Mitt caught in a direct lie?
 

In a statement released Thursday, Bain defended Romney. "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure," the statement reads. "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period." This will not discourage you or the losers at Huffpost, of course, who will ignore Obama's failed record and numerous lies about Gitmo and jobs, and trump this Bain story up to be evidence Mitt Romney is an autistic antichrist.

So when he testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" and when Bain described him in their 2001 SEC filings as "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president", and that he owned 100% of Bain in 2002 and was receiving a six figure salary, was that true?

Yes (though I do not think he testified to his salary or to his ownership of Bain?).

The only reason anyone cares about these technicalities is that Bain had to close companies and outsource jobs in 1999, which no one except unskilled American retards has a problem with. So again, if this is a "direct lie" (as opposed to an indirect one?), it is only marginally more significant to me than a candidate lying about what he ate for breakfast. But I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts Bain's assertion that he left in 1999, kept his titles for a couple years and moved on.

Again, even if we concede Romney lied about this (and nefariously ... helped his company make millions of dollars ... even while he was in Utah), I'd rather have a president who lies to cover up his successes from dumb Americans, than one who lies about his failures like Obama repeatedly has done.

No, that part was in Bain's SEC filings for 2001/2002 from what I can gather.

So it's ok in principle to lie to American voters about something that may otherwise cost you votes?

It appears their own SEC filings contradict that.

So it's ok in principle to lie to American voters about something that may otherwise cost you votes? No, not on principle. But when you've got only two choices, and both of them lie about things, it makes sense to go with the one who lies about less important things (e.g., this crap) rather than the things Obama has lied about (jobs, gitmo, taxes).

It appears their own SEC filings contradict that. I mean, maybe? They show he had titles. He acknowledges having the titles but denies having responsibility for Bain during that period, and Bain backs him up on that...

Well since they ALL lie you are doing the same thing they do. Maybe you deserve the politicians you get.

Ok, now I'm really confused. If he's responsible for things that the American public find unpleasant such as outsourcing US jobs to China, that shouldn't be held against him?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ention-center/

And having a salary does not mean you run things...

There's speculation he may have done something that may be a crime? Sounds...speculative.

Just to be clear on that point, the "American public" does not view outsourcing US jobs to be unpleasant. Poor retarded unskilled Americans hold this view, and Republicans never got their votes anyway.

This. It is not rare for someone listed as a President/CEO of a company who has no real active role in running anymore and just signs off on things. For smaller companies this can be the case when the original owner transfers day to day operations of the company to their son or daughter and is listed as President and/or CEO, but their son or daughter actually does everything.

If I'm understanding it correctly, he said that he gave up all power in the company in 1999. It seems that instead he still retained 100% of the shareholding, was chairman of the company and attended board meetings of various Bain owned companies, and was receiving a large salary. Do those two things really go together?

Of him lying, or Ken bringing this up? Both?

Of him lying about a little outsourcing? If he can't defend that then he's a pretty shitty Republican.

Because it was politically convenient to deny any connection with the outsourcing of US jobs.

Yes it is certainly pointless to draw attention to the man who could become US president being proven to have lied to the American people. Why would anyone give a **** about something like that..

Yay! POTUS engaging in the equivalent to Birtherism. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/clap.gif

I remember when that used to be a disqualifier for serious political consideration.

But that's Romney's base.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, as I said previously this has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of outsourcing, it's simply a matter of whether the guy directly lied to the American public, You keep saying there is no evidence this occured, and that is simply untrue. There appears to be plenty of evidence that it occured which is why it's currently a major news story.

No, the fact that the lies were about something lurid (and the GOP were in a Captain Ahab mood) got him impeached. Didn't the public turn against the GOP shortly after? I seem to remember something like that, but I was more interested in boobies at the time.