CNN: Two Active Obama Supporters at Bain Confirm Romney Left in 1999

James Cessna · Jul 14, 2012

Okay, Mr. President. So, when are you going to clean up your political campaign and apologize to Mitt Romney for all of your false accusations and blatant lies???? Come on .... man up!

Why did it take CNN to call you out on this? Are your advisors falling down on their jobs? Perhaps you should replace Valerie Jarrett with an advisor who is more honest and more competent!

Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.

"Valerie Jarrett is not only one of President Barack Obama’s closest advisors; she also is one of the most radical, with close connections to the Chicago left that nurtured Obama in his early political career."

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999

posted at 12:41 pm on July 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

CNN reported last night that the accusations from Team Obama of felonious conduct are sheer nonsense and lies — and got that message from four executives at Bain, two of whom are “active” supporters of Barack Obama.

John King spoke to all four, three of whom are Democrats, and all four said that Mitt Romney left Bain in a big hurry in 1999 in order to work full time on rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics. The rushed departure created a lot of paperwork headaches as Bain tried to unwind Romney from leadership, which required a significant amount of time.

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999 « Hot Air

kamikaze483 · Jul 14, 2012

Why did it take CNN to call you out on this? Are your advisors falling down on their jobs?

Obama's campain, IMO, knew that their description of what the SEC filings "proved" was invalid. However, they also knew that the issue was very complicated. It was their intention to grab hold of the Globe story and spin in in such a way that oversimplified and perverted the truth.

The sad truth is that this sort of strategy is proven to generate votes among people who are too ignorant or lazy to independently verify the propaganda provided. Many people take what the President says as if it is the gospel truth. As if he would never lie. LOL.

James Cessna · Jul 14, 2012

kamikaze483 said:
Obama's campain, IMO, knew that their description of what the SEC filings "proved" was invalid. However, they also knew that the issue was very complicated. It was their intention to grab hold of the Globe story and spin in in such a way that oversimplified and perverted the truth.

The sad truth is that this sort of strategy is proven to generate votes among people who are too ignorant or lazy to independently verify the propaganda provided. Many people take what the President says as if it is the gospel truth. As if he would never lie. LOL.

You are indeed correct, kamikaze.

But the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.

As Fortune wrote earlier, Romney left Bain suddenly — rather than as part of an organized transition plan — after being asked to lead an Olympic organizing committee that had spiraled out of control. Moreover, it was unclear in February 1999 if Romney’s leave of absence would be permanent, or if he would return (as he had in 1994, after losing a U.S.Senate race to Ted Kennedy). He didn’t formally give up his title and firm ownership until 2002, once the Games had been successful and he was interested in other elective office. In the interim, he continued to fulfill legal obligations such as signing certain documents — but actual investment and managerial decisions were being made by others.

Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999 « Hot Air

Matt Foley · Jul 14, 2012

Does it really matter when Romney quit Bain Capital?

Does it really matter if SS guards at concentration camps leave their post on 6th May, 1945?

Every topic needs Nazis.

lol, I just googled it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

teamosil · Jul 14, 2012

James Cessna said:
CNN: Two Active Obama Supporters at Bain Confirm Romney Left in 1999

Ok, so your position is that he lied on the SEC forms? So rather than continue his campaign, he should serve up to 5 years in prison?

kamikaze483 · Jul 14, 2012

teamosil said:
Ok, so your position is that he lied on the SEC forms? So rather than continue his campaign, he should serve up to 5 years in prison?

If you look in the other thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/130472-romney-didn-t-leave-bain-1999-w-404-a.html

You will see that it has already been proven, re-proven, and proven again that the SEC documents are not evidence of any managerial or operational contol at Bain on the part of Mitt Romney. As long as he was not voting his own shares (and no one has claimed that he was voting his shares), he can be listed as the CEO and sole stakeholder. This is because the ownership of the company was in transition. SEC requires the seller of a company to remain listed on SEC filings as the owner until the buyout is complete. The buyout was not complete until 2002.

Mitt can state that he had no control or input whatsoever at Bain after 1999, and also list himself as the sole stockholder and CEO on the SEC filings without lying, committing a crime or contradicting himself. Both can truthfully occur at the same time.

teamosil · Jul 14, 2012

kamikaze483 said:
Mitt can state that he had no control or input whatsoever at Bain after 1999, and also list himself as the sole stockholder and CEO on the SEC filings without lying, committing a crime or contradicting himself. Both can truthfully occur at the same time.

No, that's false. The CEO has legal responsibility for the operation of the company. That's why they make the CEO sign the forms. He's the guy that is accountable. In fact, in court if you can show that the CEO was not controlling the company, then you've shown that he breached his fiduciary duty and can hold him personally liable for anything that goes wrong at the company. By signing those forms he is claiming to the government that he is the guy running the company.

kamikaze483 · Jul 14, 2012

teamosil said:
No, that's false. The CEO has legal responsibility for the operation of the company. That's why they make the CEO sign the forms. He's the guy that is accountable. In fact, in court if you can show that the CEO was not controlling the company, then you've shown that he breached his fiduciary duty and can hold him personally liable for anything that goes wrong at the company. By signing those forms he is claiming to the government that he is the guy running the company.

That is not true. If you look at the SEC regulations for form 13d (below), and the definitions of "ownership" and "control" as defined by the SEC, you will see that the SEC's definitions are different from the definitions in contract and business law.

Romney was NOT (necessarily) the owner, except in the eyes of the SEC. As we showed in the other thread, the regulations are ridiculous, but they nevertheless exist.

This does not prove the negative that Romney did NOT have control at Bain. It only proves that even without any control or managment in the firm WHATSOEVER, Romney would have still had to submit these documents this way to the SEC.

Schedule 13D

Keywords: "directly or indirectly"

pbrauer · Jul 14, 2012

teamosil said:
No, that's false. The CEO has legal responsibility for the operation of the company. That's why they make the CEO sign the forms. He's the guy that is accountable. In fact, in court if you can show that the CEO was not controlling the company, then you've shown that he breached his fiduciary duty and can hold him personally liable for anything that goes wrong at the company. By signing those forms he is claiming to the government that he is the guy running the company.

Exactly, notice that he defects answering the questions about the SEC documents in the ABC interview:

KARL: Okay but let me ask you, because a lot of this comes down to exactly when you had responsibility for what regarding Bain. After 1999, you are still listed on SEC document as being quote, "the chairman of the board, the chief executive officer and the president." Don't ultimately you bear responsibility for what happened at the company during that time?

ROMNEY: I left the company in February of 1999, but retained ownership until we were able to negotiate a departure and retirement program from the company. I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999. [...]

Transcript: Romney Responds to Bain Attacks In ABC Interview - ABC News

He knows damn well he is the responsible person, so he doesn't give a direct answer. If he isn't the responsible person, who the HELL is??? :roll:

a351 · Jul 14, 2012

pbrauer said:
Exactly, notice that he defects answering the questions about the SEC documents in the ABC interview:

KARL: Okay but let me ask you, because a lot of this comes down to exactly when you had responsibility for what regarding Bain. After 1999, you are still listed on SEC document as being quote, "the chairman of the board, the chief executive officer and the president." Don't ultimately you bear responsibility for what happened at the company during that time?

ROMNEY: I left the company in February of 1999, but retained ownership until we were able to negotiate a departure and retirement program from the company. I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999. [...]

Transcript: Romney Responds to Bain Attacks In ABC Interview - ABC News

He knows damn well he is the responsible person, so he doesn't give a direct answer. If he isn't the responsible person, who the HELL is??? :roll:

0. Those documents include several pages specifying fund management. The section begins:
Set forth below is information regarding the background of the senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital. Also listed are certain investment professionals responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Brookside and Sankaty funds, which are affiliated funds of Fund VII.
It then goes on to list 18 managers of the private equity fund. Mitt Romney is not among them. Same goes for an affiliated co-investment fund, whose private placement memorandum is dated September 2000.
Then there is Bain Capital Venture Fund -- the firm's first dedicated venture capital effort -- whose private placement memorandum is dated January 2001. Romney also isn't listed among its "key investment professionals," or as part of its day-to-day operations or investment committee.

The contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain -- which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.
As Fortune wrote earlier, Romney left Bain suddenly -- rather than as part of an organized transition plan -- after being asked to lead an Olympic organizing committee that had spiraled out of control. Moreover, it was unclear in February 1999 if Romney's leave of absence would be permanent, or if he would return (as he had in 1994, after losing a U.S.Senate race to Ted Kennedy). He didn't formally give up his title and firm ownership until 2002, once the Games had been successful and he was interested in other elective office. In the interim, he continued to fulfill legal obligations such as signing certain documents -- but actual investment and managerial decisions were being made by others.

Full Article: Documents: Romney didn't manage Bain funds - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet

apdst · Jul 14, 2012

teamosil said:
Ok, so your position is that he lied on the SEC forms? So rather than continue his campaign, he should serve up to 5 years in prison?

That would be the only way Obama could win...if the Republican condidate went to prison, or died. :rofl

teamosil · Jul 14, 2012

kamikaze483 said:
That is not true. If you look at the SEC regulations for form 13d (below), and the definitions of "ownership" and "control" as defined by the SEC, you will see that the SEC's definitions are different from the definitions in contract and business law.

Romney was NOT (necessarily) the owner, except in the eyes of the SEC. As we showed in the other thread, the regulations are ridiculous, but they nevertheless exist.

This does not prove the negative that Romney did NOT have control at Bain. It only proves that even without any control or managment in the firm WHATSOEVER, Romney would have still had to submit these documents this way to the SEC.

Schedule 13D

Keywords: "directly or indirectly"

Is it your contention that Romney was, or was not, the CEO, president and managing director at that time?

If he was, then legally, he was responsible for what the company did and certainly it is fair to blame him for the things the company he had total legal control over as CEO, president and managing director did. Whether he was actively participating in the company or not isn't really relevant there. If he was CEO, president and managing director, he clearly had the legal authority to put a stop to it.

If he was not, then he lied on an SEC filing.

kamikaze483 · Jul 14, 2012

teamosil said:
Is it your contention that Romney was, or was not, the CEO, president and managing director at that time?

If he was, then legally, he was responsible for what the company did and certainly it is fair to blame him for the things the company he had total legal control over as CEO, president and managing director did. Whether he was actively participating in the company or not isn't really relevant there. If he was CEO, president and managing director, he clearly had the legal authority to put a stop to it.

If he was not, then he lied on an SEC filing.

I'm saying that he WAS the CEO, President, and Managing Director as far as the SEC is concerned. Not as far as any other rules and laws are concerned.

As a real life example, Atlanta Medical Center was purchased by Tenet Healthcare about 15 years ago. I worked on the buyout. The agreement was for Tenet to pay the former owners of Atlanta Medical Center x number of dollars over a period of 6 years. The completion of the buyout did not occur until 2003. During the period between 1997 and 2003, Tenet owned Atlanta Medical Center. However, the former owners were required to be listed on some SEC documents (including the 13d) as the owner and managing partners- because the SEC requires it to be done this way. In real life, Atlanta Medical Center's former owners had no ownership of the hospital during the buyout period. However, in the event of contract default on the part of Tenet, the former owners would have retaken control (an act similar to repossession or foreclosure). In the eyes of the SEC, this creates an indirect "ownership interest."

In that instance, the former owners carried no insurance, had no liability, and no control over the actions of Tenet during the buyout. Still, the SEC required them to be reported as the owners.

This is simply the way it is. IMO the regs don't make a whole lot of sense, but they are what they are.

randel · Jul 14, 2012

James Cessna said:
You are indeed correct, kamikaze.

But the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.

As Fortune wrote earlier, Romney left Bain suddenly — rather than as part of an organized transition plan — after being asked to lead an Olympic organizing committee that had spiraled out of control. Moreover, it was unclear in February 1999 if Romney’s leave of absence would be permanent, or if he would return (as he had in 1994, after losing a U.S.Senate race to Ted Kennedy). He didn’t formally give up his title and firm ownership until 2002, once the Games had been successful and he was interested in other elective office. In the interim, he continued to fulfill legal obligations such as signing certain documents — but actual investment and managerial decisions were being made by others.

Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999 « Hot Air

if he continued to sign documents for the company, then yes, he was involved with the company. it is what it is.

AdamT · Jul 14, 2012

The most interesting thing about this thread is that there are two active Obama supporters at Bain. That Romney sure inspires loyalty! :lamo

Μολὼν λαβέ · Jul 14, 2012

AdamT said:
The most interesting thing about this thread is that there are two active Obama supporters at Bain. That Romney sure inspires loyalty! :lamo

I didn't know Bain was a Republican only global asset management company.

Too bad Obama can't collaborate with those who have differing political views to get the job done like they apparently do at Bain.

upsideguy · Jul 14, 2012

kamikaze483 said:
If you look in the other thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/130472-romney-didn-t-leave-bain-1999-w-404-a.html

You will see that it has already been proven, re-proven, and proven again that the SEC documents are not evidence of any managerial or operational contol at Bain on the part of Mitt Romney. As long as he was not voting his own shares (and no one has claimed that he was voting his shares), he can be listed as the CEO and sole stakeholder. This is because the ownership of the company was in transition. SEC requires the seller of a company to remain listed on SEC filings as the owner until the buyout is complete. The buyout was not complete until 2002.

Mitt can state that he had no control or input whatsoever at Bain after 1999, and also list himself as the sole stockholder and CEO on the SEC filings without lying, committing a crime or contradicting himself. Both can truthfully occur at the same time.

sorry, but your last statement is a contradiction. If you were President, CEO and sole shareholder, you had control. In fact, you had absolute control. If you choose to assert that control is another matter, but you had control. Now, he may not have been active in the business; but by definition he was responsible for the business. Any one with a claim against the company and its management could have easily enjoined Romney and he would have had very difficult time extracting himself from such a suit. He chose to remain the manager of record for a reason, unfortunately for him that decision bites him.

That notwithstanding, as in and of itself, its condemning, I fully believe he was in Salt Lake doing his thing and not in charge of Bain day-to-day. But, I find it absurd that anyone would believe that he would turn over his entire net worth to one of his underlings without active monitoring of that investment. When asked about whether he attended meetings or participated in conference calls, he did not deny such, he just gave us the plausible deniability of no recollection thereof. Its a bit naive to think otherwise. Clearly the guy has his mitt in the wringer on this one and now he is scrambling with excuses as lame as the guy that didn't do his history homework and now is asked a question by the teacher.

upsideguy · Jul 14, 2012

kamikaze483 said:
That is not true. If you look at the SEC regulations for form 13d (below), and the definitions of "ownership" and "control" as defined by the SEC, you will see that the SEC's definitions are different from the definitions in contract and business law.

Romney was NOT (necessarily) the owner, except in the eyes of the SEC. As we showed in the other thread, the regulations are ridiculous, but they nevertheless exist.

This does not prove the negative that Romney did NOT have control at Bain. It only proves that even without any control or managment in the firm WHATSOEVER, Romney would have still had to submit these documents this way to the SEC.

Schedule 13D

Keywords: "directly or indirectly"

Congrats. I think you have come the closest to the correct answer on this as anyone, but you aren't really there. Its not about Schedule 13(D), but about the way venture capital and private equity firms are structured. You see, they raise money in funds, then deploy that investment. These funds each have officers and directors; but the real management of these funds is usually by another entity, the investment management company, which is usually comprised of the principals of funds plus others. Of course, the management company gets to charge big fees to the individual investment funds as well as big fees to the corporations within the portfolio.

The SEC filings that I have seen that have given rise to this issue are a particular investment fund, Bain Capital Partners VI, L.P., likely a mature fund.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/0000927016-01-001009-0001.txt

I have not seen, first hand, a filing that titled Romney in an executive role with the management company. That would be the smoking gun It appears that management company is Bain Capital, Inc. It is clear that Romney has the title of Managing Partner with the management company. While that is certainly a senior position, he is one of many MP's (they are to I-Banks what VPs are to banks, everyone has that title) However, if Romney had a title, such as President or CEO of that, he is screwed.

I for one will stand down on pressing on this until I see better evidence that Romney had a title of clear executive authority with the management company. If I find such, I will be back all over this issue.

upsideguy · Jul 14, 2012

Μολὼν λαβέ;1060689573 said:
I didn't know Bain was a Republican only global asset management company.

Too bad Obama can't collaborate with those who have differing political views to get the job done like they apparently do at Bain.

You are apparently a new observer of American politics and must have found your new hobby well after 2009.

In First 100 Days, Obama Seen as Making a Bipartisan Effort

Or, for a more humorous view:

Robert Lanham: Obama Dislocates Shoulder Reaching Across the Aisle

Matt Foley · Jul 14, 2012

The globalist song and dance continues.

Romney and Obama both know exactly what Romney did at Bain. The globalist one-party will leak information to prevent one false-party from gaining a super-majority over the other false-party.

If one false-party (say for example the Democrats) gain a super majority than they can't say, "Hey the Republicans are obstructing." Then voters would go, "hmmmm, something is amiss here" when all the false-party campaign promises aren't being met even with a super majority.

upsideguy · Jul 14, 2012

apdst said:
That would be the only way Obama could win...if the Republican condidate went to prison, or died. :rofl

... or if the Republicans put up a 1% guy that actually endorsed healthcare reform as we know it; had no real plans for fixing problems; could not deliver a coherent message because he stood for nothing other than 'I want to be Prez"; and lacked the backbone to put the misguided fringe of his party in their place.... that guy loses to Obama.

OpportunityCost · Jul 14, 2012

upsideguy said:
... or if the Republicans put up a 1% guy that actually endorsed healthcare reform as we know it; had no real plans for fixing problems; could not deliver a coherent message because he stood for nothing other than 'I want to be Prez"; and lacked the backbone to put the misguided fringe of his party in their place.... that guy loses to Obama.

Or your guy is going nuclear on negative because his ideas are so ****ed he knows he loses if he talks about them so he LIES his balls off about his opponent to win.

Chicago thug style. You liberals wait, if this guy wins another term we are going to see so many EOs grabbing power you wont believe it.

AdamT · Jul 15, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
Or your guy is going nuclear on negative because his ideas are so ****ed he knows he loses if he talks about them so he LIES his balls off about his opponent to win.

Chicago thug style. You liberals wait, if this guy wins another term we are going to see so many EOs grabbing power you wont believe it.

Boo hoo!! Romney needs to toughen the **** up and quit whining. He's done nothing but run lying, negative ads from day one. His first ad was literally the most dishonest POS I've ever seen -- showing Obama quoting McCain and implying that it was a statement by Obama. But I don't recall Obama whining to anyone who would listen that his feewings were hurt.

cpwill · Jul 15, 2012

from The Real Romney, by a couple of Boston Globe Reporters:

...His departure from Bain Capital, though, was not so neat. The partners squabbled over how the firm would operate without him. A power struggle ensued. Several partners made plans to leave. Suddenly a company that relied on loyalty, long-term relationships, and Romney’s personal courtship of investors seemed to be at risk. …

Romney grew worried that the company he had worked so hard to build would be destroyed. The anxiety escalated until finally, one Sunday afternoon, Romney and one of his fellow Mormons at Bain, Bob Gay, knelt on the floor together and prayed for its survival. “We were facing a crucial event that threatened the very existence of our partnership,” Gay said later. In the end, the crisis abated. Romney left the firm, retaining a financial interest in it, and Bain Capital continued to thrive...

That sounds like he'd pretty much left, all right - while retaining his financial interest in it.

lpast · Jul 15, 2012

James Cessna said:
Okay, Mr. President. So, when are you going to clean up your political campaign and apologize to Mitt Romney for all of your false accusations and blatant lies???? Come on .... man up!

Why did it take CNN to call you out on this? Are your advisors falling down on their jobs? Perhaps you should replace Valerie Jarrett with an advisor who is more honest and more competent!

Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.

"Valerie Jarrett is not only one of President Barack Obama’s closest advisors; she also is one of the most radical, with close connections to the Chicago left that nurtured Obama in his early political career."

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999

posted at 12:41 pm on July 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

CNN reported last night that the accusations from Team Obama of felonious conduct are sheer nonsense and lies — and got that message from four executives at Bain, two of whom are “active” supporters of Barack Obama.

John King spoke to all four, three of whom are Democrats, and all four said that Mitt Romney left Bain in a big hurry in 1999 in order to work full time on rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics. The rushed departure created a lot of paperwork headaches as Bain tried to unwind Romney from leadership, which required a significant amount of time.

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999 « Hot Air

Wow isnt this a one sided cute kinda post...lol...When the far right apologizes for all the vicious lies theyve said about obama since his innaugaration then he should consider apologizing....this isnt a one way street here lol

CNN: Two Active Obama Supporters at Bain Confirm Romney Left in 1999

More options

James Cessna

kamikaze483

James Cessna

Matt Foley

Death2Globalists

teamosil

kamikaze483

teamosil

kamikaze483

pbrauer

a351

#NeverTrump

apdst

teamosil

kamikaze483

randel

AdamT

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Matt Foley

Death2Globalists

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

OpportunityCost

AdamT

cpwill

lpast