Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:56 AM

Why would Romney's Lawyer have no position??

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:57 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/10/24/ceo-wife-backs-bid-unseal-romney-testimony/lJTKeggtJOT2Ta37J49r6M/story.html

CEO's ex-wife backs bid to unseal Romney testimony
By DENISE LAVOIE
Associated Press / October 24, 2012

CANTON, Mass. (AP) — The ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg is in probate court in Massachusetts to tell a judge she’s OK with unsealing testimony that former Gov. Mitt Romney gave in her divorce case.

Maureen Stemberg Sullivan appeared in court Wednesday with lawyer Gloria Allred. The Boston Globe has asked a judge to lift an impoundment order on Romney’s testimony in the case from the 1990s.

Romney attorney Robert Jones told the judge he has no position on the request.

Stemberg has been a surrogate for Romney, now the Republican presidential nominee, and spoke on Romney’s behalf at the GOP convention. Staples was founded with backing from Romney’s firm, Bain Capital.

Allred says she does not object to the newspaper’s motion to modify a confidentiality order that prevents parties in the divorce from discussing it.

14 replies, 844 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why would Romney's Lawyer have no position?? (Original post)	Laura PourMeADrink	Oct 2012	OP
Maybe because he knows they would lose their position?	randome	Oct 2012	#1
They probably have already figured out a way to spin it. i can hear Mitt now, "I wish we all	Laura PourMeADrink	Oct 2012	#4
Because they don't want to draw attention to it.	The Velveteen Ocelot	Oct 2012	#2
I don know Mass. law, but	Dem2TheCore	Oct 2012	#3
He is letting Stemberg do the dirty work. AP reported that there will be another hearing tomorrow.	hrmjustin	Oct 2012	#5
The Problem With This Problem...	KharmaTrain	Oct 2012	#6
But the details of the divorce probably won't even matter.	randome	Oct 2012	#8
I Keep Hoping These Things Matter...	KharmaTrain	Oct 2012	#13
Maybe .... wait for it ....	GeorgeGist	Oct 2012	#7
Probably because the sealed information is financial data about Staples	onenote	Oct 2012	#9
Because Stemberg's position is Willard's position.	Bluenorthwest	Oct 2012	#10
Because having no opinion best serves his client's interests	cthulu2016	Oct 2012	#11
Doesn't want the appearance that there is something to hide,	LisaL	Oct 2012	#12
Because the reason for the sealing has nothing to do with Romney	marshall	Oct 2012	#14

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:57 AM

randome (12,558 posts)

1. Maybe because he knows they would lose their position?

If so, then Romney appears to be hiding information that would come out anyways and that means fewer ways to interpret whatever is in the testimony.

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:01 PM

Laura PourMeADrink (15,187 posts)

4. They probably have already figured out a way to spin it. i can hear Mitt now, "I wish we all

lived in a world without divorce. But, we don't. Divorce can be very ugly at times, and I prefer not to comment on these personal matters." or some bullshit like that

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:59 AM

The Velveteen Ocelot (34,692 posts)

2. Because they don't want to draw attention to it.

If the lawyer opposes the motion it looks like Romney wants something covered up. But if there is something to cover up they certainly won't argue for the motion. So all they can do is not take a position and let somebody else do the heavy lifting to keep the material confidential.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:01 PM

Dem2TheCore (219 posts)

3. I don know Mass. law, but

Romney was a witness, not a party, to the divorce. Moreover, he was probably not part of the confidentiality order.

In other words, what his attorney says and his position will most likely not matter too much to the judge.

So, the Romney's attorney isn't sticking his kneck out for a low percentage return.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:20 PM

hrmjustin (8,832 posts)

5. He is letting Stemberg do the dirty work. AP reported that there will be another hearing tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:40 PM

KharmaTrain (30,722 posts)

6. The Problem With This Problem...

It sounds like a complicated divorce...and complicated and nuanced doesn't work in a corporate media that wants small soundbites. While Willard may have helped a buddy in screwing his wife in a divorce, it's not something you can put on a bumper sticker nor one that says anything about "the Stench" those of us who aren't going to vote for him don't already know. Remember, the rushpublicans were happy to support and nearly nominate a shitstain who not only divorced one wife who was dying he screwed over another...and the list of rushpublican cads and slimeballs is endless.

In short...this is a nothingburger...

Reply to this post

Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:50 PM

randome (12,558 posts)

8. But the details of the divorce probably won't even matter.

Not if Romney lied about Staples' worth and then cashed in on that lie shortly after.

That's what will stick in people's minds.

Reply to this post

Response to randome (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:08 PM

KharmaTrain (30,722 posts)

13. I Keep Hoping These Things Matter...

...but we're seeing they don't. There's going to be a minimum of 45% of the electorate that is going to vote for this snake oil salesman no matter what's revealed...especially this late in the game. If the fact this slimeball won't release a clean tax return and that doesn't seem to matter...nor his past and current relationships with Bain. Those who hate President Obama will look the other way as Willard is their "Great White Hope". Those "in the middle"...at this point are also a lost cause as if they haven't woken up by now something this complicated isn't going to move their needles.

It's all down to GOTV and hope that the Obama ground game is as good as they're saying it is....

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:46 PM

GeorgeGist (9,508 posts)

7. Maybe .... wait for it ....

there's no THERE there.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:52 PM

onenote (22,006 posts)

9. Probably because the sealed information is financial data about Staples

and thus whether or not its released would not impact Romney at this point. My speculation, and admittedly it is just speculation, is that the reason the testimony was sealed was that at the time it was given it contained confidential business information. Such information is routinely redacted from public versions of court and agency filings and kept under seal. Since its more than 20 years old, and Romney is not involved with Staples any longer, the position I would expect his lawyer to take (and that I would take if it was my client) would be to have no position and to leave the issue to be argued for and against by those who do have a position.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:55 PM

Bluenorthwest (24,099 posts)

10. Because Stemberg's position is Willard's position.

His lawyers and Willard's have the same agenda, they are friends and business partners. Why would the candidate take any risk when his stooge is already acting on his behalf?

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:55 PM

cthulu2016 (7,946 posts)

11. Because having no opinion best serves his client's interests

Stemberg's lawyer can fight it just fine without Romney taking a public "hide it" stance.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:57 PM

LisaL (22,798 posts)

12. Doesn't want the appearance that there is something to hide,

while knowing that Stemberg's lawyers oppose removing the gag order.

Reply to this post

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:11 PM

marshall (5,991 posts)

14. Because the reason for the sealing has nothing to do with Romney

It was sealed because it was a child custody hearing involved with a larger years long divorce. Regardless of whether Romney gave testimony that damages him in some way, the records weren't sealed for his benefit. He has no standing to argue one way or another, especially since the four minor children involved are probably pushing forty now.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)