Heard this story today, but only caught part of it but here's the summary.
In his campaign Mitt denies being CEO at Bain when they were outsourcing jobs, and closing companies. He says the stepped down in 1999. However, signed records submitted to the SEC say he was CEO through 2002 when the outsourcing was occurring. SO using "critical thinking" he either:
1. Wasn't CEO and not involved but that means he lied to the SEC which is a felony. OR
2. He was CEO and was involved in the outsourcing and thus lied to the American voters.That won't look very good to the un- and under-employed right now.
These inconsistencies were uncovered by reporters for a news service.
Neither looks very good. He either committed a felony or Lied on his job resume. mmmm.... we had a Liar-in-Chief for 8 years, not long ago.. don't need another.
Loc: Alexandria, VA
In his campaign Mitt denies being CEO at Bain when they were outsourcing jobs, and closing companies.
From what I've read/seen, they're saying he was the CEO, Chairman of the Board and sole owner, but made no operational decisions -- which, of course, begs the question: if you're CEO, COTB and the owner and do basically nothing ... why are you even there (unless to take a fall?)?
At the very least, this should call into question why CEO's are getting teh zillions if they don't have any say in how a corporation is run ...
Yet another demonstration how the whole "corporation" deal is a giant scam.
Apparently, this is what's called being a "legacy signatory", which means it would not be uncommon for him to still be listed in association with transactions that were initiated prior to his departure from the corporation. What doesn't pass the smell test is his recorded association with a handful of deals that were initiated several years after his supposed exit from Bain.
There is some speculation that SEC laws were either broken, or at best flaunted, by both Romney and Bain.
Bringing the former badministration up on charges after the fact would have been a slippery slope at best, and probably wouldn't be viewed as the best use of taxpayer dollars or Congress' time (too bad the idiots in the House don't see their own shenanigans in the same light). So they got away with it only because it's been allowed to fade into the sunset.
It's different with Romney. He's still just a candidate, which means if voters start paying attention, he'll never be anything but a candidate.
I have to believe that his lack of transparency and truthfulness have already begun to turn off a lot of Independents, and it's only a matter of time before republican voters succumb to buyers' remorse on election day.
He was able to overcome "Anybody but Romney" throughout the primaries. But I don't know if he'll be able to exploit the "Anybody but Obama" objective in the general. That will ultimately depend on how robust the Dem's messaging is from now to November.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.