ringotuna
07-14-2012, 07:03 AM
So the Obama campaign is doing all out assult on the issue of Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, going so far as to suggest Romney committed a felony in filing fraudulent SEC reports. The talking point they've put out insists there can be one of only two conclusions, Either (A) Romney filed fraudulent SEC reports (a felony) or (B) he lied when he says he left Bain in 99. Putting aside for the moment the logical fallacy of only two possible conclusions....
Their accusations are premised the appearance of Romney's /s/ signature on half a dozen Bain~SEC filings after 1999 as sole share holder and CEO. I've viewed several of these filings myself so there is no denying this fact. However legal scholars have begun to chime in and offer opinions on the matter.
"But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.
None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:
Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.
Furthermore, none of the new fund perspective offerings after 1999 represents Romney in any capacity.
I've presented this information to others (Obama supporters) and the only response I've received in return (after filtering out the usual snarky assed ad hominems) is "I don't believe it" then and a repeat of the A or B talking point question I mentioned above, followed by a re-referral to the post 1999 Romney signatures as presented by some partisan talking head.
So aside from circular reasoning, can anyone put forth a reasonable argument that this is nothing more than a desperate smear campaign to capture the current political dialogue and distract from the real issues?
Their accusations are premised the appearance of Romney's /s/ signature on half a dozen Bain~SEC filings after 1999 as sole share holder and CEO. I've viewed several of these filings myself so there is no denying this fact. However legal scholars have begun to chime in and offer opinions on the matter.
"But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.
None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:
Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.
Furthermore, none of the new fund perspective offerings after 1999 represents Romney in any capacity.
I've presented this information to others (Obama supporters) and the only response I've received in return (after filtering out the usual snarky assed ad hominems) is "I don't believe it" then and a repeat of the A or B talking point question I mentioned above, followed by a re-referral to the post 1999 Romney signatures as presented by some partisan talking head.
So aside from circular reasoning, can anyone put forth a reasonable argument that this is nothing more than a desperate smear campaign to capture the current political dialogue and distract from the real issues?