Sunday, July 15, 2012


Since Willard is claiming he left Bain [Vulture] Capital in February 1999 to go "save" the 2002 Winter Olympics (i.e., beg for taxpayer money to fix it), he can't be held accountable for any of the nasty things that Bain did in the years after that. (Hmmm. Funny. To prove his residency in Massachusetts in order to run for governor there, he swore that he regularly attended BUSINESS MEETINGS in the state.) Needless to say, Romney's shifty conduct has raised questions. In fact, Forbes' T.J. Walker has THIRTY-FIVE of 'em right here. Here are some of them:

5. You earned at least $100,000 as an executive from Bain in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings according to filings with State of Massachusetts. Can you give an example of anyone else you personally know getting a six figure income, not dividend or investment return, but actual income, from a company they had nothing to do with?

9. In 2002, you are listed as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors LLC in its annual report. What does this mean?

15. Isn’t it possible that if Bain had made an investment during 1999 to 2002 that you felt was truly odious, for example ownership of a legal Nevada brothel, that you could have and would have used your authority to veto such a decision?

19. According to the Boston Globe, “Romney also testified that ‘there were a number of social trips and business trips that brought [him] back to Massachusetts, board meetings’ while he was running the Olympics. He added that he remained on the boards of several companies, including the Lifelike Co., in which Bain Capital held a stake until 2001.” You testified that while running the Olympics you took a number of business trips to Massachusetts and for board meetings for companies including Lifelike Co. Bain had a stake in this company until 2001. Are you contending that you could attend board meetings for Lifelike Co at the same time Bain Capital had a stake in Lifelike Co and at the same time you owned the stock of Bain Capital, but that somehow your attending a board meeting for a company partially owned by Bain had nothing to do with Bain because you were on the board as Mitt Romney the individual, not as the representative of Bain?

24. Why do SEC documents claim you were Chief Executive Officer, President, and Managing Director of Bain Capital 2000 and 2001 if you were merely the sole owner? 

25. Did you sign this SEC document? 

26. Is this accurate or not?

27. If you didn’t sign it, is someone guilty of lying to the SEC? 

28. True or false, it is a felony to lie on SEC filings?

Why don't I think Willard will be answering any of these any time soon?


  1. I hope the corporate run media asks the Magic Mormon these questions but I won't hold my breath.

  2. You are doing a great job seeing as how Romney's lies come faster than the they can be fact checked. Here is a link to a former partner confirming hes a liar. Lots of sources and well vetted.

    I hope this helps. There are a lot of links in this text....

    A former Bain Capital partner acknowledged Sunday that Mitt Romney "legally" remained the head of the private equity firm until 2002, contradicting Romney's claims that he left the company in February 1999.

    During an appearance on MSNBC's "Up w/ Chris Hayes," Edward Conard, who worked at the private equity firm during Romney's tenure as CEO, noted that Romney remained "legally" in charge of the company for at least two years after the former governor says he left to take over the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.

    "Mitt's names were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company," Conard said. Conard served as managing director of the firm from 1993 to 2007.

    MSNBC reports:

    Despite Romney's statements that he left in 1999, Conard's new remarks suggest that, in fact, Romney's continued ownership of the firm enabled him to negotiate a better exit deal. "We had to negotiate with Mitt because he was an owner of the firm," Conard said.The legal transfer of ownership dragged on for three years after Romney's informal departure to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, Conard said, because Romney was aggressively negotiating his retirement package and compensation with executives and lawyers at the company.

    "He'd created a lot of franchise value, and we were going to pay him for that," Conard said, adding: "We had a very complicated set of negotiations that took us about two years for us to unwind. During that time a management committee ran the firm, and we could hardly get Mitt to come back to negotiate the terms of his departure because he was working so hard on the Olympics."

    Conard's comments are the latest in a growing pile of evidence that contradicts Romney's repeated claims that he ended his active role at Bain in 1999. On Sunday, The Huffington Post reported on a corporate document filed in December 2002 that lists Romney as a "managing member" of Bain Capital Investors. Earlier reports show Romney listed as CEO on 2002 Securites and Exchange Commission filings, attending board meetings for Bain-affiliated companies after 1999, and receiving an at least $100,000 salary from Bain in 2001 and 2002.

    The discrepancies between these documents and Romney's account of his departure have become the focus of the presidential campaign, as President Obama's team raises questions about the Republican candidate's truthfulness. Beyond the issue of honesty, there are deeper implications for Romney if he was involved in the company after 1999, as Bain's outsourcing activity during that time has raised concern.

    Obama addressed the controversy on Saturday, telling DC-based ABC affiliate WJLA that Romney should come clean on his record.

    "Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," the president said.

  3. Here is another growing archive of Romney's lies