public in 1989. Romney also sat on the Staples board of directors, where he was “probably the most valuable member,” Stemberg told the Globe in a 1994 interview.
So what does this 2nd source have to do with your first source?
Your first story says Romney was implicated of perjury and stock fraud. The second story makes no mention of it, that story only talks about the records being unsealed.
The first story says Romney testified during the divorce proceedings. The second story says Romney testified later in a post-divorce lawsuit because the woman wasn't happy with the Staples stock she got and wanted to amend their divorce agreement.
I don't see a story here yet. The two "sources" do not even seem consistent with each other. But I guess the Boston Globe has the transcript of Romney's testimony now and let's see what, if anything, they make of it in some later story.
Its simple raees likes to call others out when they are wrong or do not put out sources etc. Its only right when he posts it. He put out BS on this, basically lied when you get right down to it. Romney has not been implicated in nothing. Testimony has not even be unsealed yet. So raees are ya lying or just made a mistake. Its one or the other. Must be. ORRRRRRR print your facts to back up your BS..
navycpo7 wrote: Romney has not been implicated in nothing. Testimony has not even be unsealed yet. So raees are ya lying or just made a mistake. Its one or the other. Must be. ORRRRRRR print your facts to back up your BS..
I quoted from an article, including its headline. If it's BS, contact the author of the article. The article shows how crazy some of the media is. The testimony is not a secret. The attorneys who were present when it was given already have the transcripts from the original case. They know what's in it.
navycpo7 wrote: Romney has not been implicated in nothing. Testimony has not even be unsealed yet. So raees are ya lying or just made a mistake. Its one or the other. Must be. ORRRRRRR print your facts to back up your BS..
I quoted from an article, including its headline. If it's BS, contact the author of the article. The testimony is not a secret. The attorneys who were present when it was given already have the transcripts from the original case. They know what's in it.
Got it now, since you did the same thing I did, of which you called me a liar, though I did the exact same thing, and then you stated that I was wrong, which I admitted after doing even more lookups, but since you did it, it is someone else's fault. You did not verify your sources and or much of anything. You just wanted to stir the pot. So when someone else does it and it is wrong info they are liar's when you do it it is the author's fault. Imagine that.
navycpo7 wrote: Romney has not been implicated in nothing. Testimony has not even be unsealed yet. So raees are ya lying or just made a mistake. Its one or the other. Must be. ORRRRRRR print your facts to back up your BS..
I quoted from an article, including its headline. If it's BS, contact the author of the article. The testimony is not a secret. The attorneys who were present when it was given already have the transcripts from the original case. They know what's in it.
Got it now, since you did the same thing I did, of which you called me a liar, though I did the exact same thing, and then you stated that I was wrong, which I admitted after doing even more lookups, but since you did it, it is someone else's fault. You did not verify your sources and or much of anything. You just wanted to stir the pot. So when someone else does it and it is wrong info they are liar's when you do it it is the author's fault. Imagine that.
