HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » re: SEC filings —the char...

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:33 PM

re: SEC filings —the charge is that Romney is a LIAR not a felon

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:51 PM - Edit history (3)

Some folks seem to think that the Obama campaign said that Romney is a felon.

It did not. Mitt may be a felon on some other matter, but that is not the position of the Obama campaign. The campaign said that Romney is a liar, and that if his claims of disassociation from Bain circa 2000-2002 were true then his SEC filings would be false, which would be potentially felonious.

Either Romney was “misrepresenting his position” at Bain to the SEC, “which is a felony,“ or he was ”misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people,” she said during a conference call Thursday morning.


Nobody in the Obama campaign believes that Romney was misrepresenting his status to the SEC by pretending to be Bain CEO in 2002 even though he had left in 1999. Romney really was Bain CEO then.

He is a stone LIAR in repeatedly claiming to voters and journalists (not the SEC) that he had no association with Bain at that time.

The felony accusation was made in the alternative... Romney is a liar, and if he is not a liar then he is a felon.

(Like if he claimed to be 35 years old but his drivers license says 64... if the claim is true then he must have perjured himself when applying for his license, but nobody believes he's really 35.)

On Edit (to clarify): There are two different filings to agencies with similar acronyms. Misrepresentation of who the CEO happens to be in an SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) filing is a serious matter, being both perjury and potentially some sort of securities fraud. (Saying who your CEO is is the sort of information investors are supposed to be able to rely on.)

Willful and knowing misrepresentation of one's resume on an FEC (Federal Election Commission) financial disclosure form is perjury, but I wouldn't expect a prosecution on that one. (It would get down to some semantics, as most perjury prosecutions do.)

The Obama campaign's use of the word "felony" was in the context of SEC filings.

It is fine as politics to say Mitt perjured himself on his FEC disclosure documents, but that is not what the Obama campaign was talking about, the subject of the OP. (And I have not, to date, heard the "P" word from the Obama campaign in the context of FEC disclosure, though that may be coming.)

So to repliers who were talking about FEC, not SEC, I take your point.

27 replies, 3305 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 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply re: SEC filings —the charge is that Romney is a LIAR not a felon (Original post)
cthulu2016 Jul 2012 OP
annabanana Jul 2012 #1
RedStateLiberal Jul 2012 #2
Jackpine Radical Jul 2012 #3
RedStateLiberal Jul 2012 #5
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #4
Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #10
GarroHorus Jul 2012 #16
Motown_Johnny Jul 2012 #24
quinnox Jul 2012 #14
TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #19
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #6
HopeHoops Jul 2012 #7
cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #8
HopeHoops Jul 2012 #9
cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #15
HopeHoops Jul 2012 #27
KurtNYC Jul 2012 #11
cthulu2016 Jul 2012 #12
Wounded Bear Jul 2012 #13
Blanks Jul 2012 #21
bluesbassman Jul 2012 #17
quinnox Jul 2012 #18
bluesbassman Jul 2012 #20
TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #22
quinnox Jul 2012 #23
TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #25
quinnox Jul 2012 #26

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:34 PM

1. Rather not have either in the WH. . . n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:39 PM

2. Yep! Stephanie Cutter made this perfectly clear today

with Wolf on the Situation Room. They have to explain it to the media like they're children sometimes. I still think Wolf didn't understand...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedStateLiberal (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:41 PM

3. "It is very difficult to get a {person} to understand something

when {their} salary depends upon {their} not understanding it."
--Upton Sinclair

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:46 PM

5. Great quote! I haven't seen that one before.



Wolf Blitzer is not very bright. Did you happen to see him on celebrity Jeopardy? He lost miserably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:44 PM

4. Unfortunatley, if he worked for Bain after 1999, he lied on an FEC filing and that IS a felony. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:19 PM

10. Specifically, what filing are you referring to?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:40 PM

16. This one

 

Maddow blog Link

On page 27 he signed off on the following:

"Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

Either he lied on that FEC filing or he lied on the SEC filings. Either way, he committed a felony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:22 PM

24. Did you notice Diebold was listed on page 7 of the attachment page?

 

But more to the point.



Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake
Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active
role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any
Bain Capital entity in any way. The investments reported on pages 5-7 of Schedule A of
this Report were made pursuant to an agreement with Bain Capital regarding Mr.
Romney's retirement from Bain Capital. That agreement has expired, but the Reporting
Entities retain certain investments identified on this Report pursuant to investments made
prior to expiration of such agreement. All of such investments are passive in nature. The
total asset value and total income amount for these funds are reported as of December 31,
2010, which is the most recent date for which such information is available to the
Reporting Entities. The Reporting Entities have requested information about underlying
holdings of these investments and value and income amounts for these underlying
holdings. However, the fund managers have informed the Reporting Entities that this
information is confidential and proprietary, and have declined to provide such
information.






It seems to read that he left but then came back. I'm not a lawyer but Lawrence O'Donnell started his show tonight by saying that we don't know if he made false filings (paraphrased). I need more than this one oddly phrased paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

14. that isn't unfortunate

 

if Romney committed a crime, then he should be charged. Maybe you can pass this onto the Obama campaign and they can get the justice department to charge the dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GarroHorus (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:48 PM

19. Not quite

He claims to have left in 99 but in subsequent SEC filings he signs off as President and CEO.

The claim to leave in 99 is the lie, fucking Weird Willard was totally running that operation but he lied because he wants to avoid the blow back for what was going on with Bain during that stretch.
The path to the felony is if he isn't lying about leaving but was fraudulently reporting those positions in the company.

The OP's point is Weird Willard is lying and was running Bain in the early 2000's. Put him under oath and he'll match the filings but no one is going to put him under oath before the election so he can continue to lie like a rug but fewer and fewer will buy it and wonder why is he obviously hiding shit (which is simple he is an entitled, lying, smarmy fuck who can't even imagine being accountable and just wanted to dodge tough questions about his practices).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:47 PM

6. Depends on the audience. He "lied" on federal disclosure forms.

Lying to voters, Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:12 PM

7. He's a felon.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:16 PM

8. Well, then the Obama campaign strategy is stupid

If you believe that Romney was NOT CEO of Bain Capital in 2001/2002 then the Obama campaign is badly confused in their belief that he was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:18 PM

9. Either way, rMoney's trapped. He either committed a felony or committed another felony.

 

The average "Joe the Plumber" isn't going to understand any of this, but he fucked up royally and can't explain his way around it with time travel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeHoops (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:39 PM

15. If you are referring to discrepency between

SEC filings and FEC filings, I take your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:58 AM

27. Exactly. He's trapped either way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:21 PM

11. You make a good point for us to remember here.

My one caveat would be that the felony dialog puts Romney in the position of having to pick between being a felon and being a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:25 PM

12. Precisely

The felony "charge" was a rhetorical device making the point that there is a slew of sworn documents demonstrating beyond any doubt that Mitt was lying. (And to get the word out there.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:29 PM

13. Depends on who he lied to.....

and no, the Obama Team did not call him a felon or say he committed a felony.

They did say that it was possible, that if he lied on federal forms to the SEC or FEC, he might have committed a crime.

But he did lie. They've got proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:57 PM

21. Surely the republicans can't get behind someone who lied.

I think the Obama campaign is going to push him until he admits that he lied.

He'll have to. He was either at Bain, and lied about it. Or he was not at Bain and lied about it.

The administration should have access to both the FEC and the SEC documents; so they know that there is a conflict.

There are a lot of little political cartoons out there that are being shared on Facebook about Obama being a liar. I hope we come out of this with a good 'Romey is a liar' cartoon.

It seems to me that republicans really don't like it when someone lies. Unless it is to justify going to war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:42 PM

17. Romney can't be a "felon" at this point.

Technically he would at best have engaged in felonious activities. To actually be a "felon" he would need to be charged and convicted. The Obama campaign stated that “misrepresenting his position” at Bain to the SEC, “which is a felony“ is correct from a legal standpoint, and damn shrewed because the only way Romney can distance himself from the association is by full disclosure. I'd give odds that we'll never see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluesbassman (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:45 PM

18. so in other words, any Joe Blow can

 

say so and so is a "felon", and they are just blowing smoke? I guess it makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 09:55 PM

20. That's my understanding of the definition. That's what makes the Obama camp's statement so artful.

It is becoming crystal clear that Romney signed documents sent to the SEC that would be a felony to provide if not accurate. That is a legal fact. It's up to Romney to provide documentation that clarifies that issue and he has said repeatedly that he will not. Well played by team O in my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:05 PM

22. Where does that come from? No such thing was said.

A felon has a conviction, no one claimed Weird Willard is a felon. The point is if he was not the President and CEO of Bain post 1999 but claimed he was on SEC filings then that could well be be a felony crime and if convicted of such he would then be a felon.

What are you seeing as a misrepresentation? Are you saying falsifying filings isn't a potential felony? What is your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:10 PM

23. The part I don't get is why

 

wasn't he charged if he committed a crime? You would think his republican opponents would have used this in the campaign, like a Newt Gingrich, god knows he hated Romney. Instead, they were mum on this. It doesn't make any sense. Unless I put a tin foil hat on and start imagining some kind of conspiracies to protect Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:34 PM

25. Lying isn't a crime.

The point is to catch him in the lie. There is no evidence Weird Willard wasn't President and CEO of Bain in the early 2000's no matter what silly bullshit he spews.

Now if he were to stick to the lie under oath then he'd potentially be in serious trouble legally but he won't ever be under oath before the election even if the thing was really pressed and under oath he'd tell the truth once it doesn't matter.

He has two options. Be an admitted liar or run serious risk of being felon. It isn't complicated or misleading in the slightest, it is black and white in block print.

His opposition did call him on Bain, that is what started the goofy ass lying as far as I can tell. He didn't want the the blow back for the operation during the early 2000's so he just spun bullshit he wasn't there. Since then there has been digging and his signature is all over the place.

What is this conspiracy stuff? What is your position that he didn't claim not to be associated with Bain during the disputed time period? That he did not sign off as President and CEO on official filings during the same time? That false filings aren't illegal?

What the TeaPubliKlans did or didn't do and all of that is not relevant, it is a distraction from the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:42 PM

26. ok, what confused me is

 

some duers seem convinced he did commit a serious crime, a felony, and you are saying its possible he merely lied, which is not a crime. So it is a little confusing and like getting whiplash from these conflicting opinions I have been reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread