Filtering Boston Globe's story, I give you Mitt's open book test:
When did you leave Bain?
A. In 1999, as Bain officially said this week.
B. In 2002, after a leave of absence in 1999, as told to the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission.
C. In 2002, as indicated on SEC filings.
D. In 1999, under a severance deal that was signed in 2002, retroactively applied.
E. All of the above.
It's a significant question, because Mitt has been using the 1999 date to excuse himself from Bain's involvement in the shutdown of a steel mill in 2001, among other things.
A few months ago when Politifact was examining an Obama ad over the matter, it rated the ad as "mostly true", adding that "the plant’s closure, however, happened after Romney had left daily operations at Bain." Well, now we know that at the time Mitt was the sole stockholder and was still drawing a salary from Bain, as if he had never left.
So you might conclude that it was possible that he wasn't actively participating in management, even as he was drawing a full salary. But his name is listed as the controlling interest in Bain entities created in 2002, and his signature on documents show that he was at least briefed on what was going on, don't you think?
And it's just one more reason why Mitt needs to release his taxes during this period. Might Mitt have committed a crime by listing himself as a passive investor even as he was drawing a full salary and Bain's sole stockholder? Or is he lying to the public and listed himself as an active investor?
Oops!
Update: Fixed the damned white highlight that Blogger's been adding -- a terrible bug that keeps rearing its ugly head.
No comments:
Post a Comment