Mitt Romney implicated in perjury and stock fraud, made millions in process.
48 replies, posted
[quote]
Mitt Romney has been implicated in a complex case involving perjury, stock manipulation, and possibly consumer fraud.
Mitt Romney lied in the divorce proceedings of his wealthy friend, Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, according to a story by radaronline.com. At least that is what Stemberg's former wife, Maureen, says.
She is a MS patient who says her husband was so vindictive he even cut off her health insurance. Unfortunately the records for this case have been sealed, and participants are unable to discuss them. Other forces are in motion to lift the gag order.
It is a matter of public record that Mitt Romney went on the stand claiming that Staples as a business was "overvalued." He also specifically said:
"[I]I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future.[/I]"
Because of Romney's testimony the court valued the corporation at a paltry percentage of its actual worth, and Maureen Stemberg was granted a tiny settlement.
Meanwhile, weeks after the divorce was finalized, Mitt Romney and his buddy Tom Stemberg sold their shares of Staples to Goldman Sachs and made millions in the process.
This is a case in a long line of cases that show a side of Mitt Romney's business ethics that he does not want the American people to know about.
===================================
Source:
[URL]http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-implicated-perjury-and-stock-fraud-made-millions-process[/URL]
[/quote]
Awwwww shit..
I enjoy how there's a downpour of accusations of both sides now.
I'm confused, he said Staples was worthless so the stock dropped and he then sold his stock?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38173320]I'm confused, he said Staples was worthless so the stock dropped and he then sold his stock?[/QUOTE]
If this is true, he said that staples wasn't doing well meaning the price of stock would likely decreased. Therefore, it lowered the total assests of Tim Stemberg's meaning that he would have to pay his wife less as a settlement (basically 10% of $1000 instead of 10% of $1100 as an example). In the mean while, they could purchase stocks, and when people finally started seeing things were alright, and the stock started to climb once more, cash in.
He should be convicted of perjury every time he opens his mouth.
Fingers crossed that this is true and his candidacy gets destroyed. If perjury can destroy a sitting president, it can sure as hell destroy a candidate.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38173320]I'm confused, he said Staples was worthless so the stock dropped and he then sold his stock?[/QUOTE]
No, he said staples was worthless so his friend's wife would only gain a small amount of money in the settlement.
[editline]24th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Spooter;38173372]Fingers crossed that this is true and his candidacy gets destroyed. If perjury can destroy a sitting president, it can sure as hell destroy a candidate.[/QUOTE]
It's examiner and speculation. Don't count on anything.
So he perjury'd, which is illegal
then he's screwing over a woman suffering from MS
then sell the stocks
Breaking news ALERT ALERT ALERT: Mitt Romney is a scumbag
except when perjury is actually pretty illegal
but blah blah blah all this does is throw more shit on the pile of flung shit from both sides
[QUOTE=scout1;38173417]No, he said staples was worthless so his friend's wife would only gain a small amount of money in the settlement.
[editline]24th October 2012[/editline]
It's examiner and speculation. Don't count on anything.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe he was telling the truth. Maybe he really did think the company was overvalued, and sold off his stocks before the bubble burst.
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
The article presents no evidence to prove that the statement wasn't truthful.
okay wtf
i can't find a timeframe for when it was
because radaronline.com is using itself as a source
lmao
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;38173541]Or maybe he was telling the truth. Maybe he really did think the company was overvalued, and sold off his stocks before the bubble burst.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It's very much speculation that there was any fraud - all they have at the moment is the testimony of his ex wife. Hardly a criminal investigation here.
[QUOTE=zach34;38173295]I enjoy how there's a downpour of accusations of both sides now.[/QUOTE]
Election Season in America.
However, I don't see any big bubble bursting on the history
so there could be some truth to this, but whatever
Any more credible sources than examiner?
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;38173541]Or maybe he was telling the truth. Maybe he really did think the company was overvalued, and sold off his stocks before the bubble burst.
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
The article presents no evidence to prove that the statement wasn't truthful.[/QUOTE]
That's a possibility. However given his tract record of hypocritical self-entitlment it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were true.
We can only hope that this is real.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38173320]I'm confused, he said Staples was worthless so the stock dropped and he then sold his stock?[/QUOTE]
He testified in court in his rich friend's divorce proceedings that Staples wasn't worth anything so that his friend's wife would only receive a tiny settlement as a result of the divorce despite the fact that, as demonstrated by his later cash-out, Staples was actually a valuable, viable company.
While this is the Examiner and the Examiner fucking terrible but there may be some truth to this, considering Gloria Allred was trying to get some Romney testimony unsealed last I heard. This article may very well be just some guy assuming that this is what the testimony was about before it gets unsealed (if ever).
All you foolios fail to realize this is his keen business sense at work. It doesn't make him a scumbag to help a buddy out, and for all he knew, it was going to be worthless up until they realized that cashing in their stocks was the best decision available. Plus, the testimony was sort of opinion-based. Anyone can go and say in court that they think a company will sink and it not be considered perjury.
In other words, Mitt is a friendly person.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;38173651]All you foolios fail to realize this is his keen business sense at work. It doesn't make him a scumbag to help a buddy out, and for all he knew, it was going to be worthless up until they realized that cashing in their stocks was the best decision available. Plus, the testimony was sort of opinion-based. Anyone can go and say in court that they think a company will sink and it not be considered perjury.
In other words, Mitt is a friendly person.[/QUOTE]
I still can't figure out if your posts are parody or not.
It's sorta similar to another (more supported but still depending only on [very very good] circumstantial evidence) theory that Romney [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/what-romneys-hiding-its-t_b_1908104.html]took advantage of a federal amnesty offer[/url] for around 4000 Americans who were revealed to have used the Union Bank of Switzerland for tax-evasion purposes, which would make him someone who committed a felony.
I have no doubt that, being a millionaire, he is necessarily involved in some shady shit but there is just so much stuff to choose from.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;38173651]All you foolios fail to realize this is his keen business sense at work. It doesn't make him a scumbag to help a buddy out, [/QUOTE]
By lying under oath and royally screwing a woman out of what was legally hers?
[editline]24th October 2012[/editline]
I mean you can wrestle with all the legal minutia that you want but it doesn't change the fact that, perjury or not, it's sleazy as fuck.
His friend comes first, not his friend's wife, or that's how it would work in his eyes as I'd assume. And for all we know, that's what he honestly could have believed or figured to happen. A few weeks is enough time to reconsider.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;38173860]His friend comes first, not his friend's wife, [/QUOTE]
Yeah maybe when he's choosing pictionary partners; not when he's deciding whether or not to lie to a court to determine what will happen to substantial sums of money.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38173505]Breaking news ALERT ALERT ALERT: Mitt Romney is a scumbag[/QUOTE]
Bah, they're both bloody scumbags. I'm not even voting this year.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38173780]
I have no doubt that, being a millionaire, he is necessarily involved in some shady shit.[/QUOTE]
Wait. Are you implying that you have to be doing shady shit to be a millionaire, at least in business? Or is that only Mitt's case?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38173887]Yeah maybe when he's choosing pictionary partners; not when he's deciding whether or not to lie to a court to determine what will happen to substantial sums of money.[/QUOTE]
Problem is, we don't know if he was lying or not. So I'd assume that either way, he'd help a friend out just like any other regular person.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;38173931]Bah, they're both bloody scumbags. I'm not even voting this year.[/QUOTE]
That's your call. But sometimes it's necessary to choose between two evils and support the lesser of them to prevent the greater from winning.
[QUOTE=DuCT;38173937]Wait. Are you implying that you have to be doing shady shit to be a millionaire, at least in business?[/QUOTE]
Yes. If someone has several overseas bank accounts in tax-haven countries then they are most definitely doing something shady.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;38173997]Problem is, we don't know if he was lying or not. So I'd assume that either way, he'd help a friend out just like any other regular person.[/QUOTE]
maybe i'm not a regular person but i wouldn't help out a friend if it meant screwing a MS woman out of a reasonable divorce settlement. especially if i and that friend were already millionaires
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.