Allred's October Surprise Source Tried to Tell Her Romney Story in Documentary

I've been following this other places since last night.

i find that very easy to believe. i mean the man lies every times he moves his lips, to the entire country. he wouldn't hesitate to do so under oath.
yeah, i believe it.

Mystery over. Thanks for posting.

...but ultimately, this goes nowhere. It's rich people problems. Hopefully come November 6th Rmoney can go back to this life of squabbling over millions for good.

just to help his friend cheat his wife out of millions of dollars, wouldn't he lie about his tax returns, and, in three debates, lie to the American people boldly about what he plans to do should he be elected President?

IMO, putting Maureen Sullivan Stemberg on The View, Politics Nation, etc. would focus voters on the character issue of Romney's truthfulness in the days leading up to the election. Even Fox would have to cover this.

Even low-information voters know you've got to be able to trust the President. They know GW Bush lied us into Iraq and precipitated the loss of tens of thousands of lives and limbs. A President cannot be a perjurer.

Mitt Romney would brag that he was a great businessman and should vote for him because of this; he could turn around the economy. Yet, it was shown his company (Bain) outsourced jobs to other countries, fired employees and drove companies into bankruptcy. Mitt Romney responded that he was not responsible for these things because they happened after he left the company in 1999. However, official SEC documents, which Mitt signed under penalty of perjury, indicate he was CEO of Bain until 2002.

If Mitt Romney left Bain in 1999 then why is Bain important? We must not forget a major contributing cause of the Financial Crisis of 2008 was the filing of false or misleading documents with the SEC. This is no small or trivial matter. Since 2009 the SEC has collected fines of over 3 Billion dollars for this violation from financial institutions such as, among others: “Goldman Sachs”, “Citigroup”, “Credit Suisse”, “J.P. Morgan”, and “UBS”. Mitt Romney said actually left all operational control of Bain Capital in 1999. This means he sanctioned and acquiesced to the filing of false and misleading documents with the SEC until 2002. This indicates a certain attitude towards these filings: The complete and truthful disclosure of all facts to the SEC is not important. This was an attitude all too prevalent in the financial community prior to 2009, and all of us paid the price.

Is full disclosure to the SEC one of the regulations Mitt Romney would do away with? What about other regulations overseeing the financial community; Wall Street and the banks too big to fail? If you put a fox in charge of the chicken coop, you have a problem for the chickens. Will Mitt Romney's election be the equivalent of that for the small investor? As a small investor, and businessman, is this a chance I want to take? I have been burnt once by a government that did not believe in regulation, and was asleep at the wheel.

"Bain" was first brought up by a candidate, who Mitt Romney mocked as wanting to colonize the moon, and the false filing received no mention in the media. Perjury is perjury. It was ethically and morally equal to saying "I never had sex with that woman", for which Bill Clinton was impeached. However this was much worse. This was related to an institution designed to protect investors, not sex. There can be no equivocation since the two official documents Mitt signed exactly contradict each other 100%. He can not flip-flop between these two documents. Either Mitt lied to the SEC, which is perjury, or he is bald-faced lying to us, we the people he wants to vote for him.

Are you going to vote for such a person? Characcter counts. Can you trust a potential President Mitt Romney to do the right thing when he thinks nobocy is looking?

Great post.

Lying on the stand is a VERY easy concept for voters to understand....

Hope it hangs around unsolved for a long while.

Up close and personal war on women..

all this and perjury too.

That you try to poush this story, wingnuts are immediately going to point to Clinton lying under oath, which he did, like it or not.
Yes, The Stench did wrong and is scum and needs some kind of punishment. But I can't get too enthusiastic over this. It's almost, but not quite as lame as Trump's garbage. I say just let matters with this run their course and not push it into the limelight.

Clinton ain't runnin. I say push everything into the limelight. Play their game, see what sticks.

and Mr. Clinton is majorly stumping for him.

I don't see any good happening in pushing this right now.

Clinton was never convicted, and it happened during his second term. If it happened during his election it would have been a big and legit issue in the campaign. The GOP can not get away with waving this off when they impeached Clinton for lying under oath.

Let The Stench off......this just doesn't need national attention right now. Just let matters run their course locally. This could easily blow up in the Dem's faces by pushing this too hard. There is far too much at stake than trying to satisfy some need for revenge, however right that need may be.

to benefit him, of course, while lying to IRS?

Methinks you doth protest too much, a troll perchance?

to this country by wasting 2 years dragging us through that hypocritical impeachment garbage over a blowjob, go for it.

Speaking of shit backfiring.

Mitt's lie caused harm to another person. Big difference.

that was not affected at all by this?

It was the infidelity that hurt Hillary. The lie at the hearing caused her no harm.

I've heard that name before. Is he the black guy in the White House?

I didn't. I merely pointed out that screaming about The Stench's lying under oath will have the wingnuts screeching about Clinton. It's not worth it right now?

He denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. When asked the question his first response was: what constitutes "sexual relations".

The GOP came up with a definition. The judge rejected it as too vague. The GOP came back a week later saying they liked it vague. Their definition excluded all sort of sexual activities, including those in which Clinton engaged. So his "no" answer was perfectly legitimate.

There is a reason he was never charged with perjury. He never perjured himself.


Of course, this has no bearing whatsoever on the current election. But someone has been feeding you a big ol' shit sandwich. And I thought you might appreciate hearing the facts.

and the Mourdock thingy - it's been a wonderful day!

Apparently there are conservatives who think it's okay to 'lie for God' and 'rape for God'....just lyin' and rapin' for God.

undervalue stocks so so very low. How else did he end up with up to $100M in his IRA?

think about it. How often does that happen??? Or is it the usual Romney hiding everything, like the hard drives from his time at Governor, or his records from the Olympics that are sealed at a University? Or records of his time at Bain??? His tax returns??

Who the hell would elect that guy? Seriously. He's scary.

Romney lies to get what he wants. It's been proven. I hope they release these papers.

I'm sure it didn't matter to R$ who "won" that divorce settlement. What's it to R$ if Staples is worth nothing or millions in a divorce case that doesn't involve him? My guess is there was lots of money in it for R$ to lowball the figure to benefit his own tax avoidance---it's just another tax scheme of this lowlife white collar criminal---another R who should be in the Big House and not the White House.