General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy it matters when, exactly, Romney left Bain
By Steve Benen
It was easy to miss, but there was an interesting spat last week between President Obama's campaign and the Annenberg Center's FactCheck.org. The campaign had run an ad holding Mitt Romney responsible for a series of Bain Capital layoffs, which FactCheck.org rejected as unfair -- the layoffs, the website's editors said, occurred after Romney left Bain.
Obama's team stood by the claim, sending a six-page letter (pdf) to the FactCheck.org editors, defending their argument in great detail. FactCheck.org was unmoved and said the campaign's claim was still wrong...Who was right, the Obama campaign or FactCheck.org? As of this week, the evidence clearly favors the former.
Mother Jones' David Corn has done some excellent reporting of late, uncovering ample evidence that Romney didn't leave Bain until 2002, three years after his ostensible departure date. Josh Marshall moved the ball forward yesterday, as well.
But here's the thing. I've found yet more instances where Romney made declarations to the SEC that he was still involved in running Bain after February 1999. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet noted these.
What Josh highlighted were two SEC filings from July 2000 and February 2001 in which Romney listed his "principal occupation" as "Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc." At the risk of putting too fine a point on this, one cannot be gone from Bain in February 1999 and also be the managing director of Bain in February 2001.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/11/12680323-why-it-matters-when-exactly-romney-left-bain
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...the M$M in this country are a running joke of suck-ass lameness and banality...
Following up on this story would involve some hard-work, and in the end can't Obama just show us his birth certificate because, you know, THAT was really newsworthy...
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Didnt DU just go through an intense legal battle defending itself on this very subject ? ....
As much as I agree with the story itself, your willingness to place DU in legal jeopardy is somewhat troubling ...
Respect DU ....
As much as I agree with the story itself, your willingness to place DU in legal jeopardy is somewhat troubling ...
Respect DU ....
...I edited the OP so you wouldn't have to go through the day concerned. Now you can focus on the issue.
Thanks.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Maybe it's a misdemeanor if your name is Mitt Romney?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...not good when you are supposedly the 'arbiter of political fact vs fiction'...
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)...are being VERY VERY disingenuous on this issue.
The also say regardless of what the biggest liar in presidential candidate history says about him controlling the company via the SEC that there's little evidence that he did so after 1999.
I no longer trust them
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)catching up to Mitt.
Romney Changed His Financial Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002929883
Romney: I Didnt Even Know About That Bermuda Company!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002925177