2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

Roy... Read some of the reader's responses in that link, and you'll see what their target audience is...

They remind me of a group of name-calling first graders.

[Blademaster]

Roy... Read some of the reader's responses in that link, and you'll see what their target audience is...

They remind me of a group of name-calling first graders.

I don't sink to the level of lunatics, Roy.

[Bear]

above user's username spoonerized is Madeblaster. Love it!

In other news this topic is nothing short of entertaining.

[Dark Sage]

I know, Blade, but I see them all the time... People who talk about the "Muslim Communist in the White House".

These ignorant people don't see the facts. Mr. Obama was married by a Protestant minister. His children were baptized by the same minister. No-one has ever seen him perform the daily prayers facing Mecca that all Muslims, without exception, are required to do. And he had done photo-ops where he has been shown on camera eating foods that are taboo to the Islamic faith.

But when I present this evidence to these clowns, they say I'm a "misguided sheep who is drinking too much Kool-Aid", referencing a tragic event that did not even involve that brand of soft drink. (It was actually Flavor-Aid. Shows how much they know.)

I would say these people are stupid, but they aren't. You don't choose to be stupid. This is ignorance.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy... Read some of the reader's responses in that link, and you'll see what their target audience is...

They remind me of a group of name-calling first graders.

I know, Blade, but I see them all the time... People who talk about the "Muslim Communist in the White House".

These ignorant people don't see the facts. Mr. Obama was married by a Protestant minister. His children were baptized by the same minister. No-one has ever seen him perform the daily prayers facing Mecca that all Muslims, without exception, are required to do. And he had done photo-ops where he has been shown on camera eating foods that are taboo to the Islamic faith.

But when I present this evidence to these clowns, they say I'm a "misguided sheep who is drinking too much Kool-Aid", referencing a tragic event that did not even involve that brand of soft drink. (It was actually Flavor-Aid. Shows how much they know.)

I would say these people are stupid, but they aren't. You don't choose to be stupid. This is ignorance.

What do these two things have ANYTHING to do with the CNN transcript? I want to know, I honestly want to know how what users post in reference to a article, has ANYTHING to do with it. I want to see you explain it.

[Dark Sage]

That link you provided was another link to a conservative webpage full of replies by ignorant fools. It was not a link to any CNN transcript I know.

[Roy Karrde]

That link you provided was another link to a conservative webpage full of replies by ignorant fools. It was not a link to any CNN transcript I know.

"MITT ROMNEY: They announced early on, one of their insiders said that they -- their -- their campaign was going to be based upon the strategy of -- quote -- "kill Romney," end of quote. That's what they're doing. It's disgusting. It's demeaning. It's something which I think the president should take responsibility for and stop.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: And do you believe you're being swiftboated in this campaign?"



That is the third paragraph on the page.



"(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NARRATOR: When a president doesn't tell the truth, how can we trust him to Romney's companies were pioneers of shipping U.S. jobs overseas.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Even in the flood of negative ads pouring out of each side of this race, Democrats are hitting one target again and again and again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain capital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain capital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain capital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain capital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain capital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bain capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off of this plant.

FOREMAN: The White House clearly wants to portray Mitt Romney's time at the helm of Bain Capital as a weak spot. In ad after ad, Democrats are suggesting Romney is a fat cat job outsourcer, an opportunistic financial predator, and a leader's out of touch with the working class. Never mind that many of those claims appear to be backed with little or no evidence.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

KEN GOLDSTEIN, PRESIDENT, CMAG-KANTAR MEDIA: The Obama campaign is absolutely doubling down on the Bain attack, no doubt about it. And if the work triple down existed, they would be doing that as well.

FOREMAN: Ken Goldstein is the political media analyst who believes President Obama was at one point looking to steal a page from Ronald Reagan's playbook, planning an optimistic, positive reelection campaign until economic troubles and weak poll numbers hit hard.

GOLDSTEIN: I think the Obama folks were hoping to run a campaign like "morning in America" in 1984. But the campaign I think they're look at is much more the George W. Bush campaign in 2004.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The accusations that John Kerry...

FOREMAN: He's talking about the swiftboat campaign, in which President Bush's challenger John Kerry was demonized over what his campaign considered an attribute. His decorated service as a soldier in Vietnam. The swiftboat ads, backed by a group of pro-Bush veterans, questioned the Democratic challenger's conduct in the war, his anti-war activities later and his patriotism.

(on camera): Kerry was slow to respond and never very effective in refuting their claims even though his critics offered little in the way of proof. He lost the election of course. And for many Democrats, swiftboating became a catch-all term for any unfair, untrue, personal assault on a candidate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Romney's companies...

FOREMAN (voice-over): But if the president is troubled by the comparison of his Bain attacks to Republican swiftboating, he's not showing it.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I think that when you're president, everything's call into questions. When you are president, everything is coming across you.

FOREMAN: Romney's tough responses this week appear to have been spurred by Republican calls for him to hit back fast.

GOLDSTEIN: Because as much as a presidential election is a referendum on the incumbent, the challenger still needs to reach that threshold level of credibility.

ROMNEY: I need you guys to work.

FOREMAN: And if he doesn't, some Republican analysts fear Mitt Romney could become the second politician from Massachusetts swiftboated out of the presidency."





That is right afterwards, for you to reach the comments section YOU WOULD HAVE TO SCROLL PAST THE WHOLE FREAKING TRANSCRIPT!

[Drago]

This thread could feasibly be carried out as a series of visitor messages.

[Dark Sage]

You know, Roy, these negative attacks made against Romney kind of remind me of certain strategies that Romney used in the primaries against Gingrich. Newt was way ahead in the polls until Romney unleashed a torrent of negative and untrue ads.

Did Romney ever apologize to Newt?

I mean, not that Newt didn't deserve it, but still . . .

[Roy Karrde]

You know, Roy, these negative attacks made against Romney kind of remind me of certain strategies that Romney used in the primaries against Gingrich. Newt was way ahead in the polls until Romney unleashed a torrent of negative and untrue ads.

Did Romney ever apologize to Newt?

I mean, not that Newt didn't deserve it, but still . . .

Please post the ad from Romney that says flat out that Newt is a criminal. There is a difference between negative and untrue ads ( Obama has ran them for weeks saying that Romney is a outsourcer ). To unfairly call some one a criminal lowers your campaign to a whole new level.

[Dark Sage]

Live by the sword die by the sword, Roy.

Meanwhile, Romney's latest negative ad against Obama mocks the President's singing skills while flaunting his own, in response to one of the President's ads. Frankly, when I saw it, it wanted to make me gag.

Frankly, I don't care if Romney can tap dance. He needs to show that he has skills that are actually useful for the job he wants to get, and he's doing a pretty poor job at conveying that message, IMOHO.

[Roy Karrde]

Live by the sword die by the sword, Roy.

So will you please tell me where Romney called Gingrich a felon? Where exactly was it? Exact Quote.

Meanwhile, Romney's latest negative ad against Obama mocks the President's singing skills while flaunting his own, in response to one of the President's ads. Frankly, when I saw it, it wanted to make me gag.

Frankly, I don't care if Romney can tap dance. He needs to show that he has skills that are actually useful for the job he wants to get, and he's doing a pretty poor job at conveying that message, IMOHO.

Dude Romney hasn't even begun his ad campaign, he is barely pushing out ads in preparation for a blitz later on. Meanwhile Obama has spent nearly 100 million dollars on ads, almost all of them attack ads. So I ask, which one is doing a poor job in conveying skills about what they will do with the Presidency in the next few years?

[Dark Sage]

So will you please tell me where Romney called Gingrich a felon? Where exactly was it? Exact Quote.

He didn't. But the ads were still full of lies. And Romney never apologized.

[Roy Karrde]

He didn't. But the ads were still full of lies. And Romney never apologized.

As explained before there is a difference between lying or stretching the truth, and outright calling a person a felon. One is basics of politics, the other is lowering yourself and the dignity of your campaign, and in Obama's case lowering the dignity of the office.

[Dark Sage]

As I said before, Roy, YOU are calling them liars.

Romney himself apparently does not have the nerve to do so. When asked if they were lying, he didn't give a straight answer.

[Roy Karrde]

As I said before, Roy, YOU are calling them liars.

Romney himself apparently does not have the nerve to do so. When asked if they were lying, he didn't give a straight answer.

It doesn't matter if it is a lie or not ( And it is as according to Washington Post and Fact Checker ). You do not call your opponent a criminal, period, end of story.

[Dark Sage]

Again, I don't recall Mr. Obama himself saying it.

In fact, he has not confirmed or denied anything in this whole issue.

Now, I am not saying that these accusations are true or not, but I will say that they are a lot more believable than the Birther accusations made against Mr. Obama., as you say they are.

I would personally rate the validity of the claims made by the Birthers alongside the claims that Elvis is still alive.

[Roy Karrde]

Again, I don't recall Mr. Obama himself saying it.

In fact, he has not confirmed or denied anything in this whole issue.

Now, I am not saying that these accusations are true or not, but I will say that they are a lot more believable than the Birther accusations made against Mr. Obama., as you say they are.

I would personally rate the validity of the claims made by the Birthers alongside the claims that Elvis is still alive.

A: It came by Obama's own campaign, thus he owns it because as Obama has said, the buck stops with him.

B: When given a chance to denounce what his campaign said he denied it.

C: The validity of the argument has already been destroyed both by Fact Checker and Washington Post so again the believability of it is at the same of the debunked birther arguments.

If Obama values the office of the Presidency then he needs to fire the idiots who pushed this view point and apologize to Romney. Then again this is Obama we are talking about...

[Dark Sage]

And Romney needs to disavow his association with Trump and SuperPACs run by bigots.

Your point?

[Roy Karrde]

And Romney needs to disavow his association with Trump and SuperPACs run by bigots.

Your point?

One is a actual part of your campaign and your underling who works at your discretion and speaks directly for your campaign, the other isn't?

Neither Trump nor any SuperPACs are employees Romney, he cannot fire them, they are not on his payroll unlike these employees of Obama.

[Dark Sage]

But he can refuse to accept money from them and stop letting them host fundraisers for him.

Which I doubt he'll do.

[Roy Karrde]

But he can refuse to accept money from them and stop letting them host fundraisers for him.

Which I doubt he'll do.

Again however we are talking about his own campaign members, not people from outside of the campaign, there is a wide difference from attending a fundraiser with some one who may have said something unsavory, and having your own campaign members do it. For Obama's own spokesmen to say it, and Obama not deny it and apologize, it is pretty much tantamount to it coming from Obama's own lips.

[Dark Sage]

Btw, Roy, I just read a news report that says that Romney wanted to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts while governor, and had developed a "fool-proof method" towards making sure that only the guilty were handed down such a penalty.

Now, support of the death penalty is not uncommon among the GOP, but is taboo among Mormons, from what I've heard. If this is true, Romney deserves excommunication from the faith.

And frankly, looking forward to voting against him in November is getting more and more fun with each passing day.

[Roy Karrde]

Btw, Roy, I just read a news report that says that Romney wanted to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts while governor, and had developed a "fool-proof method" towards making sure that only the guilty were handed down such a penalty.

Now, support of the death penalty is not uncommon among the GOP, but is taboo among Mormons, from what I've heard. If this is true, Romney deserves excommunication from the faith.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the question of whether and in what circumstances the state should impose capital punishment as a matter to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law. We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/offici...tal-punishment

[Dark Sage]

I apologize and take back that statement.

Still... Strange...

Romney spent a lot of time while governor crafting a bill that he likely knew would stand no chance of passing the state legislature..

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

[Dark Sage]

Another thing, Roy. If these accusations were false, you'd think that Romney would have documents handy that would prove so.

If he produced such documents, he'd make Obama look like a complete fool, and he'd skyrocket ahead in the polls.

But he has yet to produce any. So far we've had to take him at his word when he says that "There's no question but that his campaign is putting out information which is false and deceptive and dishonest. And they know it. And they ought to stop." But where he falls short of calling them lies.

[Roy Karrde]

Another thing, Roy. If these accusations were false, you'd think that Romney would have documents handy that would prove so.

If he produced such documents, he'd make Obama look like a complete fool, and he'd skyrocket ahead in the polls.

But he has yet to produce any. So far we've had to take him at his word when he says that "There's no question but that his campaign is putting out information which is false and deceptive and dishonest. And they know it. And they ought to stop." But where he falls short of calling them lies.

"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.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said."

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys...me-conclusion/

"Moreover, unwinding a private equity firm's ownership structure is extremely complicated. The "firm" itself is largely a legal construct of convenience, since it doesn't pay salaries, make investments or do much of anything else. Instead, what matters are the individual funds.

In the case of Bain Capital's funds, it's reasonable to assume that Romney was considered a "key man," meaning that each fund's limited partners could have voted to end the fund's investment period -- or take over fund management themselves -- if a super-majority felt it prudent. But that didn't happen, and Bain saw no reason to expend massive administrative effort to amend existing funds. Instead, it asked Romney to sign documents when necessary, and made the managerial/ownership changes on new funds going forward.

...

First, we've already dealt with why Romney was listed on the documents. The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn't require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right)."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...ly-leave-bain/

"And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management. The Obama campaign’s recent ads thus mislead when they point to investments made by Bain, as well as management decisions made by companies in which Bain invested, after that time.

What does the Obama campaign have in rebuttal? Very little, and none of it convincing in our judgment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...html#pagebreak

“Team Obama does not provide any specific evidence to back up claims that Romney was actively managing Bain between 1999 and 2002.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...e-bain-debate/

Should I continue?

[Dark Sage]

Strange... This "evidence" doesn't seem to hurting Mr. Obama that much...

[Roy Karrde]

Strange... This "evidence" doesn't seem to hurting Mr. Obama that much...

A: What is with the "" the evidence is quite clear, coming from numerous sources.

B: It is the Summer, people do not pay much attention.

C: Obama can only manage parity with Romney after spending 100 million in attack ads. In other word Obama is shooting its wad, and not able to move the needle.

BTW the DNC now completely owns this stupid attack.

"Either Mitt Romney was lying on SEC forms and misrepresenting to his investors — which could be a felony — that he was the sole owner, president, CEO of Bain Capital from 1999 until almost the end of 2001, or he wasn't and represented that he was," Wasserman Schultz said. "It can't be both. And so if he was sole owner, president, CEO, then he is to be held accountable for the decisions that were made for the outsourcing of jobs that took place during that time."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...1#.UAStBvWZiSp

What a dumb bitch...

[kurai]

it is pretty likely that the obama campaign is misrepresenting the situation just for hype

but that doesn't matter...

a truthful explanation of the difference between actually 'running' bain capital and participating in the filings as the owner of the individual "bain capital coinvestment fund VIII" is not going to fly

because! this doesn't really matter, as he was merely delegating overall management during an intended leave of absence (as cited above). thus, he is still involved as the named executive and thus retains responsibility for the interim actions (stericycle, etc). otherwise, SEC filings would be pointless and you could fill them out at random.

but as an aside, when we are pondering felonies, the FEC does come into play:

Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

it would certainly seem that romney perjured himself in this filing, as we can see from the various SEC filings that he was involved in operations - because he was still a signing participant when necessary during the leave of absence, for all the reasons outlined in that cnn article.

of course, he will not be indicted (or investigated) for this. we could alternately make the claim that he perjured himself when he claimed his name was "W. Mitt" in the section requesting first name and middle initial, and that would be true, but equally ineffective.

either way, this was a good start towards connecting romney to the financial fraudster archetype, which undermines his core strength. consequently, we see the continuation of critical articles out of forbes/wsj and bipartisan agitation towards the release of his tax returns. perhaps we may also see an early decision for the VP slot in an effort to totally reshape the discussion [this would not be a good trend for the republican party].

in order to accomplish this, the obama campaign has run the risk of being characterized as a bunch of lying politicians. but i would suggest that this is not really a dangerous attack against obama, who has been repeatedly described as such since mid-2007 (or earlier). years of debate over his birth, childhood, past affiliations, etc, have demonstrated that 'obama is a liar' is already in the public mindset.

one might cite this as evidence that the 'romney is a fraudster' meme would not be problematic for his election hopes. this is plausible, but there is a substantive difference: obama as a liar serves to exemplify his otherness, using the post-9/11 negative perception of islam/extremism to undermine him in general, which was perhaps tempered by that point; romney as a fraudster is directly connected to his business experience, at which point such deception acts as a pointer towards the post-2007 economic collapse.

it was a good bit of campaigning to awaken the mid-summer season, but the trend is clearly on the wrong side of romney if it should continue into the fall.

[Roy Karrde]

but as an aside, when we are pondering felonies, the FEC does come into play:

it would certainly seem that romney perjured himself in this filing, as we can see from the various SEC filings that he was involved in operations - because he was still a signing participant when necessary during the leave of absence, for all the reasons outlined in that cnn article.

Again I point you to the Fact Check link I already posted.

"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.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said."

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys...me-conclusion/

[kurai]

yep

we can accept that as true as far as the SEC filings go

but that is not what romney said in the FEC filing, as quoted in that post

he does have a legal obligation to outline the truth of his activity in that filing, that is, he stated he was 'not involved' and the signing of SEC filings during a temporary leave of absence is not zero involvement

[Roy Karrde]

yep

we can accept that as true as far as the SEC filings go

but that is not what romney said in the FEC filing, as quoted in that post

he does have a legal obligation to outline the truth of his activity in that filing, that is, he stated he was 'not involved' and the signing of SEC filings during a temporary leave of absence is not zero involvement

You do realize this whole thing is about the SEC filings and not the FEC filings correct? It goes back to the original statement by Obama's Campaign saying:

“Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony. Or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments,”



And I will remind you that in various documents listed involving Bain after Romney left, his name was not listed as some one involved in day to day operations.

"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."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...ney-bain-exit/

[kurai]

yes? have you missed everything i have said on the nature of the SEC filings? or even the part of this topic where you were confusing the FEC and the SEC and i pointed it out?

filings for both the FEC and the SEC exist separately. the standard of titular accuracy with regard to the SEC is evidently not very high, given Fisch's remarks. nonetheless, the existence of the SEC filings now being uncovered demonstrates that romney's FEC filings were not complete and accurate.

[this is why i said "as an aside, when we are pondering felonies," when bringing it up]

[Roy Karrde]

yes? have you missed everything i have said on the nature of the SEC filings? or even the part of this topic where you were confusing the FEC and the SEC and i pointed it out?

filings for both the FEC and the SEC exist separately. the standard of titular accuracy with regard to the SEC is evidently not very high, given Fisch's remarks. nonetheless, the existence of the SEC filings now being uncovered demonstrates that romney's FEC filings were not complete and accurate.

How so? The documents given to investors show that Romney had absolutely no activity in the operations of Bain Capital. Your statement says this:

"Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

The 1999 and 2000 documents support he was not involved in the operations in any way. Signing your name to a document in 2002 also would be hard to reach the bar of "active role" either, as he was not taking any engaged in any active interest in the company. Unless you can provide some kind of documentation that he had a active role inside of the company or was involved in their operations, your argument is failed.

[kurai]

do you contend that signing documents in one's role as shareholder of 'Bain Capital Investors V' (as found in various 1999-2001 filings) is non-involvement with "the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way"?

this is highly dubious. the 'operations' of these entities could not go forward without his signature; his ownership-derived voting power is thus his reason for signing in the first place; that is how and why he is involved with their operations.

he was well aware of acting in this ownership capacity with regard to bain subsidiaries, but told the FEC that he had no involvement. your standard of proof is veering towards day-to-day involvement, but this is a misdirect.

consider the purpose of these SEC filings: by signing them, romney was acknowledging ownership of a particular portion of a given set of securities. bain capital could not conduct these transactions without such acknowledgement. it is illegal to not provide this acknowledgement - this is a pretty important function of the SEC.

since romney's participation is thus a necessary condition of these bain securities transactions, it must be involvement rather than non-involvement.

[Roy Karrde]

do you contend that signing documents in one's role as shareholder of 'Bain Capital Investors V' (as found in various 1999-2001 filings) is non-involvement with "the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way"?

this is highly dubious. the 'operations' of these entities could not go forward without his signature; his ownership-derived voting power is thus his reason for signing in the first place; that is how and why he is involved with their operations.

he was well aware of acting in this ownership capacity with regard to bain subsidiaries, but told the FEC that he had no involvement. your standard of proof is veering towards day-to-day involvement, but this is a misdirect.

consider the purpose of these SEC filings: by signing them, romney was acknowledging ownership of a particular portion of a given set of securities. bain capital could not conduct these transactions without such acknowledgement. it is illegal to not provide this acknowledgement - this is a pretty important function of the SEC.

since romney's participation is thus a necessary condition of these bain securities transactions, it must be involvement rather than non-involvement.

Again like I said the burden of proof will be hard to reach when Romney was shown not to have any active role in the company, and yes I do contain that signing legal documents do not reach the level of a active role. He participated in merely a legal exercise, nothing that had any role that dealt with the activity of the company.

Mind you the SEC does not require the CEO to be involved in the operational decision-making of the company. So again, no signing documents does not mean you are involved in the operations of the company.

[kurai]

the problem is that, as stated, the 'activity of the company' hinges on such 'mere legal exercise.' if romney does not sign, operations of the company can not lawfully occur with regard to BCI V and other bain entities of which he has ownership.

he is involved by virtue of ownership: because bain failed to reassign its internal hierarchy (as they did not know it would be a permanent retirement), he was required by law to sign. if he was not required to be involved, he would not have had to sign anything.

the burden of proof is actually being set by romney here - he provided, in a document on which he can not conceal facts, that he had no involvement in the operations of any entity in any way.

clearly, the legally necessary exercise we have outlined here is one particular way. thus, the FEC filing can not be justifiably described as complete and correct.

[Roy Karrde]

the problem is that, as stated, the 'activity of the company' hinges on such 'mere legal exercise.' if romney does not sign, operations of the company can not lawfully occur with regard to BCI V and other bain entities of which he has ownership.

he is involved by virtue of ownership: because bain failed to reassign its internal hierarchy (as they did not know it would be a permanent retirement), he was required by law to sign. if he was not required to be involved, he would not have had to sign anything.

the burden of proof is actually being set by romney here - he provided, in a document on which he can not conceal facts, that he had no involvement in the operations of any entity in any way.

clearly, the legally necessary exercise we have outlined here is one particular way. thus, the FEC filing can not be justifiably described as complete and correct.

I would actually say the burden actually lies with the FEC here, does fulfilling a legal purpose actually involve you in the operations of the company? Seeing how Romney is not seen in any decision making role, was not involved in the day to day operations, and was actually seen by a court to not be involved in the company, I would say it is fairly unlikely that the FEC would actually see it your way considering the mountains of evidence showing that Romney had no actual involvement with Bain except for legal duties.

[kurai]

the FEC does not need to see it that way: they do not have the ability to assess or enforce the truth of material facts in a given filing - only with regard to campaign finance violations

as stated, the issue is one of perjury, which would be enforceable through the DOJ (but certainly will not, and should not, be performed during an election)

you are arguing that "Romney had no actual involvement with Bain except for legal duties" does not contradict having "not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way": such concealment of his legal duties is an obvious mistruth

even though no indictment will occur, and thus no trial will demonstrate these consequences in fact, this situation plays into the narrative that: if romney is unwilling to disclose simple legal necessities, what else is he hiding?