According to an AP lead story today, Mitt Romney “demands an apology from Obama’s aides for saying he had a management role in Bain capital” after 1999. Don’t make me laugh! And how did we once again, get into this semantic game of what the meaning of “is” is. Evidently because secondary media outlets, like Annenberg’s Factcheck.org are oblivious to actually released files disclosing that Romney is the liar here.
But we have seen these sort of shenanigans before, those of us involved in the deep politics arena. Deep politics junkies may recall back in 1969 during the trial of Clay Shaw by New Orleans District attorney Jim Garrison, that the jury was to find for acquittal because Garrison couldn’t prove Shaw was working for the company. The Judge in the case ruled Garrison was not permitted to disclose Shaw’s CIA operative alias, “Clay Bertrand”.
Years later, after the release of files under the JFK Records Act, there appeared CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) which noted:
"A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]"
Was Shaw therefore “working for the CIA”? Well, if one is a word purist or pedant he’d likely say ‘No’, disavowing all contract agents (which likely would also negate Lee Oswald as a contract agent for the FBI or ONI despite his having operative numbers). However, I find these distinctions purely artificial, and to all intents, counterproductive. If one is a contract agent- then he or she is assuredly working for the agency that hired him or her as a contractor. Splitting hairs over these semantic nuances is a sterile game in the end, and a fool’s errand.
In like manner, the question today is: “Was Romney working in any capacity for Bain after 1999?” Just as Garrison's detractors were exposed as know -nothings in the Shaw case, after Shaw's CIA file was released, so also Romney's cheerleaders are exposed as know nothings today, or outright dissemblers with a possible ulterior motive.
According to the relevant files, dozens of Securities and Exchange Commission filings from Bain Capital entities after February 1999, he was. For instance, one summary of Bain investments via Bain Capital Fund VI, dated Feb. 13, 2001, lists Romney as “the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital.”
Yet the Annenberg Center’s “FactCheck.org” gives Romney a pass on everything that happened after February 1999, asserting that Romney had stated twice on official federal disclosure documents that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” since leaving for the 2002 Olympics” further noting that “a falsehood [on these forms] could draw a federal felony charge.”
Yeah, well, here’s a news flash “Fact check” dudes: it’s equally true that filing fraudulent SEC reports can be a felony including telling investors that Romney was the “controlling person” if indeed he had nothing to do with the company.
So these propositions are mutually exclusive, in the same way that either Clay L. Shaw worked for the CIA at the time of Kennedy’s assassination, or he didn’t. They can’t both be true. And I elect to accept the SEC files released, not Mitt’s blather, or Factcheck.org’s covering for him. Just as in the early 90s I elected to accept the CIA's admission that Clay L. Shaw worked for them in a "covert security" contract capacity, as opposed to having no "real" connection, as per the disinformationists' claims.
Further, we have from The (June 21) Washington Post a front-page story by Tom Hamburger, which evokes the old days of Woodward and Bernstein, before the Ad departments of major newspapers seized control of the news rooms, and evoking the bygone era when reporters actually earned their keep – as opposed to parroting the piffle of their Neoliberal overseers.
As he notes:
“A Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.
Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field. …”
Contrary to Obama giving an apology, Mitt needs to deliver one to the American people for posing as an ordinary middle class guy that would "help them", i.e. get more jobs, when his record actually shows he’d likely dispatch tens of thousands more jobs offshore. Hell, that’s where he keeps his hundreds of millions of smackeroos! (E.g. in Swiss Banks, and offshore banks in the Caymans)
If the delirious people who support him (46-47% according to polls) loved Bain outsourcing in the 90s and beyond, they will love the outsourcing after Mitt and his honchos get their hands on executive power!