View Full Version : Adviser Claims Romney 'Retired Retroactively'

07-16-2012, 03:28 AM
Oh my!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A senior adviser for Mitt Romney says that President Barack Obama will "say or do anything" to keep his job, including accusing the presumptive Republican presidential candidate of being in charge of Bain Capital when they helped send American jobs to China and other countries.

Ed Gillespie on Sunday lashed out at the Obama campaign for suggesting that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Romney either lied to voters or broke the law when he said he retired from Bain in 1999,<span style="color: #990000"> even though Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) documents listed him as the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002.</span></span>

"He's not a felon," Gillespie insisted to CNN's Candy Crowley. "That's what this campaign on the Obama side was reduced to. And it's sad to see -- and I think Americans now know -- you've got these baseless charges on moving jobs overseas, which independent fact checkers have said are not true; they're, indeed, a lie. Then a completely reckless and unfounded accusation of criminal activity."

"And so it's sad to see -- we now know this president will say or do anything to keep the highest office in the land, even if it means demeaning the highest office in the land."

<u>Crowley asked Gillespie how he could explain a 1999 news release from Bain that announced Romney had taken "a part-time leave of absence" from the company, but did not say that he had retired.</u>

"He took a leave of absence from his company to go save the Olympics," Gillespie explained. "There may have been thought at the time that it could be part time. It was not part time. The Olympics was in a shambles. There was corruption."

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"He took a leave of absence and in fact, Candy, he ended up not going back at all and <u>retired retroactively</u> to February of 1999 as a result."</span>

<span style="color: #3333FF">Until a series of last-minute interviews on Friday of last week, Romney had stood by the claim that he "retired" from Bain in 1999.</span> </div></div>

LOL. I told you Mitt thinks we are all stupid.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">retired retroactively </div></div>

WTF does that mean?

Its like the Concordia Cruise Ship Captain who ran aground saying,

"Its not my fault. I resigned 6 months ago. I was only there because they hadn't found a replacement for me yet!"

watch it (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/adviser-claims-romney-retired-retroactively-)

07-16-2012, 05:02 AM
It's a shame you don't understand multisylabble words.

You made me laugh again.

07-16-2012, 09:22 AM
There is a sense in which that (retroactively retiring 3 years afterwards, as 3 years earlier) can be true.

However, it offends common sense more than a little, and is an obvious dodge. It's how you technically 'fix' inconvenient problems, more or less like backdating legal documents for some purpose.

For example, a condo sale in the middle of a month would normally cause the monthly maintenance fee to be pro-rated between payment by the seller and the buyer, dividing the days between them, based on the actual closing date.

Or, to simplify things, for the PURPOSES of accounting for the condo fee, they can (falsely, although legally) agree not to pro-rate, but to charge out the condo fee to one or the other, as if the closing occurred at the 1st or last of the month, and only one of the people pays the whole thing.

This is a rare thing to do in my experience, and maybe it never happens. Always what I've seen is that fees or things like real estate taxes overlapping the sale period get pro-rated.

Nothing prevents the buyer and seller from agreeing to anything they want, but should they not do the standard pro-ration, it is a legal fiction that doesn't reflect the actual closing date and what would normally happen.

So what Ed Gillespie is REALLY saying is that for 3 years Romney hadn't resigned at all, until it was fictitiously agreed by the parties to backdate the resignation 3 years before. For the PURPOSE of calculating his retirement monies due from that period.

This is a claim born of desperation, which does not really help Romney's story much, and rather, answers the appearance of a ridiculous dodge with another transparent dodge that will heap still more ridicule on Romney. (Some observers have asked if Gillespie is a mole inside Romney's campaign, who is deliberately sabotaging that campaign, because of how absurd his new claim is.)

Other observers have mentioned the GOP ought to get another candidate somehow at the convention, is how bad this is for Romney (before Gillespie's hilarious contentions).