Update: it’s getting ugly fast. According to documents and statements signed and made by Romney he was a sole shareholder, CEO, president, and drew a mininum of 100k/year salary … but he didn’t work there, no, not at all. Holy smokes, that’s his story, and wouldn’t you love that fucking job? So he was either lying to shareholders and the SEC, unlikely, or he’s been lying through his teeth for the last several years to media and the entire nation, which I hereby decree is a near metaphysical certainty.
We briefly discussed Mitt’s Bain reign and why it both poses a problem for him and servers as an illustration of the many versions of Romney. It turns out he may have also told two exclusive tales under de facto oath. America blog connects the dots:
1. Romney told the SEC that he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” up until 2002.
2. But Romney said in a more recent financial disclosure form that he left Bain in 1999 – so the two federal forms contradict each other, at least one is a lie.
This could be a big deal, maybe a lawyer could chime in on that. Until then, FWIW, I find it hard to believe Romney would be dumb enough to commit full-blown perjury in writing. But maybe I’m wrong, and besides, it suggests to suspicious people like me there could be more Romney doesn’t want known regarding his role at Bain and his reported offshore schemes. They may be technically legal, but in the absence of any info from team Romney we can stipulate they may be pretty ugly, too.
I really don’t know anything about his financial choices, but what I can say is I knew him when I was a youth and went to church with him (I am Tag’s age), and I would not trust him as far as I could throw his house. He is a serious businessman, which makes him even less trustworthy than a professional politician in my mind. At least a good politician stays bought…
Doonesbury has been attacking mittens pretty good the last few weeks. Particularly the ones about him being a job creator for China, and the difference between being the President and being a CEO.
Apparently as President you have to SHOW UP…
It’s getting ugly … @rudepundit: So by extension, Romney is saying that he could be President but not responsible for what happens to the nation.
As if Romney would ever be charged with anything! All he has to do is say “Oops” and the authorities will immediately let him off the hook (so much easier than trying to prosecute a presidential candidate).
The surprise being that anyone would be surprised!
Real time lessons in business ethics by the man who would be king. Oishii!
Oh, it will all be blamed on some paperwork error and that’ll be the end of it. And it will be pointed to as an example of burdensome technical rules and regulations that so frustrates innocent job creators like him.
Nobody in business takes the SEC seriously. The SEC has been defunded and had most of its teeth pulled. Penalties are seen as just another cost of doing business. Authority and implies deniability and underlings know that loyalty and reliability means you will jump on any grenade to save dear leader. The system also quietly rewards self-sacrifice. Politicians changing the law so what they want to do is not illegal, lawyers by the score to get you off, and underlings ready to take the hits for you means the upper .001% usually fail up so there is no down side to sloppiness.
Many within the world of finance see a visit by regulators as a runway walk for perspective employees. Prospects that would have to be stupid to not understand that being a hard ass means that they won’t get a sweet job offer when they leave the SEC.
Not taking the regulations and regulators seriously is the norm. With that sort of tacit understanding being so common it wouldn’t surprise me that Romney played fast and loose with testimony and paperwork.