HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Allred's October Surprise...

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:42 PM

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

Source: Mother Jones

Is this the October Surprise of 2012? Attorney Gloria Allred appeared in a Canton, Massachusetts, court today to petition a judge to unseal records in the decades-old divorce case of Tom Stemberg, the founder of Staples. Allred was there with Stemberg's ex-wife, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, and what the two want made public is Mitt Romney's testimony from the nasty divorce trial. Romney, as he often boasts, helped Stemberg create Staples when he Romney was running Bain Capital, and TMZ has reported that anonymous sources say that Romney in that testimony lowballed the value of Staples stock. In court, Allred noted that she has a copy of Romney's testimony, but she has yet to say what's in it. (The Boston Globe is also asking the court to lift the gag order that was placed on the parties to the divorce.) The judge, according to the live-tweeting of David Bernstein, a reporter for the Boston Phoenix, recessed the hearing until tomorrow. Atypically, Allred left the courthouse without saying much.

It seems that Maureen Sullivan Stemberg has been trying to get her story told—including the Romney angle—for several years. Four years ago, Dragon-Lion Media, a movie production company based outside of Los Angeles, announced it was making a documentary on Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, with her cooperation. It issued a press release noting that this "first-time tell all tale of the interweaving relationships and strange bedfellow" in her life would feature Romney, without specifying what role he would play. But Edmund Druilhet, the founder and CEO of Dragon-Lion Media, tells Mother Jones that Stemberg had discussed with him her belief that Romney had testified falsely to help Tom Stemberg during the trial. "She told me all about that," he says. And Sadi Ranson-Polizzotti, who was tapped to be the writer on the documentary, says that when she was working with Maureen Sullivan Stemberg she read the Romney testimony and that Romney on the stand said that Staples at that time was just "a dream" and that stock in the company was not worth much. "That really stood out to me," Ranson-Polizzotti recalls. Maureen, according to Ranson-Polizzotti, firmly believed that Romney had lied on the stand to benefit her ex-husband.

The press release indicated Maureen Sullivan Stemberg was bitter about her divorce settlement, noting the film would expose the "injustice" of the Massachusetts court system.

Here's the press release:

-snip-

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/allred-maureen-sullivan-stemberg-romney-divorce



Emphasis added.

38 replies, 7032 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 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Allred's October Surprise Source Tried to Tell Her Romney Story in Documentary (Original post)
highplainsdem Oct 2012 OP
Lucinda Oct 2012 #1
barbtries Oct 2012 #2
ProudProgressiveNow Oct 2012 #3
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2012 #4
ProgressiveEconomist Oct 2012 #5
viguy007 Oct 2012 #6
JDPriestly Oct 2012 #14
ProgressiveEconomist Oct 2012 #32
riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #7
annabanana Oct 2012 #8
Liberalagogo Oct 2012 #9
2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #10
Liberalagogo Oct 2012 #25
hrmjustin Oct 2012 #26
Liberalagogo Oct 2012 #29
hrmjustin Oct 2012 #30
wordpix Oct 2012 #37
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #31
FlaGranny Oct 2012 #12
Liberalagogo Oct 2012 #23
hrmjustin Oct 2012 #27
FlaGranny Oct 2012 #35
Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #13
olddad56 Oct 2012 #18
Liberalagogo Oct 2012 #24
ieoeja Oct 2012 #19
Liberalagogo Oct 2012 #22
ieoeja Oct 2012 #28
CindyinIndy Oct 2012 #11
StarryNite Oct 2012 #15
aletier_v Oct 2012 #16
glinda Oct 2012 #34
dchill Oct 2012 #38
mary195149 Oct 2012 #17
progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #20
Rider3 Oct 2012 #21
libdem4life Oct 2012 #33
wordpix Oct 2012 #36

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

1. Thanks for the MJ link!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

2. interesting.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:12 PM

3. K&R

Mystery over. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:14 PM

4. Easy to beleive....

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:14 PM

5. RATE THIS UP! If Romney is willing to lie under oath

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:27 PM

6. Romney is already a perjurer, except the MSM did not spotlight it.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to viguy007 (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:32 PM

14. Great post, viguy007

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to viguy007 (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:35 PM

32. In my mind, I can hear James Carville: "Perjuror, tax cheat, misogynist--

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:29 PM

7. Glad to know this story is out there. Even if the testimony remains sealed, this news is toxic.

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

Hope it hangs around unsolved for a long while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:50 PM

8. kickers. . . He really has NO SCRUPLES has he?

Up close and personal war on women..

all this and perjury too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:55 PM

9. The problem with this is

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:58 PM

10. not too enthusiastic over this but...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:07 PM

25. And Obama is

and Mr. Clinton is majorly stumping for him.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:27 PM

26. I do.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:33 PM

29. No one is saying

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:41 PM

30. I just don't see it that way, but we will find out soon in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:35 AM

37. oh really? Another MittLie should not be examined, possibly one that impacted his paying taxe$?

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

Methinks you doth protest too much, a troll perchance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:28 PM

31. Bill Clinton is the Michael Jordan of Politics, and if the GOP wants to remind the US what they did

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

Speaking of shit backfiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:18 PM

12. Clinton only hurt himself.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlaGranny (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:06 PM

23. And Hillary is just some broad

that was not affected at all by this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:28 PM

27. She forgave him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:51 AM

35. Geez, it wasn't the lie at the hearing that hurt Hillary.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:28 PM

13. Clinton, Clinton…I know

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:45 PM

18. weak attempt at humor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:06 PM

24. Why are you all mentioning Obama?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:53 PM

19. Clinton did not lie under oath. Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with Obama.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #19)


Response to Liberalagogo (Reply #22)


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:04 PM

11. This....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:37 PM

15. Romney was just Lying for God...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNite (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:41 PM

16. well, he was lying for A god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:50 PM

34. Remember what Mittster said "We all believe in the SAME god".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:37 AM

38. Good old Mammon strikes again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:42 PM

17. Isn't this what Romney probably did,

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:15 PM

20. So fascinating to have a gag order on a divorce, BEFORE Staples really went anywhere...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:39 PM

21. I wouldn't doubt it

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 10:28 AM

36. now why would R$ lowball the figure to help hubbie? Maybe to lower R$'s own taxes? Calling IRS!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread