Should Massachusetts prosecute Mitt Romney for perjury?
Someone, not saying who, just emailed the following message to MSNBC. Hopefully, it will get to Maddow, for, if anyone can explain this so that all viewer understand it, Rachel Maddow would be the one.
The sender has kindly given me permission to post the contents of the email here. I have posted about some of these events before, but never in this detail--and never after Romney admitted on film that Massachusetts Democrats had been "right" about his ineligibility to run for Governor of Massachusetts.
Willard Mitt Romney's actions in connection with alleged Massachusetts residency when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts are worth noting, especially in light of a clip shown on Ms. Maddow's July 12 show. For one thing, Massachusetts and/or Utah may now have grounds to prosecute him for perjury.
These are the facts.
When Mitt Romney first attempted to run for Governor of Massachusetts, Democrats in Massachusetts challenged his attempt on the ground that he had not been resident of Massachusetts for the period required in order to make him eligible to run for Governor. Massachusetts Democrats said that Romney had been a resident of Utah during part of the required period.
Part of the case made by Massachusetts Democrats involved Romney's Utah state tax returns. (I don't know what his Massachusetts state income tax and state real estate tax records showed for the same period, but it might be interesting to find out. )
Apparently, Utah, like most or all other states, had a two-tier state tax system in which Utah residents paid a lower state tax rate than nonresidents. Accordingly, the Utah state tax return had places for the taxpayer to check to indicate whether or not the taxpayer had been a resident of Utah during the tax year in question.
Romney had left that area of the Utah tax form blank. However, the amount that he actually paid the State of Utah was the amount that he would have owed IF he had been a Utah state resident. (It certainly seemed that Romney was trying to have it both ways, namely, paying Utah at the lower Utah resident tax rate while avoiding saying whether or not he had actually been a Utah resident.)
When Massachusetts Democrats claimed that Romney was not eligible to run for Governor because he had been a resident of Utah, however, Romney denied that, claiming he had been a resident of Massachusetts all along. He attempted to resolve the Utah state tax issue by paying Utah the difference between the taxes he would have owed Utah as a nonresident and the Utah resident amount he had actually paid Utah.
Utah accepted the payment and did not prosecute him. And, Massachusetts seemed to accept that because it allowed Romney to run for Governor, which, of course, he did. Meanwhile, there had been hearings on the matter--and I assume that Romney testified at those hearings under oath that he had been a Massachusetts resident all along.
So, imagine my surprise when I saw a clip on the Rachel Maddow show on July 12, 2012 in which Romney brought up the Democratic challenge to his Massachusetts residency and said (to a Democrat, of the Democratic Party's challenge to his residency) "You were right."
So, did Romney commit tax fraud and/or perjury when he first signed his Utah state tax return and paid what a resident of Utah would owe? Or, did he commit perjury when he amended his Utah tax return and claimed he had NOT been a resident of Utah during the time in question?
Did he commit perjury vis a vis the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while attempting to prove he had been a Massachusetts resident all along so he could run for Governor of Massachusetts, or is he lying to voters now, when he ADMITS that Massachusetts Democrats were right when they claimed he was ineligible to run for Governor of Massachusetts because he had been a resident of Utah?
As far as controlling Bain at the time, though, his residency is irrelevant: If he was the sole stockholder of Bain at the time in question, he was controlling Bain at the time in question, no matter where he resided at the time. And if was not the sole stockholder of Bain at the time in question, then he and/or Bain lied to the SEC.
You can't possibly be a resident of Massachusetts and a resident of Utah at the same time and you can't possibly be the sole stockholder of Bain and not in control of Bain at the same time (unless maybe if he put the stock in a blind trust, but I assume that would have been disclosed to the SEC, if it were true). Whether or not the average person can follow the tax and possible perjury issue, I think everyone can easily be made to understand, if they don't already know it, that the sole owner of a company controls that company.
Meanwhile, Romney has just admitted on video that he never had a right to run for Governor of Massachusetts.
Easy for him to say now. Too bad he did not admit the truth before he was elected Governor, though.
By the way, he spent most of his Governorship making himself known nationally so that he could run for President one day. As he did so, as Governor, who should be the number one booster of his state, Romney regularly put down Massachusetts publicly, until The Boston Globe called him on it.
2. Honestly, I am thinking of writing State Attorney General Coakley, with a cc to Governor Patrick.
However bad Coakley may or may not have been as Scott Brown's opponent in the race for Kennedy's seat, she's been danged good in all her various roles as a lawyer for Massachusetts. And Governor Patrick is national campaign co-chair for the Obama for President campaign, as he was also in 2008.
I see no reason why this should not at least be investigated to see if there is a basis for a perjury prosecution.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.