I Did Not Have Economic Relations with That Company

There's something weird about Bain Capital. It seems that the company was going along doing what ordinary private-equity firms do—buying and selling companies, making lots of money—until about 1999 or so, when things took a sinister turn. At that point, terrible things began to happen. The firms they backed went into bankruptcy, costing thousands of people their jobs, while Bain still walked away with millions in management fees. They invested in companies that profited from outsourcing and offshoring. Who knows, they may have been producing magical hair-thickening elixirs made from the tears of orphans. Every time one of these new revelations comes out, it seems to concern the period after 1999. But fortunately for Mitt Romney, he has an explanation: When all these bad things happened, I was no longer part of the firm. I left in 1999, when I took the job leading the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Yet today, the Boston Globe comes out with an investigation that seems to reveal that Romney was still in charge after he left for Salt Lake:

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president."

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney's state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

It doesn't seem too hard to believe that while Romney was in Salt Lake, he also continued to be involved in the major decisions at Bain—even if he wasn't available to pitch for the company softball team. The problem now is that he's spent a lot of time denying that he had anything at all to do with the firm after February 1999. He and Bain say he "retired" from Bain at that point, which is directly contradicted by the SEC filings. I'm guessing the truth is somewhere south of his denials—he may not have been "running" the firm, but he was still involved at some level. But if he were to admit that, then he'd have to answer specific questions about his knowledge of the steel mill that went bankrupt, the outsourcing companies, and so on. And there is nothing in the world Mitt Romney wants to do less than have to answer specific questions about Bain and what he did there.

In a way, this all reminds me of some of what we learned about Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. One of the details that came out was that he was adamant that he and Monica did not have intercourse during their affair, apparently because that meant that he could convince himself that he wasn't really cheating on his wife and say with sincerity that he "did not have sexual relations" with her when he eventually got caught. All of this wrangling over when exactly Romney "left" Bain Capital has some of the same flavor.

Comments

Finally the lying and hypocrisy of Mitt is about to crush the truth out of him. His Janus faced dealings will drag him into the light.

Really? Lying and hypocrisy? Obama's failed policies have cost the citizens of this nation more than 15 million jobs gone -- no longer exist. And you want to call Romney in to question? It's amazing the hypocrisy of some people.

In 2008-2009, the merican economy under W stillpres was loosing 700,000 jobs a month. Now u want hypocrist how about a now switched pro-life Romney investing in the company Stericycle. The company discards aborted fetuses. Wow.... how is the far right evangelical consrvatives going to justify their vote for Romney?????

In 2008-2009, the merican economy under W stillpres was loosing 700,000 jobs a month. Now u want hypocrist how about a now switched pro-life Romney investing in the company Stericycle. The company discards aborted fetuses. Wow.... how is the far right evangelical consrvatives going to justify their vote for Romney?????

Wow, this sounds fascinating, but why should it surprise any of us? Gotta look up "Stericycle". This would've been an even better comment if it was easier to read. TRUST Ron Paul as President 2012: Pro-Life!

Maybe Bain is why Romney won't release more tax returns. They might show income from Bain after the time he said he had "retired". After his speech to NAACP, didn't he say something about no free lunch (for the peasants)? Those returns might, among other incriminating things, just show the amount of "Free Lunch" he got to enjoy.

It depends on what your definition of "relations" is.

Well you see in the "bizarro" world the Republicans now live in you can be President, CEO. chairman of the board, and sole 100% owner and sole stockholder of a company and still not have anything to do with the company. The rest of us are just to stupid to understand that.

You see Mitt is special. He is born into the special class of untold wealth, power, and privilage, so to him things like "facts" or "truth" or "reality" are all subjective and only relative to Mitt's needs and desires.

Really? So. we're back into the 1990's fishing around for gooey stories? Well, how's about Obama's ties to two convicted felons? Yep, Tony Rezko a Chicago developer both obama and Valerie Jarrett (then in charge of chicago city's Urban Planning Divison)were very cozy with and the grandaddy of them all Mr. Lee Farkas, CEO of Taylor, Bain & Whitaker Mortgage Co. in Ocala, FL he, sentenced to 30 years for 14 counts of wire fraud, securities fraud and bank fraud. Obama, Tony Rezko and Mr. Farkas used Colonial Bank in Ocala. FL as their personal piggy bank,

It’s just difficult to understand how Mr. Obama gets a free pass.

For example, in 1993/4 his lead client Selma Buycks-Roberson had a mortgage loan with Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortage Corp. out of Ocala, FL. The CEO was none other than Mr.Lee Farkas, convicted on 14 counts of fraud, 16 co-conspirators, was arrested on April 2011 on charges of: Bank fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud. He was sentenced to 30 years in jail. When Mr. Lee was caught he had 1 million bundled files in mortage loans (some of them Obama’s) and investors lost a total of $3 billion dollars. The Auditors: Deloitte-Touche, are facing a $3 billion dollar lawsuit.

Mr. Lee forfeited #30.5 million dollars and has to make restitution to all mortagage holders. ( they'll be lucky to see a red cent, but Mr. Obama was paid. Does he get "clawback?")

And Obama was dealing directly with this felon, Mr. Lee, as well as Mr. Lee’s CEO, Jason Moore. Colonial Bank in Ocala, FL was this troika’s piggy bank.

All this was aired on Bloomberg TV “American Greed”7/11/12 at 7:00p.m. MST.

Question: why is MSM (and Prospect)silent on this? HUH? There is a direct link of Obama, an attorney, working at Miner, Barnhill, Gallard law Firm in Chicago, IL and two clients Ms. Selma Buycks-Roberson, and Ms Renee Brooks both of whom are involved in wells Fargo’s 7/12/12 settlement of millions of dollars for a housing discrimination lawsuit originated back when Mr. Obama worked for Miner,Barnhill & Gallard. These two ladies filed for bankruptcy as did a Mr. Roberson. All three of Mr. obama’s clients stiffed american taxpayers for their court costs, bills and mortgages.

All this started in 1994/95 with “anti-redlining” activism, Mr. Obama himself initiated. Subsequently all this fraud, corruption and gerrymandering collapsed america’s economy and financial system. Why in the world is all this such a big secret????HUH???? This is all public record. Crickets.

GEEZ! The felon’s are in the White House. Valerie Jarrett who was in charge of Chicago city's Urban Planning Division and worked hand-in-glove with Obama. Tony Rezko, doing time for corruption, a city developer in Chicago.

Why? It’s all out there in the open! God Save America. Amen. Crickets.

What messup, you're attempting to respond to feelings and illogical conclusions with facts and truth? What do you call a gathering of terrorists, financial scam artists, and tax dodgers? A Democratic convention. In previous posting I've attempted to have a civil and logical discussion with some of these 'feeling' and truth-challenged posters. A typical response is to insult and declare their superior intellect.

There's a BIG difference between knowing and having business dealings with a convicted felon and BEING a felon (like Romney is showing himself to be).

I don't think that Mitt Romney is an idiot. He's obviously got two Harvard degrees and has a great deal of business acumen of some kind.

Let's assume this brief hypothetical: that Mitt's telling the truth that he had nothing to do with the rotten goings-on at Bain after 1999. So what kind of supposedly savvy businessman is sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president of a company but leaves it completely in the hands of others and NEVER EVEN ASKS WHAT THEY'RE DOING? What kind of control freak occupies every single top post at the company he owns (again, "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president") but tells NO ONE at the company a single thing about what they should or should not do FOR YEARS.

This does not pass the Duh! test.

Since Obama can not run on his successful economic and business policy, he has to disqualify Romney. Romney has both business and government executive experience (neither of which Obama possessed in 2008). So now Obama wants us to know that Romney's experience is the 'wrong kind' of experience, because he 'wanted to make profits for his investors'. Wow, please don't elect someone that wants to please his bosses, we need someone who will ignore the desire of the ones who hired (elected) him and does what his crony friends want instead. No profits = no job creation! Romney was a 'fixer' who took troubled companies and restored them to health (most of the time), if the American business climate needs fixing, who would you call? Certainly not Obama.

Even if a few (not most or all) of Bain's investments did outsource some jobs, so what? Gee let me pick someone who was not successful at fixing broken businesses, maybe a community organizer. Someone who claims to have written two books without help (except from a guy her barely knew named Bill Ayers), and every character and most 'facts' are shown to be fabrications.

You're missing the point of commenting on this article. This is about Mr. Romney's involvement with a company where questionable ties are at issue. How that ties into how President Obama is qualified to be the head of the country is not the scope of these comments.

I think this all ties into a political liability for Mr. Romney.

Avoidance of questions concerning a company that has questionable financial and business implications for Mr. Romney is a seriously bad campaign move. Also, the decision to not release tax returns that would further further publicize information about Mr. Romneys "tax avoidance" strategies adds to that. That information would definitely distinguish him as an "elitist" with the voting public...99% of the voting public for that matter.

The relevance of Bain Capital is that it is the basis for Romney's claim to experience to be President. Bain Capital also was involved in highly questionable (from a political/public policy standpoint) activities involving outsourcing of jobs, shipping jobs overseas, etc. So it is a fair subject of inquiry to ask what Romney's involvement was in 1999 when all this went on.
Changing the subject to arguments about Obama's qualifications, etc., does not advance the discussion about Romney's qualifications or lack thereof.
So, staying on subject, it seems simple enough to me. Either Romney was lying back in 1999 (which should be criminally prosecuted by the SEC) OR he's lying now. Either way I don't care -- he's a LIAR. End of inquiry.

Bill: "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
Mitt: It depends on what the meaning of the words 'employed' is.
The Blue Dress is Mitt's Tax Returns
No stain, no pain
Can a person be impeached before he is elected
This question is Mitt's Bain in the A$$.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

We must all remember a major contributing cause of the Financial Crisis of 2008 was the filing of false or misleading documents with the SEC. This is no small matter, since 2009 the SEC has collected fines of over 3 Billion dollars for this; from financial institutions such as, among others: Countrywide Financial, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab, Credit Suisse Group, J.P. Morgan, Wachovia Bank, and UBS Financial Services. Even if Mitt Romney actually left all operational control of Bain Capital 1999, he sanctioned and acquiesced to the filing of false and misleading documents with the SEC until 2002. While this violation may not rise to the level of these other institutions, it does indicate a certain attitude towards these filings. The complete and truthful disclosure of all facts is not important. This was an attitude all too prevalent in the financial community prior to 2009, and all of us paid the cost.

Is full disclosure to the SEC one of the regulations Mitt would do away with? What about the other regulations regarding the financial community; Wall Street and the banks too big to fail? If you put a fox in charge of the chicken coop, you have a problem for the chickens. Will Mitt's election be the equivalent of that for the small investor? As a life-long Republican, small investor, and small businessman, I can not take that chance; I have been burnt once by a government that did not believe in regulation, and was asleep at the wheel. The sad thing is that Bain was first brought up by a candidate who wanted to colonize the moon, and the false filing was never mentioned. If this was discovered earlier, I would not have supported Mitt in the primaries and we would have a different candidate. Perjury is perjury. It was ethically and morally equal to saying "I never had sex with that woman" only worse since it was related to a public institution, not sex; and there could be no equivocation since the two official documents Mitt signed exactly contradict each other 100%. He can not flip-flop between these two documents. The only way he can extract himself from this hole is release the 12 years of tax returns, as his father did, and thereby prove he received no direct benefit from Bain after 2000.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.