Turns out we were wrong. Mitt is a veteran. Mitt did serve.

a box of hammers, or hates herself and other women.

I just don't understand why women think he would be a good president. He literally hates women, unless they are home cooking dinner while barefoot and pregnant.

And have compassion about ignorance.

just like Sandra Fluke.

Thanks for the thread, grantcart.

of her bad marriage and having the nerve to claim her share of joint assets.

Shame on him, and shame on CEO Stemberg for treating her and their son like pariahs.

edited to correct CEO's name.

in his lizard brain.

No wonder Willard was sweating his way through the last debate - he's suffering from PTSD!

Rec

that's a good one

Thanks, grantcart, for the post

The horror. I think we need a Neocon remake of "12 Angry Men." It would be hilarious.

good post

The judge is going to have another go at this on Thursday--there's no real "facts" that I know about that have come out on this score. The docs are still under seal. Speculation is rampant, but there's no "there" there yet. The local news in Beantown has been covering this; the latest report at the noon hour was what I said in this paragraph.

The stock theory is not "in the bag" I do not think. Why? Because if the guy wanted to fuck his wife over, he'd say the stock was worth MORE than it was worth, so he'd be able to give her less of it. Unless, of course, he gave it to her with the understanding that she would liquidate it at once, or sell it back, or something on those lines.

Also, she liquidated her stock to go after the guy again in court. It was a case that went through court for nearly a decade, from what I understand. There was also a kid who alleged abuse by the father, resulting in repeated return visits to court, so the father wrote him a really shitty letter saying he was, in effect, disowned. The suggestion put forth is that the kid was lying at the behest of the mother.

You'd think that a guy who worked at--oops, OWNED-- Staples could get a camera recording system and wire up the house so that child visits could be documented--that would have nipped that abuse shit in the bud quick.

I just don't know if that "stock" track is the correct one. If it is, unless there's some really "juicy" (and that is what is alleged) damaging testimony by Mitt, it's not going to take hold.

I have a few wild ass and totally unsubstantiated theories that, if true, would take hold, plucked from thin air....

Do we know the religious affiliation of these people? If they are Mormon, remember that Mittsy was a "bishop," and in that role he did counseling, to include the marital kind. Perhaps he told this woman to put up with her husband's perverse habits, anything from beating on her to enjoyment of scatalogical pursuits for carnal enjoyment??? I'm just speculating, here. Feel free to make up your own!

Or perhaps he told her to put up with a mistress--one of those "off the books" 2nd wives? Maybe he's one of those fundamental types...and she knows Mittsy's other wives and has them on her Xmas card list!!! Now I'm really speculating--but hey, no one knows anything yet, so might as well have some fun.

Or maybe she and Mittsy had a wild night of passion when Annie wasn't feeling well?

I think we need to wait-n-see on this one. I hope Thursday brings a report of TABLOID proportions!

Other threads you will see that there are credible witnesses who claim that Romney testified that "Staples is but a dream" at a time when it had substantial investment.

When I heard GA was involved I thought it was ajoke.

Its no joke Romney went out of his way to help his friend hide assets from his wife.

Ita theft. Its disgusting.

Of course, they aren't going to indulge in speculation on WCVB. They simply delivered the bare-bones facts to this point.

It most certainly is theft, if proven, and Mittsy would be seen as an accessory--to say nothing of a perjurer. Why, I wonder, though, didn't the former wife take this tack previous to now?

Is there a statute of limitations on her claim, and could she be looking for a payday from other sources with regard to her situation and Mittsy's role in it?

Why, I wonder, is Mittsy's lawyer giving the big "Eh" when it comes to this matter? He's not fighting tooth-and-nail (at least publicly) to keep His Assholiness's testimony sealed. Could he be working behind the scenes to shut this shit down? I wonder who appointed the judge hearing the case?

Tomorrow will tell the tale, I guess!!

Rather shallowly, though, I wouldn't mind if one of my hare-brained scenarios were revealed to be the issue....we need a little soap opera drama from the other team to liven up the proceedings in this final push!

In 1991, when he testified, the stock was worth about $1-$2 a share. In 1992, it topped out just above $2 a share at it's highest. In 1993, it spent pretty much the whole year below 50 cents a share. Then it went up to $2-3 dollars in 1994.

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:SPLS

Wouldn't it work that the less Romney said the stock was really worth, the MORE shares she'd get in the divorce (more shares to make up for the decreased value)?

If he said, as is reported, "Staples is but a dream" at a time when there we're contracts in hand for more paid up capital, it would have been a clearl lie.

More to the point women know about friends whose husbands screw them by lyong about and hiding their assets. Independent women will be revolted.

since I haven't seen anything (yet) that says anyone (Rmoney or anyone else) lied about the actual financial facts in the depositions. It was a company that may have had a lot of potential, but it's a tough business where there was certainly no guarantee of success, and based on the stock price in the few years that followed, it's tough to argue that success was "right around the corner". Yes the company did eventually become very profitable, but I can't imagine most people would have been willing to testify that it would years before it took off.

If it helps get votes for Obama, great, but I haven't seen anything yet to lead me to believe that Rmoney did something here worthy of calling it an "october surprise".

At this point, it seems to me to be more a case of Allred using the election to gain PR for a client, than of revealing information that is of any real value to the voters. If we weren't 2 weeks away from an election that Rmoney was running in, I doubt this story would have even made the papers.

the whole issue.

The fact that it is close to the election may give the courts motive to unseal Romney's testimony. As he wasn't a litigant he doesn't really have standing to keep his testimony sealed.

If the comment, "Staples is just a dream" occured at the time when they had written offers of paid up capital it would in fact be hiding assets.

I don't think it's clear what offers or deals were in the works, or "all but finalized" but none of those deals that were just about to happen seems to have done much for the stock price over the next 3 years, so it couldn't have been that big of a deal in the works that it would have guaranteed prosperity.

Maybe there COULD be something here, but I haven't seen much of anything yet. This is good publicity for a documentary if they're looking to put one out, though.

Romney's mouth on a daily basis, It is the totality of this deception against not only the American people, but the thousands of people who directly lost their jobs because of his greed as a Vulture capitalist.
Many businessmen do it, but they are not running for President of the United States, big difference.

I don't see the "bombshell" or "October Surprise" aspect of this story, yet.

Like attracks Like~


<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/arrogance-and-apathy/question-2867639/?link=ibaf&imgurl=&q=romney idiot"><br>romney idiot pics on Sodahead</a>

I have a friend going through a divorce right now and she's the one hiding and downplaying assets. This is after she took $18K out of his business account and went on an extended European vacation.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Just maybe Mitt feels just an itty bitty part of her pain and humiliation..and her 12-year old son. If the SEC doesn't get into this somehow...screw partisanship...we're pretty much an international laughingstock.

It confirms a pattern of Romney marginalizing women's issues.

He has skeletons

nt

heard it as "to."

so presumably its okay to lie and screw her out of the money.

After all, it was to ensure more money went to the church so its okay to lie for the lord.