NY Times admits: No evidence Romney lied about Bain

bcspace · **Joined:** Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm **Posts:** 14247

Quote:

There is no evidence that Mitt Romney exercised his powers at private equity firm Bain Capital after 1999 or directed funds’ investments after leaving, The New York Times reported.

Although some documents place the Republican presidential hopeful in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy, it is not related to who was running Bain at the time, the Times reported.

........

Financial disclosures filed in Massachusetts back up Romney’s case and show that he drew at least $100,000 in 2001 from Bain as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner, according to the Times.

The newspaper also pointed to an offering memorandum to investors in a Bain equity fund that was circulated in June 2000 and suggests Romney was not involved in the management of investments. The memorandum lists backgrounds on 18 managers, or “senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital,” and Romney is not among them.

Finally, a 2001 filing lists Michael F. Goss as “president, managing director and chief financial officer,” along with 17 other managing directors, with Romney absent from the list. His absence shows that he still owned Bain’s management company but was not an officer.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romney-Bain-left-evidence/2012/07/16/id/445489?s=al&promo_code=F7AF-1

LOL! Obama chokes again. He's got to whip up the donors and brand Romney fast before he gets overwhelmingly and brutally crushed by a friendly "Mormon Ad" campaign.

Droopy · **Posted:** Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:45 pm

bcspace wrote:

Quote:

There is no evidence that Mitt Romney exercised his powers at private equity firm Bain Capital after 1999 or directed funds’ investments after leaving, The New York Times reported.

Although some documents place the Republican presidential hopeful in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy, it is not related to who was running Bain at the time, the Times reported.

........

Financial disclosures filed in Massachusetts back up Romney’s case and show that he drew at least $100,000 in 2001 from Bain as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner, according to the Times.

The newspaper also pointed to an offering memorandum to investors in a Bain equity fund that was circulated in June 2000 and suggests Romney was not involved in the management of investments. The memorandum lists backgrounds on 18 managers, or “senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital,” and Romney is not among them.

Finally, a 2001 filing lists Michael F. Goss as “president, managing director and chief financial officer,” along with 17 other managing directors, with Romney absent from the list. His absence shows that he still owned Bain’s management company but was not an officer.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romney-Bain-left-evidence/2012/07/16/id/445489?s=al&promo_code=F7AF-1

LOL! Obama chokes again. He's got to whip up the donors and brand Romney fast before he gets overwhelmingly and brutally crushed by a friendly "Mormon Ad" campaign.

This is going to get very, very brutal before its all over. Obama is a revolutionary socialist and a Chicago political animal. We'll see what chains the soul of Alinsky can rattle before November.

grindael · **Posted:** Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:30 pm

If Romney had nothing to do with Bain after 1999 then he lied on his SEC filings, and that is a felony. On those filings he is listed as Owner, CEO and Managing Director. So which is it? He's lying about something.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Quote:

There is no evidence that Mitt Romney exercised his powers at private equity firm Bain Capital after 1999 or directed funds’ investments after leaving, The New York Times reported.

Am I the only one thinking "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".... :biggrin:

MeDotOrg · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:31 am

So Mitt Romney was paid $100,000 a year to do nothing for Bain? He probably was worth every penny of it.

Maybe I should call Bain and let them know that I'm available to do nothing for them and I only charge $50,000 a year. Think they'll go for it?

Here's what I think happened: When Romney left Bain to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, he had every intention of returning. The job of running the Olympics was bigger than expected, and by the time he left he was ready to run for Governor of Massachusetts. Bain left him on the payroll thinking he was going to come back.

Where I think Bain AND Romney went wrong is keeping Romney on the company letterhead and listing him as a managing partner in SEC filings. That was a conscious and willful misrepresentation of his role in the company on BOTH their parts. Not having Romney leave showed continuity for Bain, who wanted to created the impression for investors that Romney was still involved with the company.

krose · **Joined:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:18 am **Posts:** 1699

What the Romney people want us to believe is that Bain radically changed the way they did business while he was on his mission in Salt Lake.

When the cat was away, the mice came out to play. And they played in a new, mean way -- closing down factories and sending jobs to China. Of course, if Bishop Willard had still been in charge, he would never have allowed that kind of thing to happen. I'm sure he really took them to the woodshed when he got back.

Maybe that's why he "retroactively retired" from the company. He was so disgusted at the way those guys ran his company that he decided to quit for good and run for governor.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

The more bcspace posts about Romney...the better Obama looks...

MeDotOrg · **Posted:** Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:17 am

krose wrote:

What the Romney people want us to believe is that Bain radically changed the way they did business while he was on his mission in Salt Lake.

When the cat was away, the mice came out to play. And they played in a new, mean way -- closing down factories and sending jobs to China. Of course, if Bishop Willard had still been in charge, he would never have allowed that kind of thing to happen. I'm sure he really took them to the woodshed when he got back.

Maybe that's why he "retroactively retired" from the company. He was so disgusted at the way those guys ran his company that he decided to quit for good and run for governor.

When I first read the phrase "retroactively retired' on Sunday I literally started laughing out loud.

It reminded of an incident with Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary. Ziegler had become so evasive during the last days of Watergate that the press corps referred to him as "Zig-Zag". At a daily press briefing, poor Ron was being grilled for the bazillionth time by reporters as to WHY a current statement backtracking from Nixon's "I-knew-nothing" previous statements wasn't a contradiction.

Finally Ziegler said: "This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative." According to Woodward and Bernstein, "there was a splendid silence."

NY Times admits: No evidence Romney lied about Bain

Who is online