Home 2012 races Politico: Did Romney Not Just Lie, but Also Commit a “Federal Felony?”

Politico: Did Romney Not Just Lie, but Also Commit a “Federal Felony?”

253
2
SHARE

We already knew Willard “Mitt” Romney was a pathological liar, but now Politico – and also Factcheck.org and the Boston Globe (among others) – ratchet it up another notch:

Earlier this month, FactCheck.org stated that if Mitt Romney had not left Bain Capital in 1999, he “would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999.”

FactCheck.org made that argument to dismiss complaints by the Obama campaign, but a new Boston Globe report on Mitt Romney’s true tenure at Bain Capital — which reportedly lasted until 2002, three years longer than Romney has stated — brings FactCheck’s statement into sharp relief.

Wow. I mean, the depth of dishonesty from Romney just knows no bounds, apparently. As BooMan writes, “who would believe that Romney would exercise no control over a company for four years while remaining the sole stockholder?”  The same people, perhaps, who would believe that the author of “Romneycare,” including an “individual mandate” and many of the other elements in the Affordable Care Act, now strongly opposes all that and isn’t just pandering to the far-right-wing “base?” Uh huh. Or that Romney has any kind of plan to improve our economy, beyond doubling down on the same exact things – tax cuts for the top 1%, deregulation of the banks, etc. – that got us into this mess? I guess if you can believe that stuff, you can also believe that Romney “exercise[d] no control over a company for four years while remaining the sole stockholder.” Of course, as the saying goes, “there’s a sucker born every minute.” Actually, there are millions of those suckers, and they’re called “Romney supporters.”

P.S. In other news, David Corn reports, “Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Firm That Profited on US Outsourcing.” So much for that denial as well!

  • Cool_Arrow

    Definitely not a good place for Romney right now. Just wanted to add my two cents as someone who has been involved in multiple SEC filings.

    -What it seems like to me is that Romney left in 1999 but allowed the Company to use his name as CEO as that is what investors were used to seeing on filings. He probably had little involvement in the Company after 1999 but that really isn’t the point. When you allow your name to be tied to a filing you own everything that goes on in that filing. Otherwise if you aren’t comfortable with what is going on in with the Company you take your name off. To me Romney was comfortable with what was going on with Bain so he allowed them to continue to use his name whether he was involved or not. You sign your name as CEO and you own everything that goes on.

    If I’m Team Obama I’d hammer away like hell at this inconsistency and they are doing it which is great.  

  • glennbear

    Certainly smells like defrauding investors to me if he was not CEO.