Did Romney Make a False Statement on His Financial Disclosure?

[Randhir]

The ongoing hullabaloo over the timing of Mitt Romney's exit from Bain has become a bit absurd. The Romney camp and Bain insist that Romney fully retired in February 1999 from the private equity firm he founded and owned—even though in the past he and Bain have described his departure as a part-time leave—and evidence has emerged (including Securities and Exchange documents I first reported) showing that Romney was involved to some extent in Bain as late as 2002, while he continued to maintain his ownership of the firm and its various entities. Romney has been working hard to avoid being held responsible for any post-February 1999 Bain deals that might have resulted in bankruptcies or outsourcing. But there is another reason for the Romney crew to worry about this controversy: Romney may have made a false statement on a federal financial disclosure form, and doing so is a felony punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and a $50,000 fine.

Like all presidential candidates, Romney has to submit a financial disclosure statement to the Office of Government Ethics. He filed his most recent one last month, and the disclosure contains a very clearly stated footnote:

Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake [Olympics] Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

There's no ambiguity there: not involved in Bain operations in any way. But that's not true.

As I reported, in November 1999, Romney signed a SEC filing that noted he was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President" of several Bain entities that had acquired 22 percent of medical-waste firm Stericycle. The form also stated that Romney shared "voting and dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities that were part of this $75 million investment.

Rest of the article here.

I said it before, I'll say it again. I'm not sure who's running Romney's campaign, but they're doing a piss-poor job.

As for the man himself, he makes me laugh. He's crying about people bringing this up and says it's not fair to point out his lies/time at Bain as part of the run against Obama. What a joke.

[Fazda]

Amazing - the idiots in the GOP have been frantically trying to find dirt on Obama since 2008, and do they honestly think it's not going to come back to bite them in the bum?

[satanboy]

Politicians are scum

[Garyvdh]

Both candidates are a joke and will be bad for the USA. They desperately need a breakout candidate. Everybody thought Obama was gonna be that guy, but he turned out to be a damp squib. The two party system is broken beyond repair.

[Fazda]

Obama has not lived up to expectations, thanks to the GOP blocking at every turn.

This has been one of the most negative presidential terms ever.

Bloody Republicans make me sick.

[Garyvdh]

Obama has not lived up to expectations, thanks to the GOP blocking at every turn.
This has been one of the most negative presidential terms ever.
Bloody Republicans make me sick.

You can't blame the Republicans for all Obama's failures.
What happened to all the things he promised he was going to change?
Not least Guantanamo Bay? He said he was going to close that place down.
How did the Republicans stop him from doing that?
The Democrats themselves did some crazy stuff in the last term.
Look at all the privacy invasions and changes in freedoms. They have been behind a lot of that.

[Fazda]

Well, just for starters, every time he tried to change anything, the GOP hopped in and blocked whatever changes were proposed.

Why do you think they are called the Party of NO?

American politics is weird, in that you can filibuster anything that comes up for change - whereby a lone individual extends debate, allowing a lone member to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal.

Why do you think it's taken so long to get Obamacare through?

Now Romney wants to take it away and replace it with his own almost identical scheme.

As for Guantanamo - I'm quoting Wiki

On January 29, 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviews how America puts Guantanamo detainees on trial.[11] On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp

And we all know who controls the Senate...

Had he been able to conduct business, without constant hassling by the GOP, we would have had a very different story.

[Garyvdh]

He is the one who made all the promises about change.
If he could not implement what he promised, who is to blame?
If you want to blame the Republicans, like I already said... they two party system is broken.
The whole thing needs to be revamped. A nice strong middle of the road party would break the whole thing up.
But at the end of the day who is to blame? The American Electorate.

[Techne]

Well, just for starters, every time he tried to change anything, the GOP hopped in and blocked whatever changes were proposed.

Why do you think they are called the Party of NO?

American politics is weird, in that you can filibuster anything that comes up for change - whereby a lone individual extends debate, allowing a lone member to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal.

Why do you think it's taken so long to get Obamacare through?

Now Romney wants to take it away and replace it with his own almost identical scheme.

As for Guantanamo - I'm quoting Wiki

And we all know who controls the Senate...

Had he been able to conduct business, without constant hassling by the GOP, we would have had a very different story.

Was Bush to blame for his faliures when the Dems were in control of the Senate from 2007-2009?

[R13...]

Was Bush to blame for his faliures when the Dems were in control of the Senate from 2007-2009?

It probably helped that he wasn't in total control.

[Techne]

It probably helped that he wasn't in total control.

I guess the same can be said for Obama. Neither of them are very bright.

[Garyvdh]

I guess the same can be said for Obama. Neither of them are very bright.

There hasn't been a very bright president in control since Reagan.

Bush Sr. and Clinton had their moments, but it has been all downhill since then.

[R13...]

There hasn't been a very bright president in control since Reagan.

Bush Sr. and Clinton had their moments, but it has been all downhill since then.

But Bush is at the bottom of the all time not-greats.

[Techne]

There hasn't been a very bright president in control since Reagan.

Bush Sr. and Clinton had their moments, but it has been all downhill since then.

Clinton was ok yes. Honestly, I don't know whether there just are not intelligent people that run for president or whether the media or party members or voters just keep choosing dumb-asses.

But Bush is at the bottom of the all time not-greats.

Obama with a second term may change all that.

[Garyvdh]

But Bush is at the bottom of the all time not-greats.

He was a special kind of dumb, yeah.... but Obama has certainly not won many points either with all the lies he told before he got in.
If Obama thinks that sailing back into office is going to be a breeze, then he is in for a bit of a shock.
If he wins at all, it will be by a very narrow margin.