HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Mitt Romney: Court Battle...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:48 PM

 

Mitt Romney: Court Battle Over His Involvement in Bitter Divorce

Source: TMZ

Mitt Romney was heavily involved in the extremely messy divorce of one of his key supporters ... and the Boston Globe is going to court first thing Wednesday morning in an attempt to unseal the court file as well as lift a gag order ... TMZ has learned.

The divorce was between Staples co-founder Tom Stemberg and his first wife Maureen. We're told the divorce battle lasted for years and was extremely ugly.

Sources tell us Romney gave both a deposition in the divorce and testified in the trial. According to our sources, the Boston Globe got a tip that there was "juicy information about Romney" in the sealed documents.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/23/mitt-romney-divorce-thomas-stemberg-maureen-staples-gloria-allred-boston-globe/

106 replies, 16899 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 106 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mitt Romney: Court Battle Over His Involvement in Bitter Divorce (Original post)
MotherPetrie Oct 2012 OP
leftofcool Oct 2012 #1
Thrill Oct 2012 #2
cstanleytech Oct 2012 #51
happyslug Oct 2012 #82
EC Oct 2012 #3
powergirl Oct 2012 #4
randome Oct 2012 #5
Fred Bastiat Oct 2012 #6
myrna minx Oct 2012 #13
amuse bouche Oct 2012 #15
Voice for Peace Oct 2012 #17
BeyondGeography Oct 2012 #21
msanthrope Oct 2012 #81
BeyondGeography Oct 2012 #105
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #44
SemperEadem Oct 2012 #76
Angry Dragon Oct 2012 #7
nolabear Oct 2012 #8
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #18
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #9
Voice for Peace Oct 2012 #20
berni_mccoy Oct 2012 #39
progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #10
fleur-de-lisa Oct 2012 #19
Cha Oct 2012 #25
avaistheone1 Oct 2012 #31
Cha Oct 2012 #41
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #45
Cha Oct 2012 #49
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #58
flamingdem Oct 2012 #50
Indpndnt Oct 2012 #57
avaistheone1 Oct 2012 #64
cstanleytech Oct 2012 #53
SemperEadem Oct 2012 #77
Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #29
Guitarzz Oct 2012 #55
Rincewind Oct 2012 #74
TlalocW Oct 2012 #40
marshall Oct 2012 #56
HereSince1628 Oct 2012 #75
marshall Oct 2012 #95
happyslug Oct 2012 #85
itcfish Oct 2012 #98
onenote Oct 2012 #11
MSMITH33156 Oct 2012 #16
R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2012 #32
onenote Oct 2012 #36
R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2012 #46
Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #79
JimDandy Oct 2012 #73
russspeakeasy Oct 2012 #12
Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #14
Politicalboi Oct 2012 #22
JohnnyRingo Oct 2012 #23
AspenRose Oct 2012 #24
marlakay Oct 2012 #26
Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #33
Guitarzz Oct 2012 #52
dooner Oct 2012 #59
grantcart Oct 2012 #63
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #35
Guitarzz Oct 2012 #54
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #62
Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #78
pnwmom Oct 2012 #66
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #102
pnwmom Oct 2012 #65
Cassotto Oct 2012 #71
truthisfreedom Oct 2012 #27
defacto7 Oct 2012 #28
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #30
Laura PourMeADrink Oct 2012 #34
R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2012 #37
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #104
Wednesdays Oct 2012 #61
HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #103
boingboinh Oct 2012 #38
LiberalFighter Oct 2012 #42
LisaL Oct 2012 #43
Bigleaf Oct 2012 #48
Texin Oct 2012 #84
rocktivity Oct 2012 #47
olddad56 Oct 2012 #60
tomm2thumbs Oct 2012 #67
Cassotto Oct 2012 #68
onenote Oct 2012 #83
happyslug Oct 2012 #87
fleabiscuit Oct 2012 #69
dooner Oct 2012 #70
mimi85 Oct 2012 #72
Texin Oct 2012 #80
happyslug Oct 2012 #86
Beacool Oct 2012 #88
TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #89
Beacool Oct 2012 #90
TwilightGardener Oct 2012 #92
randome Oct 2012 #94
karynnj Oct 2012 #101
karynnj Oct 2012 #99
Megahurtz Oct 2012 #91
magical thyme Oct 2012 #93
marshall Oct 2012 #96
randome Oct 2012 #97
marshall Oct 2012 #100
magical thyme Oct 2012 #106

Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:49 PM

1. oopsie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:51 PM

2. Oh Snap. He Banged his friends wife? Shame on you Mitt

This is John Edwards type stuff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thrill (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:54 PM

51. Thats a huge assumption Thrill

so since there are already plenty of reasons not to vote for Mitt I dont think those of us here on the DU should push this because imo it could come back to bite us on the ass like how those reports over Bush and his military service bit Dan Rather on his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thrill (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:07 AM

82. This is a DIVORCE action, it has something to do with MONEY

Sex may be the reason for the divorce, but bitter divorces battles are always over MONEY. In this case, how much was Mitt's friend worth, how much did he earned during the marriage (and thus marital property), how much did he have BEFORE the marriage (and thus NOT Marital Property).

This would go into how much money and HOW Mitt made his money NOT his sex life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:51 PM

3. Well, I wonder

he wanted that company and the divorce would be a problem I'd think. Since his interests come first I'll bet he was making back deals with their attorneys. Or something really sleazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:52 PM

4. Didn't Romney "save" Staples and then Staples

kinda tanked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:52 PM

5. Maybe he testified that he told the wife she should just shut up and obey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:54 PM

6. WOW...

 

and what are the odds of Trump releasing divorce info on the Obama's

http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-claim-trump-s-obama-announcement-will-reveal-divorce-papers

Politics are strange bedfellows for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Bastiat (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:58 PM

13. BOMBSHELL: imagine a married couple going through a rough patch and reconciling!

Of course this would be controversial to the serial wedders like Newt, Trump et al.

Trump is a silly man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Bastiat (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:00 PM

15. Too bad for Trump

CBS reported on that story in 09. Old news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Bastiat (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:01 PM

17. it's the boring Republican mirror trick that doesn't work any more because it's so obvious.. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Bastiat (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:04 PM

21. There's this Grieg composition called Peer Gynt

It's about these funny little guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:06 AM

81. Slagt ham! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #81)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:13 PM

105. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Bastiat (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:26 PM

44. Enjoy the pizza with your tombstone, troll. Five posts and toast.



They don't make trolls the way they used to. They had semi-intelligence, once. Seems to be a shortage of any intelligence, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Bastiat (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:41 AM

76. oh please... I'll bet Trump knew that the Boston Globe was going to expose their story

and he's trying to get there first with some 2 yr old stale-ass tripe.

Is that really the best you can do? Tragic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:55 PM

7. I wonder if he was named as a thrid party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:55 PM

8. I don't know I can get behind this one. Unless of course Romney did something illegal.

Getting in someone's personal life just for "juicy details" isn't a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:01 PM

18. You don't have to get behind it, since you weren't voting for him anyway...

I want the Bible-thumping fundies and Family Values crusaders to get behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:56 PM

9. So, he had an "(Owner's Wife Is) Easy" button...?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:03 PM

20. ow.. snap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:21 PM

39. Duzy!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:56 PM

10. Oh, interesting. Sounds like the wife is trying to get it unsealed.

The question is begging.. WHY did those people get to have a sealed divorce with a gag order on it??? Guess when you're filthy rich, you can shut people up like that.

So THIS is why Trump is supposedly going with the divorce story tomorrow.. to try and counterbalance this story.

Interesting.. so WHAT was Romney's role in that divorce?? I doubt he had an affair with the wife, as the ex husband is still supporting Mitt?? Maybe he had a relationship with the husband. Anything is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:02 PM

19. I think the paper, the Boston Globe, is asking for the details . . .

to be released from a gag order. I don't think it's the wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:09 PM

25. So they can sell more Papers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:14 PM

31. The Boston Globe has a solid reputation has one of the best newspapers in the country.

They are not known for going for cheap shots. There is more than smoke here if the Globe is involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #31)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:24 PM

41. Understood. It would sell more Papers, though nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #41)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:32 PM

45. True, but there has to be something more. The ex-husband spoke at the RNC.

He is, reportedly, a close friend of Willard. So, if Willard was not having an affair with the wife (I really don't even want that possibility in my brain!), what could he have said that was sealed? And if he DID have an affair (NOOOOOOOO! ACK!!! ), how is he besties with the ex-husband? What kind of deal went down to have THAT outcome?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:45 PM

49. I know..intriguing for now. I would think

the Globe actually thinks this is all worth it..and, not some Al Capone Vault event?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #49)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:08 AM

58. Since it's the Globe and not a tabloid, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

And hope it's worth it. I'm not expecting anything useful, just something mildly interesting. But, hey! I'm willing to be very, very wrong, if it means we get something sensational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:49 PM

50. Maybe he had an affair with her sister, someone related, and it all came out in the dirty laundry nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #50)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:07 AM

57. Ack! More images I don't want in my head!

Jeeeeeez. Nothing with Willard and sex. Ever. Blech!

Okay. Maybe. Or maybe he helped cheat the ex-wife out of the true value of her Staples shares since she sold them before they went public. I wouldn't put it past him, especially if there was something in it for him. Money motivates him.

Why this would be that interesting before the election, I really don't know. I'm interested enough to follow it, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #57)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:03 AM

64. My hunch is that it is something along the lines you are suggesting. Mittens probably helped

the husband defraud the wife out of assets from their marriage or out of getting the appropriate value for the assets. Perhaps Romney thought he was just "harvesting" another company when he swindled the wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #31)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:56 PM

53. Dan Rather had a solid reputation to until he reported on a story without investigating the source

better and it turned around and bit him on the ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #31)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:43 AM

77. who are they endorsing for president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 PM

29. Romney strikes me as asexual. But then again, he did have all those kids. Interesting

thought you had about the link between dueling divorce papers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #29)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:59 PM

55. Maybe He Paid The Butler To Sur-O-Gate Queen Annie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #29)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:54 AM

74. Well, his wife

had all those kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:24 PM

40. It will be revealed that

While staying at a hotel while in town for the trial, the CEO of Staples mentioned he saw Mitt drink a Dr Pepper taken from the minibar because he was really thirsty, and there was nothing decaffeinated in it it that wasn't alcohol.

TlalocW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:04 AM

56. Usually the reason fo a sealed divorce record is minor children

Both parties agree in order to protect the kids. Of course now the children may be grown, or siding with daddy, or the ex wife may be so mad that she doesn't care anymore about airing the dirty laundry.

It's hard for me to see how this can affect Romney. Allred is working for the ex wife, whose primary motivation is likely to humiliate her husband and possibly the rest of the family. But how does that translate to Romney?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #56)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:23 AM

75. This may vary, but that wasn't true for my divorce in Wisconsin

No minor children, no request of either party to seal the records. The records were sealed because sealing them is the practice of the court.

I lost records to storm damage and wanted to replace my copy of the documents which included information about continuing business/property interests that were effected by the divorce and I found out that the records were sealed. Even as a party of the divorce I had to get a judgment to look at them again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #75)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:07 PM

95. The sealed testimony in question was related to child custody

Though in fact all of the testimony may have been sealed, there were numerous individual filings and testimonies over several years in this divorce.

From what I'm seeing, I think it will all turn out to be a wash. If there is anything there, it's too complicated for the average person to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:20 AM

85. Most cases are sealed, as part of the marital settlement agreement

Remember we are talking about big money here. The fight was over MONEY and what was earned during the marriage. Sex is at best a minor issue in a divorce (If the wife had sex, that is marital misconduct and grounds to be denied Spousal Support and later Alimony but has NO effect on division of Marital Assets).

Thus the reason for a gag order is to keep hidden from the general public how much money both sides had. In this case how much did the Husband have invested with Mitt?

Remember both sides have to agree to the GAG order, but in most cases the paying side insist on it as part of the Marital Settlement Agreement so that that person's assets are not open to review by the General Public (as in the case of most court records). Most payees agree to th GAG order, just to end the litigation and get their settlement that much faster. Thus I can see with Wife Agreeing to the Order when it was entered so she could get her settlement, but now be willing to have it open because she willy does NOT care if it is public knowledge or not. Her ex-husband may want to keep his assets secret thus will fight to keep the GAG order in place, but the wife HAD agreed to it earlier when the case was sealed AND had received something in return for that agreement, THus the Ex-husband has a good case law on his side, he paid for the right to seal the Case.

It will be interesting how the court will decide AND what Mitt did say when he was questioned as to the assets of the Husband.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:40 PM

98. Maybe

the affair Mitt had was with the husband, not the wife. That is why they are still buddies. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:57 PM

11. I really wish they would drop this

Trump is about to make an ass of himself over a divorce that never happened, and this story is just going to feed a meme that both sides are guilty of getting in the gutter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:00 PM

16. True

it will actually just be seen as both parties going dirty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:15 PM

32. Since when is a Newspaper asking for the truth to be revealed the same


as the circus clown Trump taking pot shots at an Obama divorce that wasn't?

Trump is doing this for Trump more than he is for rMoney. You know his motives.


Can you say the same of the Boston Globe?

Was it wrong for the Edwards scandal to break due to the rag Enquirer publishing it?

All things are not equal, but the Repugs want you to believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:17 PM

36. Its being characterized as an effort supported by Obama supporter Gloria Allred

Whether or not that is true, its the way the story will be spun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:39 PM

46. All things are not equal, but the Repugs want you to believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:31 AM

79. Oh, well then, if Republicans are characterizing it, we have to just sit down and

accept their characterization. Look, the Republicans are also characterizing rape as an instrument of God's will. Do you really, really think that their characterizations make truth? That any crap they say must be accepted as fact by not only voters, but also by the press? Jounalism is not allowed, because Republicans make wild characterizations?
Fuck. Right wing people characterize gay people as child murderers. We do not sit down and take their libelous characterizations. No one should. Fuck them. Of course Republicans will react stongly and loudly to anything said against them. Of course they will TRY to spin. That does not mean they will be be able to spin it as they wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:18 AM

73. Not necessarily.

The Obama's didn't divorce and their marriage is a personal matter, whereas Romney's involvement in the Staple owners' divorce case potentially includes financial statements/testimony from him which, if fraudulent, constitutes perjury and THAT is a criminal matter. Criminal matters are in the public interest. Personal matters are where the gutter comes in. We'll all find out who's guilty of what soon enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 10:58 PM

12. Staples and Stapled

Damn I hope it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:00 PM

14. Meh.

People get involved in their friends' personal lives all the time.

Sometimes for good, sometimes bad. Shit happens. Sometimes it gets out of hand.

This is personal stuff and doesn't involve Willard directly. Ignore it.

Unless......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:05 PM

22. I hope this is true

I wonder if it's a Mormon thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:06 PM

23. When Mitt does a takeover, he goes all the way.

I wonder if the Staples CEO had to pay Mitt a handling fee for fondling his wife. I'm sure Mitt thought of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:06 PM

24. Good old TMZ

I don't think this revelation is going to change anyone's minds one way or the other (I don't think Trump's will, either).

Lines are pretty much drawn at this point, and people have already started voting.

It's just going to annoy people and turn them off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:11 PM

26. I found article about the divorce

look about 1/2 way down for story. Seems the wife was given 500,000 shares of stock when they divorced, sold soon thereafter at almost nothing, then staples went public and she hired lawyer to recoup some of her loss. She lost the case. Romney must have helped the husband win.


http://www.boston.com/yourlife/relationships/articles/2005/11/13/ladies_man/?page=full

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:16 PM

33. No wonder she wants to unseal. Bad blood against Robme. But, it may fit into the women's issue

how Robme helped a guy pal keep money from a woman. But, why not just speak out about it? She can do that without the papers, can't she?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #33)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:55 PM

52. He Lied In Testimony Saying The Value Of Staples Was Far Below What Was True Which Means......

The Wife Got Lots Less $$$ In The Divorce Settlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guitarzz (Reply #52)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:14 AM

59. I think so too..

It's probably about helping his friend protect his money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guitarzz (Reply #52)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:52 AM

63. This is the only sensible thing that I have read on the whole thing


And if that is true then it is a bombshell and not just for the lying.

It will show again how he works against the 'little' people.

Bunch of white guys helping each other out, screwing the women and the kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #26)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:17 PM

35. That doesn't seem election shattering.

Must be more to it than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #35)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:57 PM

54. It May Have A Detrimental Effect If It Is Found Money-Boo-Boo Lied Under Oath

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guitarzz (Reply #54)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:20 AM

62. Even the republics know Romney's a liar. Won't stop them from voting for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guitarzz (Reply #54)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:29 AM

78. omg "Money Boo Boo"..Hysterical !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:27 AM

66. If Romney lost 1% of the women's vote that he currently has, it would be

election shattering.

And that could happen if an investigation showed that he helped cheat this woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:56 PM

102. If it caused 1% of women to switch votes,

That would be offset by 1% of men switching votes the other way. Not a game-changer. And among the repuke base, they don't give a shit about Newt's and Guiliani's affairs and divorces. And they already know Rmoney is a liar. This simply isn't a election altering story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:26 AM

65. Women voters won't like this. I think you're onto something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:11 AM

71. Romney perjured himself by undervaluing the company while he was working to take it public!

He lied to the court and a major shareholder, the wife.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:11 PM

27. This is a salvo being fired over the Trump tower.

There will be consequences, Donald. Your hairness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:12 PM

28. looks like it's already been unsealed.


so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 PM

30. If the teabaggers and talibornagain don't care about Newt, Rudy, and all the other Repuke affairs...

...why would they care about this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:16 PM

34. that's what I thought. Think it has something to do with whether or not they were

repentant. HAHAHAH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:18 PM

37. It's not about the crazies. It is about all the undecided voters that may


be swayed by this enough to vote against rMoney before they go back into their coma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:02 PM

104. I'm sure the undecideds already know rmoney is a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:18 AM

61. This isn't about adultery, it's about perjury

See post # 52

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #61)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:00 PM

103. Romney being a liar is old news...not a game-breaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:21 PM

38. No Chance the rest of MSM covers this -- It Hurts Romney

 

They seem interested in helping Romney and so i see no way this story goes beyond TMZ.
I'll bet my children on that obvious prediction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:24 PM

42. Something murky when Stemberg continues to support Romney even though he had his wife.

What type of person would tolerate that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #42)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:25 PM

43. That's why I think its about something else connected to the divorce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #42)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:43 PM

48. Perhaps it wasn't the wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:08 AM

84. I think that's a big and dangerous assumption

And why would the Boston Globe want to wade into the weeds about a divorce matter? It's beyond infidelity and divorce. There's something deeper going on here.

I think it relates to the valuation of Staples stock. If Romney testified about the stock's valuation in relation to a financial settlement between the Stemberg's, and essentially downplayed its value to the presiding judge (thereby reducing Marureen Stemberg's settlement) might that have constituted perjury under oath and fraud?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:40 PM

47. Hmmm -- first the Rethugs start insisting that Gloria Allred has dirt on Romney

then Donald Trump starts hinting that he has dirt on the Obamas, and now this...a pre-emptive strike?


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:15 AM

60. why is this anything out of the ordinary for gopper politician? Whatever it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:43 AM

67. could be they hired a forensic accountant who found the settlement was based on fraudulent info


and they are requesting reopening it to prove that fraud, deception, deceit and falsification of records, etc was committed using evidence of newly found accounts or other hidden assets (secret overseas accounts) recently discovered that proves the agreement was entered into based on fraud

perhaps they landed on some proof of this, tax returns re-filed / reclaimed income or whatever, that can make this come back into the court for a re-examination based on fraud

may also have come up after that IRS amnesty issue allowed folks to update their assets without penalty

just thinking aloud



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:46 AM

68. OK-This is going to be big!! Article about divorce case from 2008.......

According to this article, Romney testified in 1988 that Staples stock was overvalued, saying “I didn’t place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company’s future.” At the same time, he was working with Tom Stemberg and Goldman Sachs to take the company public, and the deal was completed in the Spring of 1989.

From the article.......

Staples went public through Goldman Sachs but three years after Romney’s initial capital investment. “Mitt Romney says he’s prouder of this investment than any other.” (Mister PowerPoint Goes to Washington, Mathew Rees, December 1, 2006)

The issue here, if it is not already clear, is why a primary investor in a company that Romney was about to take public and of which he later says he is prouder than any other, he downplayed in a civil divorce case

As a witness for Tom Stemberg, Romney perhaps wanted to downplay the worth of Staples because if he did this then Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg stood to gain a whole lot less from Staples equity because Romney had just undervalued her ex-husband’s primary asset in a fifty/fifty state. If Staples is not worth very much, if the judge can be convinced of that, then how much can he award in terms of shares?

More, if monies and property are communal in a marriage, why wasn’t Staples split fifty-fifty and why was Romney testifying at all, other than the fact that Tom Stemberg, clearly one of Mitt Romney’s best friends and who recently said of Romney, “I have never met a better venture capitalist …I suspect he will be an equally good president.” (Mr. PowerPoint Goes to Washington, Wide Awakes, syndicated).


[link:http://tantmieux.squarespace.com/cyrano-tant-mieux-articles-old/2008/2/5/a-fish-out-of-water-mitt-romney-the-wanna-be-president.html|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cassotto (Reply #68)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:07 AM

83. How "big" can today's news, if there is any, be if this was reported in 2008?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cassotto (Reply #68)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:43 AM

87. That sounds about right, old Mitt told to low ball Staples stock price

I can see it now, one day Romney saying the Stock is worth X to various investors in papers filed with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the next day saying the Stock is only worth Y in this divorce action. Which is the lie UNDER OATH?

Great ad Potential, how can you know Romney is lying under oath? Answer: His lips are moving while his hands is on a Bible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:50 AM

69. It would be delicious irony

to have the Romster thumped by an opened court BINDER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #69)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:59 AM

70. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:28 AM

72. Whatever happens

tomorrow, it promises to be a very interesting day. Sigh, I'm already turning into a major twitterholic. Makes FB look like high school stuff, imo. G'nite to all my fellow DUers! Sweet dreams (as long as you can get the Donald out of your mind).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:00 AM

80. The UK's Mail

said that part of the contention in the divorce (and part of of the reason why they want the records unsealed) centered around the "custody of a child." Note, not children but a child. Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texin (Reply #80)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:36 AM

86. In a case like this one, the only time a Child would be a factor is if the Child has the money

Now, given the high finance we are dealing with, it is possible the Child, even as a minor, is a major stock holder of the company (maybe even staples itself, but probably a holding company) ANd thus whoever has primary legal custody of that child ends up controlling the child's stock (There are some income tax reasons to give such stock to the children, it spreads out the money among people who have lower tax rates, such moves were more common pre-Reagan tax cuts but have survived to this day).

As to the Child's custody otherwise, the age of the child is a factor but it is also possible that one parent get primary physical custody, but the other parent gets control of the child's assets. Thus I can NOT see how custody would be to big a concern in the divorce, it would be a quick one to two day hearing, with the burden being on the the side without the child. If both sides are fit parents (and I see nothing that indicates otherwise) Custody will remain as it was before the hearing started.

On the other hand a fight over the assets of the child would be grounds for a long drawn out battle bringing into question both parents ability to protect the Child's assets including testimony from Mitt if any of the Child's assets had been invested with Mitt (The Courts prefer investments in the safest investments possible, US Treasury bonds, low interest rates, but absolutely safe).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:24 PM

88. Hmmm, this reminds me of Obama's campaign for the senate in 2004.

Wasn't the same tactic used against one of his Republican opponents?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/

It was low then and it is even lower now since it's not about Romney, but someone else's divorce. We should be better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:27 PM

89. Er...can you please show me where Obama has anything to do

with the Boston Globe's request to bring this issue up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #89)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:33 PM

90. The Boston Globe is not a RW paper.

They are obviously trying to help their candidate of choice. I think that these type of attacks hit below the belt, whether they are directed at our side or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #90)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:38 PM

92. They're practicing investigative journalism, and that is Obama's fault...how?

Mittens was Governor there, claims Massachusetts as his home state--reason enough for the Globe to give him extra scrutiny. I applaud them for doing their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #90)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:40 PM

94. It IS about Romney. It's about his testimony.

I usually agree that we should not get sidetracked into frivolous issues but I think this is relevant since it's alleged that he lied under oath and then cashed in on that.

If that's what this is, it definitely applies to his trustworthiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #90)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:57 PM

101. The Boston Globe actually favored several liberal Republican governors

- especially Weld. They have also done a HUGE number of Scott Brown puff pieces that heap praise on him whenever he jumps even very low bars. (They have recently started to call him on his nasty campaign.)

I assume they will endorse Obama - because they KNOW how bad a MA governor he was - as he speaks of a non existant apology tour, it may remind the BG that he spent an entire year mostly out of state - trashing MA and apologizing for being its Governor - across the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

99. No - it was used by his primary opponent

Note the date January 2004. Obama was not even the democratic nominee then. You could say that he was lucky as both a strong Democratic opponent and this Republican opponent imploded. That led to Alan Keyes entering and getting the Republican nomination - giving Obama the easiest race in the country.

Here again, this is not Obama. It seems it is the wife and the Boston Globe. As Kerry said on the night of the debate, speaking of Massachusetts, that the people who know Romney the best, like him the least. I would bet that this story - true or not - has bubbled around Boston for decades. If the accounts are true, Romney is a creep. (Note there are many things that already let me make that judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:37 PM

91. Go Gloria!

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:39 PM

93. Mittens lied under oath re: the value of Staples

so his friend got off with easy settlement. Mittens and friend cashed out their stock to the tune of millions shortly thereafter.

Friend's Wife got screwed by Mittens, just not in the way ya'll are thinkin'.

When you're thinking about Mittens, think $$$$$. Because that's all that's there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #93)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:17 PM

96. It's a little more nuanced than that

The selling of stock is the opposite--Friend's Wife apparantly took the testimony at face value and promptly sold her 500,000 stocks. Meanshile Friend and Romney held onto their stock and took Staples public, vastly increasing the stock value. Friend's Wife was screwed--if she had held onto her stock she would have had hundreds of millions instead of just tens of millions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #96)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:35 PM

97. Well, wait a minute, then.

If Staples wasn't public at the time of the divorce, could Romney's testimony have been accurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #97)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 01:56 PM

100. I don't know if the term "accurate" can be applied to it

He was giving an opinion about the value of the company and the stock over time. The court could easily put an actual dollar amount on the stock at the present moment, but Romney was projecting about how much it would be worth in relation to division of assets. I don't know if it could be proven that he "lied" unless they somehow get concurrent testimony directly opposing what he told the court. It actually would speak more to his business acumen. Perhaps the Ex Wife could argue (or at least believes) that the entire testimony was a ruse to trick her into selling stock that she thought was worthless (even though she hadn't been allocated her portion yet), because if she had hung onto it rather than selling it she would have been much better off financially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #100)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:45 PM

106. in that case, I'd say it's nothing

Meaning that she only got 10s of millions. Meh. No sympathy from the masses there.

I thought I'd read that she ended up with very little and lost it all to illness. If she lost 10s of millions, that's her bad and nobody else's. She's just a greedy fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread