http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics...UTI/story.html
Since the very beggning, including his 2002 Gubernatorial race in MA, Mitt Romney claims to have been an absentee owner of Bain Capital, and that his management of the company ended in 1999.
Now, the Boston Globe unnearths some SEC filings that say that Romney was the sole stockholder, president and CEO of Bain Capital for three years AFTER the day he stated he left.
Liberals are claiming this is either A) a felony misrepresentation to the SEC, because you can't claim one thing and be another, or B) a misrepresentation to the American people.
Conservatives are claiming that Romney was upfront with the details of his Bain involvement, that his MANAGEMENT ended in 1999, but a technicality left him as CEO and such until 2002.
What are you guys thinking?
MY PERSONAL OPINION (I make no false claims - I am a Left-Leaning Democrat): This reeks to high heaven of fishiness. I very highly doubt that it is a felony misrepresentation, because that would just be too awful to fathom. At this point in the election cycle, the opposing party losing their leader because of a felony on the trail? How embarrassing for the country. So, fingers crossed, that's not it.
I do, however, feel that he is lying to the electorate, and trying to cover it up with a technicality. I don't pretend to be a business guru, but I cannot picture a situation where the SOLE stockholder, CEO, and President of a country, where basically the ENTIRETY of his money is coming from, would just peace out for 3 years and let someone else take the reigns. Are you going to tell me he would let other people poorly manage a company on which his wealth and reputation ride? No. I feel like he either signed off on the shady deals, or was otherwise somehow aware, but I do not like the smell of this one bit.
So, please vote and discuss!! Lie or Technicality?