HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yes, Romney Perjured Hims...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:25 PM

Yes, Romney Perjured Himself

Yes, Romney Perjured Himself

The claim that he committed a felony by falsely reporting his role at Bain Capital under oath is what has really gotten under Romney's skin. But it seems pretty clear to me that he signed a federal financial disclosure form, under the penalty of perjury, saying he had not been involved "in any way" with Bain after he left for Utah in February 1999. That's a strong statement. And it is directly undercut by Romney's own statement in his 2002 attempt to prove residency to run for governor:

Romney testified that “there were a number of social trips and business trips that brought (him) back to Massachusetts, board meetings” while he was running the Olympics. He added that he remained on the boards of several companies, including the Lifelike Co., in which Bain Capital held a stake until 2001...

“He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on US soil,” said Peter L. Ebb from Ropes & Gray, (his lawyer at the 2002 hearing).

“Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had.”

So the question of whether Romney committed a felony in his financial disclosure form is a very real one - because Romney and Romney's lawyer provide the strongest evidence that it was perjury. Now we have more contemporaneous evidence that Romney perjured himself:

During the 2002 hearing — in a remark that has not been previously reported — Romney said that after he departed Bain in February 1999 he went through a transition period regarding his work in Boston.

When a lawyer challenging his eligibility asked Romney, "Did you remain more or less continuously in Salt Lake City from February '99 to the end of the year," Romney answered: "Actually, there was some transition away from my work in Boston for the first few months and then I pretty much stayed there after." Trying to clarify this, the lawyer, after referring to this "transition," asked, "So from February through the end of the year you were pretty much full-time out in Utah, right?" Romney replied: "Well again, the beginning of the year was a good deal of time back and forth, but towards the last half of the year it was pretty much exclusively in Utah."

If there was a good deal of time back and forth in the first few months and some business conducted all the way through to December ("pretty much exclusively"), and if Romney's own lawyer tells an inquiry that Romney's work for Bain "continued unabated just as they had," then it is incontrovertibly true that Romney's statement under oath that he was not involved "in any way" in Bain business after February 1999 was a lie under oath.

- more -

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/yes-romney-perjured-himself.html


25 replies, 4453 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
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yes, Romney Perjured Himself (Original post)
ProSense Jul 2012 OP
MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #1
FSogol Jul 2012 #2
MannyGoldstein Jul 2012 #4
quinnox Jul 2012 #3
FSogol Jul 2012 #5
elleng Jul 2012 #6
Angry Dragon Jul 2012 #7
snappyturtle Jul 2012 #8
ejbr Jul 2012 #9
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #10
magical thyme Jul 2012 #13
HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #14
magical thyme Jul 2012 #16
Harley Jacobson Jul 2012 #11
Harley Jacobson Jul 2012 #11
tclambert Jul 2012 #15
SunSeeker Jul 2012 #17
BumRushDaShow Jul 2012 #19
iemitsu Jul 2012 #20
ProSense Jul 2012 #21
Tarheel_Dem Jul 2012 #18
krawhitham Jul 2012 #22
Scurrilous Jul 2012 #23
RainDog Jul 2012 #24
geckosfeet Jul 2012 #25

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:31 PM

1. Look for Holder to indict real soon

Indict medical marijuana users, that is.

Romney's a rich Republican, so he's bulletproof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:32 PM

2. Honestly, what AG would indict someone running for President against his own party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:35 PM

4. Do you think the Administration will indict

after Romney (hopefully!) loses?

If so, I'm willing to place a bet...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:33 PM

3. great, then he should be charged and

 

that will be the end of the Romney campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:40 PM

5. What have you been smoking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:00 PM

6. The fact of the matter should suffice, at the moment;

enables Dems to keep mentioning it. Legal action later? Let rmoney live with the disgrace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:08 PM

7. Willard -- the great American liar and fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:34 PM

8. I think Mitt Romney is delusional at the very least. imho nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 12:00 AM

9. The Cycle with Steve Kornacki

had a former SEC type on who claimed that it has been so long that an indictment is unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 12:01 AM

10. Is there a statue of limitations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:51 AM

13. the FEC filing (and perjury) was in 2011

any statute of limitations (if there is any for lying on to a Federal commission, which there probably isn't) would apply to the perjury, not the evidence. And would run longer than a year.

But this is one time Holder should NOT indict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

14. Thanks. I thought the FEC filing was when he ran for Gov.

I didnt realize it was recent. That does create a problem for Mittney, but I agree an indictment before the election would not look good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:47 PM

16. his claims from when he ran for Gov contradict the 2011 filing

because back then he was trying to portray himself as a Mass resident, and he stated in testimony that the reason for his return was to run several of Bain's companies. And his attorney stated -- also under oath -- that he was still running Bain (or words to that effect).

What a web of deceit....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:07 AM

11. romney perjury?

 

it's called lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:07 AM

11. romney perjury?

 

it's called lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:36 AM

15. Apparently there are sworn statements in writing to the FEC and others to the SEC

that directly contradict each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:49 PM

17. It's obvious they can't both be true. He lied (perjured himself) on ONE of those filings.

The problem is, if the feds prosecute, it will look political. We're getting plenty of mileage out of this without prosecuting right now anyway. You don't have to be a lawyer to see the these two statements can't both be true. Thus, just by bringing them to light, they serve their purpose.


It would be sweet to see him prosecuted after the election, but it probably won't happen then either. It would smack of political retribution. They may jail opposition party candidates in dictatorships, but we strive to have peaceful political contests where the stakes are just winning or losing the election, not your life or liberty. Of course, they did go after John Edwards...but he was in the same party as those in power, so it did not look like retribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:57 PM

19. It will take a couple years to prosecute

Including enpanelling a Grand Jury (the proceedings of which could itself take over a year given how much and how complex his network of Bain interactions were). So he would safely be forgotten by the masses as another also-ran, with the result probably occurring well after 2016. Meanwhile, he'll go through everyday with that hanging over him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:41 PM

20. if evidence of criminal behavior

is uncovered during the course of a campaign then the behavior ought to be prosecuted.
political candidates ought to be held to the highest standards of behavior and used as examples when they break the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 05:44 PM

21. Romney's problem:

Regardless of what his tax returns show, they can't both be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:51 PM

18. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:36 PM

22. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:41 PM

23. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 01:45 AM

24. k&r n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 06:32 AM

25. But he's a rich republican. We expect that, and they get a pass just because.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread