HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why would Romney's Lawyer...

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:56 AM

Why would Romney's Lawyer have no position??

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, 1117 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:57 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:01 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:59 AM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:01 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:20 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:40 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:50 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:08 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:46 PM

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

there's no THERE there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:52 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:55 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:55 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:57 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:11 PM

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

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread