New details about Allred bombshell, Romney lied so divorcee would get almost nothing in settlement.

fits here. Lowlife, greedy, scumbag and millions of people will vote for him for leader of the free world. Very scary.

Something like the courts records of it were destroyed in 1994....hmm what was Rmoney doing in 94...that's right running for Senate..don't know if its true just what I read...

The court reporter who transcribed them can certify them.

I would like to know the truth about this as much as the next person here. I would like to see some real dirt on this guy! I just think TMZ as the source and her bitter friends just isn't going to cut it. We need more than this crap and maybe the exact transcripts will be released tomorrow. We can only hope. If all we have is TMZ and her friends word then nobody is going to pick this story up and it goes nowhere.

My gut instinct on this one: This dispute took many many many years in court. Enough time to see the real value of Staples or certainly more value than when the divorce happened. People go to court all of the time to get more support. If this were true, she would have gone after it a long time ago and could have proved he lied a long long time ago.

So the friend was a an ass and canceled insurance. Heartless yes but it wasn't Romney that did it. We all have friends that make choices we wouldn't. Unless she has a paper trail that proves Romney said to cut her off the insurance it doesn't amount to anything. If I were the bread winner and my nasty divorce dragged on 10 years there is no way in hell I would keep my lazy ex husband insured.

I also think that we need to be careful with this because it could come across as last minute desperation and mud slinging. It is easy enough for Romney to say Why now? 2 weeks left and now this is brought up from a decade ago? Also you have Gloria at the DNC as a delegate holding an Obama sign. All of this makes for a really easy play for them.

Basically I think we better think about "go big or go home". If it really isn't anything directly tied to a probable illegal deed by Romney and it is a BIG provable stickable story, we need to walk away. I think this could backfire. I for one am going to spend my time continuing to email friends and family about voting our President back into office so he can finish the job he started!

They had kids, and she was too ill to work and get her own insurance. It would cost that jerk next to nothing to keep her insured, the mother of his children, as he made a fortune on Staples after Romney lied about it. What did it cost him??? $700.00 a month? He treated exactly the way Gingrich treated his ex wives. It's a pattern with them. And Romney was involved.

"Our sources say years later, Maureen, who suffered from MS and had multiple bouts with cancer, got a visit from one of Tom's guys, who gave her papers informing her that Tom was cancelling her health insurance. Our sources say the irony here is that we're told Tom was working as one of then Governor Mitt Romney's chief health care advisers."

How was Romney involved in the insurance again? I guess I'm just not connecting the dots.

Undervalued the company (Staples) so the wife didn't get what she was entitled to. His testimony was about the value of Staples - a company both he and his pal made a small fortune off of while this maggot of a man cancelled his ex-wife's health insurance when she had MS and cancer. Both mitt and his friend are slime.

She got 500,000 shares that climbed to $15 per share. I think that is a small fortune as well. I think she could have afforded her own insurance. I still don't see why Mr. Staples canceling her insurance has anything to do with Romney being president. I so wish it did but it just doesn't.

Remember he was an investor in Staples not an expert witness. When it comes to stocks there is no such thing I don't care what your political beliefs are. He had to testify in his opinion what the stock was worth AT THAT TIME. He couldn't testify to the potential. No investor is ever 100% accurate, never has been and never will be. Is it a lie or their best guess given the facts at the time? So going back to the divorce proceedings....You don't get paid on the potential of income in a divorce. You get paid on the worth of today. She chose to sell her stock. She has personal responsibility in that. If she was depending on the advice of a financial advisor, sue him/her.

Help me understand how this relates to Romney being president? What does it prove other than his friend made choices that you or I might not when it comes to insurance of an ex-spouse?

At the end of the day, I wish there were a story here but there just isn't one that has any real legs and any bearing on the election.

hoodwinked by the Staples corporation (this was his testimony) - that it was worthless. A few weeks later he and his pal cleaned up on the stock. Perhaps you don't think perjury is important but many people do. As for the health insurance being cancelled - nothing illegal - just proves his pal is slime and it's not like "associations" aren't brought up in politics all the time.

Perjury is very important. What is more important is that the term must be applied correctly across the board so that our legal system works for all people despite how much or how little money they have. Perjury is telling a known lie. All I am saying is trying to speculate on the future earnings is just that. It's anybody's guess. I'm not sure this rises to the level of perjury. I wish there was something more but it just isn't perjury. Maybe he didn't know his job well or maybe he wasn't qualified to be making financial statements which I have no doubt. He doesn't seem to do well with economics and I think that should be where this goes. Think about it. Wouldn't the better argument here be that he couldn't even value a company correctly that he invested in so how could he be the economic genius that he claims to be? If he can't value Staples how on earth can he add value to our economy. Forget perjury, that won't stick. Go for the in over his head, can't do the job angle.

the testimony and the stock sale were not a few weeks, you would have a point. But he was obviously lying to protect his friend's wallet.

Here are some facts for you from the records released today. The divorce was final in 1988. She CHOSE to sell a portion of her stocks immediately and 80,000 more shares 8 weeks later. The company went public in April of 1989. There was no reason this woman couldn't have held on to them until it went public and then cashed in when the stocks were over $21 per share instead of the little over $2 at the time of the divorce. It wasn't a few weeks. It was several months later and again who made her sell? Romney? She is an idiot if she didn't have a financial advisor to help her with this. Being his wife she would have known that Staples was in the works to go public. That takes months to coordinate. The point that this was discussed during the trial proves that there was some knowledge that this company was to go public even if he hadn't discussed it in front of her or with her prior to divorce proceedings. She had to know that by that concept alone.

Beyond that let's assume that Romney lied about the worth of the stock. She still got almost as many shares as Mr. Staples...he held on to 580,000 or so. His testimony at trial didn't make the price of the stock lower or keep it from going public. She still had almost as much as he did and she sold them...to early. Again, how is this Romney's fault? I still don't see it. How would this lie help his friend? She still made out like a bandit! At the end of the day, you can't fix stupid and clearly she didn't have any sense to be trading stocks on her own.

The real kicker is that it is very possible that if they had valued Staples at $30 a share she would have gotten less shares. Now, let's say that he said $30 per share was fair. She has her 500,000 shares and goes out to sell them and finds the market value is only $2.45. Would she also not be crying LIAR LIAR now? She would have been screwed. As it is with this testimony she only stood to make money because he under valued it, not lose it had she not been foolish enough to sell when she did. The only loss came from her actions.

given in 1991 as to what the value of the stock was in 1987. In other words, he didn't testify about the stock's value before she got the stock or before she sold it.

That is a perfect metaphor for how Mitt Romney "helps" people. If you're one of *his* people, you get everything you need and more; if you're not one of his people, you don't deserve to live.

Romney hangs with like kinds of people! Screw someone over to enrich yourself!

"I thought they were overvalued at the time. But, stocks fluctuate, and market conditions improved. I was wrong this time."

Under politics. Go view it and make comments!

But anyone looking at this with an unbiased eye will come to the conclusion that he lied to benefit his bud.

getting traction on cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/politics/romney-testimony/index.html

because of the pesky statute of limitations, but he can -- and will -- be found guilty of perjury in the court of public opinion.

Who in his or her right mind wants a criminal to run this country, apart from other criminals who think like him?

on election eve. I wonder how many people knew this was coming. Mittens just lost the woman vote forever.

it seems that most everything in the TMZ story is inaccurate, or at least unrelated to what is in the testimony.