Shorter Romney camp: 1999, 2002? Wevs. It’s all red tape and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo anyway:
A Romney campaign official, who requested anonymity to discuss the SEC filings, acknowledged that they ”œdo not square with common sense.” But SEC regulations are complicated and quirky, the official argued, and Romney’s signature on some documents after his exit does not indicate active involvement in the firm.
Signatures declaring that Romney was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” of Bain Capital until 2002 (not 1999, as claimed).
Reality is still a vast liberal conspiracy. Apparently.
h/t Igor Volsky
(BTW no credit to MoJo’s David Corn for, y’know, breaking this story 10 days ago? Really, Boston Globe?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html
http://mauberly.blogspot.com/
Deep & hard.
Having read thru SEC filings for many years, I find they are obscure to the general public; they are often obscure to me, and I don’t have a grand an hour to find out what they mean if I cannot follow them.
Romney does; and I suspect that his battery of lawyers had him sign and say what he needed to.
It may also be the case that what he did at Salt Lake was all that he did, and because of Bain ownership issues he had to take responsibility for signing certain forms.
Past that, I got nothing. But neither does Sully, other than ‘if’s and ‘but’s without knowledge.
Thanks for the reply.
http://mauberly.blogspot.com/