WaPo: Three Pinocchios for Romney-is-a-felon attack

[red states rule]

Ahhhh, another attempt to atttack Mitt Romeny has backfired once again.

It is amazing how Obama does not want to talk about the US economy but wants to toss out lies about Mitt's time at Bain





snip

The Pinocchio Test

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here.We realize that Bauer gets to the word “criminal” by mentioning “investigation,” but that distinction might be lost on most listeners.

Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999. Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team.

The SEC documents, especially the ones Romney signed, do raise some questions. One can certainly argue that because Romney did not fully extricate himself from Bain till after his Olympic sojourn ended, he should bear some responsibility for what happened in that period.

But that is an entirely different matter than suggesting that he is a potential criminal. It is more of a PR problem, which the Obama campaign is trying to exploit to build a larger case that Romney is secretive.

We were tempted to award this claim Four Pinocchios, but the documents with his signature leave some room for inquiry. But, overall, they shrink in importance to the other evidence cited above. (Our colleagues at FactCheck.Org also reaffirmed their similar conclusion (http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/).)

Still, if the Obama campaign wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should immediately lodge a complaint about Romney’s financial disclosure form, filed just last year, rather than try to mislead people about potential violations in relatively unimportant SEC documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html

[Toro]

It's pretty sad.

[mundame]

I can't get into the how-long-was-Romney-running-Bain issue especially, but I think it's quite interesting that a bunch of Republican governors yesterday did call on Romney to release all his tax returns, like his father did.

Romney is extremely unwilling to do that, apparently, and that may mean exciting and interesting scandal stuff is in them ------------

Off-shore Cayman Island bank accounts and Swiss bank accounts apparently did happen, if the news was correct on those hints. I don't know what all else. Could be fun, though. There are only two reasons to put money in Cayman Island or Swiss banks: to avoid taxes, or because the money is dirty with corruption (like all the Iraqis and Afghans stealing bales of dollars during our long wars). Nobody on Earth ever said, "Hey, I'll put my money in this Cayman Island bank because they'll give me a toaster!"

I read an article that speculated that the one tax return Romney released, 14% taxes, was the highest taxes he ever paid, and that the others are much lower and involve off-shore banking, and so he can't release them or there will be a firestorm. Anyone have an opinion about that?

[Kathianne]

A little perspective:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/offshore-banking-is-not-a-crime/


Offshore banking is not a crime By Brian Garst (http://dailycaller.com/author/bgarst/) 3:29 PM 07/12/2012




ADVERTISEMENT
In an effort to score political points, Democrats are pounding Mitt Romney over his use of offshore bank accounts. Over the weekend, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin remarked, “You either get a Swiss bank account to conceal what you’re doing, or you believe the Swiss franc is stronger than the American dollar.” DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently wondered aloud, “Why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?” Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley even called Romney’s Swiss bank account a “bet against America.” These attacks reek of populist nonsense tinged with more than a little economic xenophobia.


Contrary to the dominant rhetoric on display, overseas banking is not a crime. People who invest or bank overseas do not hate America. Oftentimes, they are simply banking where their money is earned to avoid the hassle of exchange rate and wire transfer fees. In today’s global economy, earning money in multiple currencies is hardly uncommon...



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/offshore-banking-is-not-a-crime/#ixzz20iPbbUBz


And why hasn't this been making news, huh?

http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/13/over-30-of-president-obamas-2009-2011-gross-income-came-from-foreign-sources/


Over 30% of President Obama’s 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources (http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/13/over-30-of-president-obamas-2009-2011-gross-income-came-from-foreign-sources/) Jim Lindgren (http://www.volokh.com/author/jim/) • July 13, 2012 4:02 am



I find it strange that the Obama campaign would be making so much of Romney’s income from foreign sources when Obama’s foreign source income appears to be a much bigger percentage of his income over the last few years. Of course, one can’t tell for sure because Mitt Romney has not released his 2009 tax return.

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011 (http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument)), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.


The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.
From 2009 through 2011 (http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocumenthttp://), the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill. The amounts I examined are reported on Form 1116, of which there are two filed along with their 1040 (http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument)when they had both general and passive foreign income.


Their returns do not disclose which foreign countries are responsible for paying the Obamas the $2.7 million in foreign source income, but the overwhelming bulk of it must come from payments resulting directly or indirectly from book sales. Nonetheless, the Obamas did report a total of $3,611 in foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried, this Obama passive foreign income might result from the foreign investments of U.S. financial entities in which the Obamas invested. [See update below; the passive income indeed came from the foreign investments of a U.S. entity in which the Obama's had an interest (Michelle Obama in a beneficiary), but it is not one over which they had any control over the investments.]


I hope that the White House press will be able to determine the foreign sources that account for over 30% of the Obamas’ income. And given President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, I would especially like to know the origins of the foreign passive income [again, see below].


UPDATE: Mystery solved. Jeffery Silver, Visiting Asst. Professor at Detroit Mercy, kindly emails to point out that in the 2010 return Statement 14 following one of the the Obamas’ Forms 1116 (http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/presreturns.nsf/Returns/02F3F5B2D15B756385257876006F5ADB/$file/B_Obama_2010.pdfhttp://)shows that 2010′s passive foreign source income ($1,571) resulted from “Freeman Henry G. Jr. Decd TW,” which is the so-called “Pin Money Trust” set up for first ladies by Henry Freeman (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18736411/ns/politics/t/first-ladys-pin-money-disclosure/#.UAAnhqXO4fUhttp://), who died in 1917. The 2009 return does not appear to contain a similar statement, but given the similarity in amounts, the passive income in that year must come from the same source. Just to be clear, the Obamas would have no discretion over the investment of the Freeman Trust.

[mundame]

overseas banking is not a crime from Kathianne's first quote above.

It often is a crime, though ---- shielding money from taxes is, after all, the principle use of Swiss and other offshore banking; it's the whole point.

That's why the United States has been going after the Swiss banks for some ten years now to pry loose their records of American banking customers. The Swiss are very unwilling to do that, since letting people hide their fortunes in Switzerland is the country's main industry, but there have been some settlements.

My guess is that the Obama campaign Knows Stuff about Romney's taxes (he's the prez --- they could get the forms!) and that it's pretty lurid. He can't afford to release the tax forms and so the Obama Campaign will keep demanding it.

Okay, there needs to be some big world event or Romney doesn't have a chance. They've got him on both off-shoring jobs and on tax shielding, so far, and if Romney can't prove he didn't do these things, he's dead like Dukakis, I'd say. Just my opinion.

[Missileman]

There are only two reasons to put money in Cayman Island or Swiss banks: to avoid taxes, or because the money is dirty with corruption (like all the Iraqis and Afghans stealing bales of dollars during our long wars). Nobody on Earth ever said, "Hey, I'll put my money in this Cayman Island bank because they'll give me a toaster!"


Those are the ONLY 2 reasons huh?

How about fear of US banks going under? How about better service? How about the concept of not having all your eggs in one basket?

[mundame]

Those are the ONLY 2 reasons huh?

How about fear of US banks going under? How about better service? How about the concept of not having all your eggs in one basket?


I see you haven't been to the Cayman Islands. I have.

These famous banks are all, 100%, small offices above the duty-free perfume shop street. They each have a bronze plaque on a door at the side of a shop all up and down this street. The little island buildings go up three floors and the second and third floors have like three or four "banks" each floor. Each office has computers and that's all, it's all digital.

No, it's all crooked as a dogleg. If Romney is caught withholding taxes in the Cayman Islands, that won't be good for his campaign.

[Kathianne]

from Kathianne's first quote above.

It often is a crime, though ---- shielding money from taxes is, after all, the principle use of Swiss and other offshore banking; it's the whole point.

That's why the United States has been going after the Swiss banks for some ten years now to pry loose their records of American banking customers. The Swiss are very unwilling to do that, since letting people hide their fortunes in Switzerland is the country's main industry, but there have been some settlements.

My guess is that the Obama campaign Knows Stuff about Romney's taxes (he's the prez --- they could get the forms!) and that it's pretty lurid. He can't afford to release the tax forms and so the Obama Campaign will keep demanding it.

Okay, there needs to be some big world event or Romney doesn't have a chance. They've got him on both off-shoring jobs and on tax shielding, so far, and if Romney can't prove he didn't do these things, he's dead like Dukakis, I'd say. Just my opinion.

Offshore banking is NOT illegal. Not reporting income is. There are forms to report, as evidenced by the post regarding 30% of Obama's income from offshore investments/bank accts. Really.

[Shadow]

Just an add on...This article says a lot to me about Obama's character(not that I ever thought he actually had integrity or anything prior to this).


Obama and campaign offer no apology to Romney

President Obama and top campaign staffers made it clear this weekend they will not apologize for saying the financial company Bain Capital outsourced jobs under Mitt Romney’s leadership, despite Romney saying that’s not true.

The president made the statement during an interview Saturday with WAVY-TV in Virginia. The station is scheduled to air the interview Sunday night, but it can be seen now on WAVY’s website (http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/wavy-one-on-one-with-president-obama-af?ref=scroller&categoryId=20000&status=true)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/all/img/external-link.png.

“We won’t be apologizing,” Obama said. “Mr. Romney claims he's Mr. Fix-It for the economy because of his business experience, so I think voters entirely, legitimately want to know what is exactly his business experience."

The question did not directly address Romney’s call Friday for an apology after Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested that Romney in Securities and Exchange Commission filings misrepresented his position at Bain Capital, particularly when he officially left, which she said would either be a “felony” or a misrepresentation to Americans.

“He’s not going to get an apology,” Cutter said Sunday of CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Cutter's faced off on the show with Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden, who said he was troubled by the fact “the president would direct his campaign to label someone like Romney … as a felon.”

He also said news agency fact-checkers have repeatedly found that records accurately show his candidate left Bain in 1999.
“Yet the Obama campaign and even the president himself continue to pursue these inaccurate statements,” Madden said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/15/obama-to-romney-wont-be-apologizing/#ixzz20inPv3HO

[Kathianne]

and it wasn't just 'Romney denying...' Indeed, the administration used a WaPo article that was debunked overnight and basically admitted it was wrong by their 'fact checker' a couple days later. Subsequently Mother Jones, NYT, TPM, have all said there's no there, there. He's owed an apology, but Obama is a classless narcissist.

[Shadow]

and it wasn't just 'Romney denying...' Indeed, the administration used a WaPo article that was debunked overnight and basically admitted it was wrong by their 'fact checker' a couple days later. Subsequently Mother Jones, NYT, TPM, have all said there's no there, there. He's owed an apology, but Obama is a classless narcissist.

Not only that but he is totally arrogant about it.

[aboutime]

Most of us already know. Obama is incapable, and totally ignorant when it comes to being an apologist to anyone except....to other Enemy leaders who he habitually BOWS to in apologizing for America, and Americans.
That's how those who HATE AMERICA operate. And Obama, with the Mrs. sets the standard of apologies for being Americans...in fictional accounts only.

He isn't smart enough to know what a Gentlemanly, Sincere, Human apology is, or means.