Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco
No federal crime but you say "it appears as though he may have violated federal securities laws " I suppose that comes from the postings on here because the only folks I know who are saying this is ONE Boston Newspaper and the Obama campaign. All the others simply quote the initial attack and that is it.
Allow me to say a few thing please....first I wish that you and others had payed as much attention in 2008 to charges made and dismissed with comments such as "so what", etc. But not going to dwell on that as that is in the past but I think will become relative later.
Now, in one of your links is a link to Fortune magazine. I hope that everyone who reads this post will read the link as I dont want to cut and paste it all.....
"Mitt Romney did not manage Bain Capital's investments after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, according to confidential firm documents obtained by Fortune.
The timing of Romney's departure from Bain became a lightning rod earlier today, when The Boston Globe published an article suggesting that Romney remained actively involved with the firm longer than he and his campaign have claimed. The sourcing is largely SEC documents that list Romney as Bain Capital's CEO and sole shareholder through 2002 -- or three years after Romney officially left to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
These claims are very similar to ones made last week by David Corn in Mother Jones, which we disputed at the time.
Now Fortune has obtained new evidence that supports Romney's version of events."
It goes on to list all the forms and the FACTS surrounding the situation.
There is a lot of info in the article but want to share two things with you...
First is a response from the Obama team when given the Fortune facts..
""Mitt Romney either misled the American people or misrepresented himself to the SEC. Romney has said he had no authority or responsibility for managing Bain since 1999, but that has been proven false. Regardless of whether he was on the management committee for this particular deal, he remained President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board and he was legally responsible for every investment and decision made by Bain."
You and I both know that, and I will borrow from one of the comments given to Fortune..
"It is all about a simple legal and practical distinction: Active management vs. passive control. Before 1999, Romney was involved in management and afterwards, he was in a passive, controlling position. Board memberships or even signature CEO activities are a far cry from active management."
Documents: Romney didn't manage Bain funds - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet
The other sentence I want to share is this..
"All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent the day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it)."
I am not blindly supporting Romney here......if he did wrong let the chips fall where they may....what I am saying is that the Obama campaign has done a great job keeping any discussion from issues and are doing a great job with their aim to, as they have said, "destroy Romney the man". They have you and others just panting for the destruction...much as I suppose I did back in 2008 when you told me "no problem" and the media treated everything as such. Although then, my problem was NOT with the man but with the philosophy.
Again, your post left me very disappointed but if correct...kudos to you. But there is so many refutes to this story and I choose to go with them and if it is a lie as I think it is, then shame on Obama |
if Romney in fact had left Bain Capital as he has said and as
Fortune has reported, by continuing to file SEC filings indicating that he continued to serve as "sole shareholder, chairman, president, etc.",
a violation of the federal securities laws has occurred. Period!
The SEC rules are designed so that any stakeholder in a company--shareholder, employee, investor, lender, etc. can rely on the information in the filings, both the information as to who's running the company, as well as the required audited financial statements. The SEC documents are supposed to be unassailable sources of reliable information. Information on who's managing the company, makng business decisions, etc. is important information. That's why the penalties for violations are so harsh.
If you want my guess, when it's all over, either the SEC or the Justice Department will choose not to prosecute Romney. Or he will admit to having been involved with Bain well into 2002. Or they will find a fall guy, like a chef financial officer or general counsel, who were involved in preparing the filings, letting Romney off the hook with a simple mea culpa. Or all three.
That will be a tacit admission that he lied in describing his role with Bain after 1999. A simple politically-motivated lie will blow over a lot faster than a federal trial for securities law violations. That's unless there's someone out there who simply refuses to forget any lies told by political candidates. Sound familiar??
Remember, Martha Stewart spent almost a year in the federal slammer for less important and less well-proven violations than this one.