Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,173 posts)
15. Yeah.
Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:02 PM
Jul 2012

The SEC filings for 2000 and 2001. The Obama team apparently echoed this claim.

Except that if you actually look at the filings you find that they're signed by a managing director named Nunnelly, and not by Romney or any of the other managing directors.

It's not a difficult claim to prove or disprove, just a tedious one. The filings are public record and were on, among others, the TPM site's page talking about the story.

People apparently took having signed SEC filings listing Romney as CEO to mean that Romney signed them.

Heck, the organization I was with had an acting CEO for 17 months. He wasn't really the CEO, and the real CEO was on forced administrative leave until his contract expired. His contract expired, and the next day another CEO's contract kicked in. There can be only one. I guess you'd have to say we had a "passive CEO" and functioned without an active (official) CEO for 17 months. But hey, our sales were only $75 million.

And what exactly did he report to the SEC? truthisfreedom Jul 2012 #1
Sure lsewpershad Jul 2012 #11
took them 3 years to make the change?? reeeaaaalllly? progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #2
Now the real journalist Iliyah Jul 2012 #9
A passive ownership won't do the trick DFW Jul 2012 #3
Misrepresenting the Company DearAbby Jul 2012 #4
True, if stockholders only looked at the SEC report they would have been seriously misled. cbdo2007 Jul 2012 #6
But Rmoney was the sole stockholder stuckinodi Jul 2012 #8
If he was the CEO sharp_stick Jul 2012 #5
It'd be like the President not being reponsible for America. TriplD Jul 2012 #24
Nevertheless Iliyah Jul 2012 #10
Why not both? toddwv Jul 2012 #27
According to some reports I have read his signature was on several important papers during Bandit Jul 2012 #13
Yeah. Igel Jul 2012 #15
Very true! SkyDaddy7 Jul 2012 #29
He was just the pretend CEO Kingofalldems Jul 2012 #7
Doesn't Bain have every reason to lie about this? HankyDub Jul 2012 #12
Why would they lie about it? HotRodTuna Jul 2012 #20
It looks like they are covering their asses Quantess Jul 2012 #30
Mitt seems to be changing his story every time he turns around. mysuzuki2 Jul 2012 #14
Actually, only slightly. Igel Jul 2012 #18
sorry to rain on your parade missy01121970 Jul 2012 #16
Welcome to DU! maddezmom Jul 2012 #21
Why do they bother? DavidDvorkin Jul 2012 #22
no idea maddezmom Jul 2012 #23
Doesn't matter--it keeps the "Romney outsourced American jobs" in the spotlight. Lex Jul 2012 #28
Getting nervous? Quantess Jul 2012 #31
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #17
Bush wasn't my president because he wasn't legitimately elected DavidDvorkin Jul 2012 #19
I'm still wondering if he was involved while governor. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #25
"Oh what a tangled web we weave... Historic NY Jul 2012 #26
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Bain Says Romney Kept Own...»Reply #15