July 17, 2012

Mitt Romney PRESSURED to REVEAL Past Tax Returns

July 17, 2012

BAIN Must NOW PRODUCE Its CEO from 1999 to 2002

If, as claimed by both Bain and Mitt Romney (separately, ha-ha) he was not, as attested in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, the Chairman of the Board, the managing director and the sole stockholder, then who was? Bain (and Romney) must produce this shy, disinclined-to-sign person who allowed someone to sign in his stead for three years while, in fact, he was in charge.



What kind of businessman permits the founder and sole stockholder to sign all the federal papers that he himself should sign, for three years? Who is this chimera who would be CEO, except that Mitt Romney retained that role, in appearances at least, while traveling from Utah to Boston for Board meetings and company business? If Romney had nothing to do with the business while “saving” the Olympics, as he claims, who was the steward of the business he left behind?



Who ran Bain?



For that matter, where are the Board minutes supporting Ed Gillespie’s claim that Romney ‘retroactively retired‘ in 2002, effective 1999? Board minutes must support this contention, right? And they also must support all Romney’s other contradictory contentions regarding his tenure, I would imagine. For instance, the purchase of the abortion-profiteer company that burned up dead babies: that profitable enterprise’s absorption into the Bain borg must be approved somewhere. The Board must have approved Romney’s request for a part-time leave of absence. Whose signatures are on those papers? Was the Board vote unanimous approving these actions by Romney?



If Bain wants their man Mitt in the White House, if Wall Street has decided the non-prosecutorial bent of Team Obama isn’t fealty enough, if the Masters of the Universe want one of their own in the Oval, they can produce these documents and clarify everything.



WE'RE WAITING.






http://firedoglake.com/2012/07/16/bain-must-now-produce-its-ceo-from-1999-to-2002/

July 17, 2012

NEEDLES Found In SANDWICHES, Delta Air Lines Says; FBI To Investigate

" Washington (CNN) -- The FBI says it has launched an investigation into the discovery of sewing needles in four turkey sandwiches on separate Delta Air Lines flights from Amsterdam to the United States. The objects were discovered in food on planes as they were en route from Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands to Minneapolis, Seattle and two flights to Atlanta, according to Delta spokeswoman Kristin Baur. Two of the needles were found by passengers, she said, at which point Delta told all 18 flights from Amsterdam to stop serving the sandwiches.


Two more needles were discovered, including one found by a federal air marshal. One passenger on the plane going to Minneapolis was injured by the needle but declined medical treatment upon landing, according to Baur.
Federal agents have begun a criminal investigation, said Special Agent Stephen Emmett, an FBI spokesman in Atlanta.


Gate Gourmet, which provided prepared sandwiches to Delta, said the sandwiches originated at the firm's facility in Amsterdam. The company has been in business since 1992. "This is a terribly upsetting situation," said Gate Gourmet spokeswoman Christina Ulosevich. "First and foremost is the safety of the traveling public. There's nothing more important to us at all than the safety of the passengers and crews." Delta is now serving sealed prepackaged food on these flights instead of the sandwiches, and no other needles have been found, Baur said.






cont'


http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/16/travel/delta-needles/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


.

July 17, 2012

California's 'Special Exemptions' Act: The BIGGEST THREAT You Haven't Heard Of

" November 2012 will be a cataclysmic showdown between the forces of democracy and the forces of unlimited wealth. If we lose this, the plutocrats will be in charge and will be able to write their own rules to further the interests of Wall Street and the one percent. If we lose this fight, anti-democratic legislation will continue to sweep across the nation, overwhelming the grassroots support and small-dollar contributions of those who dare to fight against overwhelming odds. And I'm not talking about the reelection campaign of Barack Obama. No, this battle to the death between moneyed interests and working people will play out in California in the form of Proposition 32. This measure, proponents say, would ban both corporate and union contributions for most political purposes and make citizens reign supreme. But progressives here have taken to calling it the "special exemptions act."



The first clue that something is seriously wrong with this measure is, simply put, who put it on the ballot. The measure was submitted to the secretary of state's office by Ashlee Titus and Tom Hiltachk, who happen to be of counsel for the law firm that also includes Charles Bell, lead counsel for the California Republican Party. You might ask why the lawyers for the Republican Party would put a measure on the ballot that would theoretically leave small donors as the backbone of political spending in California. It's a good question, until you look at the fine print. Let's start with the first article of the initiative.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this Title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate-controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.

Sounds tolerable, right? Ban corporations and unions from making political contributions, and the little guys will have the run of the field. Right? Wrong, for two reasons. First, if the authors of the measure only wanted to see personal contributions accepted, they would have written it that way. They didn't because there are a whole bunch of entities out there that aren't technically corporations. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, hedge funds and a whole bunch of other types of businesses do not fall under the definition of a corporation as written in the measure. These businesses will still be able to contribute directly to campaign committees, but labor unions will be barred.


Second, take a look at the last phrase very carefully:

...if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.

So, contributions are barred, but only if they're going to committees that also make contributions. You know what type of committee doesn't make contributions? Super PACs! Yes, the wording of this provision specifically exempts contributions to Super PACs, who will still have free reign, regardless of anything else in the law.








cont'


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/15/1108363/-California-s-special-exemptions-act-The-biggest-threat-you-haven-t-heard-of


.

July 16, 2012

NORQUIST JUMPS THE SHARK - The ANTI-TAX King Goes POSTAL On A Conservative Republican Senator

"..Has Grover Norquist gone too far? The uncompromising starve-the-beast activist — before whom (nearly) all Republicans bend a cowering knee, for fear of violating his anti-tax-hike pledge — has always had a way with the over-the-top sound bite. On Monday, he reaffirmed his penchant for lethal toxicity and may have finally stepped over the line, when he called a conservative Republican senator a liar who appears to have developed Stockholm syndrome.



The senator in question is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, and there’s some history here. Coburn and Norquist have been tussling with each other for years, providing much delight to liberal spectators who are probably hoping that neither party is left standing after a 12-round heavyweight fight. Their most recent disagreement centered on Norquist’s contention that abolishing a tax break for ethanol constituted a tax hike that must be matched by other cuts. Coburn, who introduced the amendment to get rid of the tax break, argued that Norquist’s position was ridiculous: Getting rid of tax loopholes negotiated by special interests should not be considered the equivalent of tax hikes.



In a Monday op-ed in the New York Times, “A Greater American Pledge,” Coburn upped the ante. Not only did he reiterate his scorn for Norquist’s position on matching every tax loophole eradication with another tax cut, but he also took matters a serious step further, declaring that Republicans were willing to cut a “grand bargain” with Democrats that included revenue increases.



Crazy talk! In the Church of Norquist, Coburn’s assertion is equivalent to saying that the Vatican is ready to cut a deal with Planned Parenthood that would allow some abortions. Norquist wasted no time communicating his dismay to The Hill.








cont'


http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/norquist_jumps_the_shark/

July 16, 2012

Top Dem: NO CHANCE We’ll EXTEND TAX CUTS For The Rich

"..There is absolutely no way President Obama or Democrats will permit the Bush-era tax cuts on high incomes to be extended, a party leader declared in a speech Monday. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the No. 4 Democrat and senior budget member, unequivocally promised her party will shoot down GOP efforts to prevent tax rates on incomes above $250,000 to rise by 3.6 percent to Clinton-era levels, even if it means letting rates go up on middle incomes.



“If Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal,” Murray said in Washington, D.C. at the Brookings Institution. “Because I feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle class families and the most vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone.” “So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle class families under the bus,” she said.



Without legislative action, various economic policies termed the “fiscal cliff” — including the tax increases, large domestic and military spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and Medicare reimbursement rates — will take effect Jan. 1. Reacting to leaked excepts ahead of Murray’s speech, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) left no doubt that Republicans won’t sacrifice tax cuts on high earners.



“Has it come to this, that Democrats are willing to hurt jobs and tank our economy for the sake of a small business tax hike that would also have disastrous consequences?” he said in a statement. “Instead of threatening to derail our economy, Democrats ought to help protect job creators from the president’s small business tax hike.” The skirmish is a repeat of the late 2010 battle wherein Democrats folded to Republican demands to either give the wealthy a tax cut or let middle class rates rise. This time Obama has promised to veto any bill that extends the top marginal rates, and Democratic leaders are aggressively whipping their members behind the cause. Murray challenged Republicans to accept separate up or down votes on the tax cuts for different incomes to offer senators a clear choice and the public a clear contrast between the parties’ values.









cont'

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/patty-murray-tax-cuts-fiscal-cliff.php?ref=fpnewsfeed





.

July 16, 2012

His Man in Macau: Inside the INVESTIGATION Into Sheldon Adelson’s Empire

A decade ago gambling magnate and leading Republican donor Sheldon Adelson looked at a desolate spit of land in Macau and imagined a glittering strip of casinos, hotels and malls. Where competitors saw obstacles, including Macau’s hostility to outsiders and historic links to Chinese organized crime, Adelson envisaged a chance to make billions. Adelson pushed his chips to the center of the table, keeping his nerve even as his company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in late 2008. The Macau bet paid off, propelling Adelson into the ranks of the mega-rich and underwriting his role as the largest Republican donor in the 2012 campaign, providing tens of millions of dollars to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and other GOP causes.



Now, some of the methods Adelson used in Macau to save his company and help build a personal fortune estimated at $25 billion have come under expanding scrutiny by federal and Nevada investigators, according to people familiar with both inquiries. Internal email and company documents, disclosed here for the first time, show that Adelson instructed a top executive to pay about $700,000 in legal fees to Leonel Alves, a Macau legislator whose firm was serving as an outside counsel to Las Vegas Sands. The company’s general counsel and an outside law firm warned that the arrangement could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is unknown whether Adelson was aware of these warnings. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bars American companies from paying foreign officials to “affect or influence any act or decision” for business gain.




Federal investigators are looking at whether the payments violate the statute because of Alves’ government and political roles in Macau, people familiar with the inquiry said. Investigators were also said to be separately examining whether the company made any other payments to officials. An email by Alves to a senior company official, disclosed by The Wall Street Journal, quotes him as saying “someone high ranking in Beijing” had offered to resolve two vexing issues — a lawsuit by a Taiwanese businessman and Las Vegas Sands’ request for permission to sell luxury apartments in Macau. Another email from Alves said the problems could be solved for a payment of $300 million. There is no evidence the offer was accepted. Both issues remain unresolved.



According to the documents, Alves met with local politicians and officials on behalf of Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands, to discuss several issues that complicated the company’s efforts to raise cash in 2008 and 2009. Soon after Alves said he would apply what he termed “pressure” on local planning officials, the company prevailed on a key request, gaining permission to sell off billions of dollars of its real estate holdings in Macau. Las Vegas Sands denies any wrongdoing. But it has told investors that it is under criminal investigation for possible violations of the U.S. anti-bribery law. Adelson declined to respond to detailed questions, including whether he was aware of the concerns about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act when he directed payment of the bill from Alves’ law firm.






cont'



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/his-man-in-macau-inside-the-investigation-into-sheldon-adelsons-empire/


.

July 16, 2012

YES, Romney PERJURED HIMSELF!

" The claim that he committed a felony by falsely reporting his role at Bain Capital under oath is what has really gotten under Romney's skin. But it seems pretty clear to me that he signed a federal financial disclosure form, under the penalty of perjury, saying he had not been involved "in any way" with Bain after he left for Utah in February 1999. That's a strong statement. And it is directly undercut by Romney's own statement in his 2002 attempt to prove residency to run for governor.


So the question of whether Romney committed a felony in his financial disclosure form is a very real one - because Romney and Romney's lawyer provide the strongest evidence that it was perjury. Now we have more contemporaneous evidence that Romney perjured himself:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-testimony-transition

If there was a good deal of time back and forth in the first few months and some business conducted all the way through to December ("pretty much exclusively&quot , and if Romney's own lawyer tells an inquiry that Romney's work for Bain "continued unabated just as they had," then it is incontrovertibly true that Romney's statement under oath that he was not involved "in any way" in Bain business after February 1999 was a lie under oath.

I thought Republicans cared about perjury when it comes to high office. I mean, they impeached a sitting president for it. But their current candidate is an obvious perjurer and thereby a felon. How long will it take before this sinks in?






http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/



.

July 16, 2012

SEVEN TEA PARTY Freshmen SPENT More Than $100,000 In TAXPAYER MONEY On Personal Cars

TEA-BAG HYPOCRITTERS:




" Though they campaigned on a platform of reducing the deficit and ridding wasteful spending, more than a half-dozen Tea Party congressmen have collectively spent over $100,000 in taxpayer money on personal vehicles.


ThinkProgress examined spending records for the 112th Congress and found seven GOP freshmen — Reps. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Bill Flores (R-TX), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and Steve Womack (R-AR) — who had spent an average of $15,000 on cars for themselves. All together, their taxpayer bill totaled $106,643.


There is nothing illegal about the practice of using taxpayer money to lease personal-use cars, but it smacks of hypocrisy for Tea Partiers like Duffy who promised to “lead by example” when it comes to deficit reduction.
Many of the vehicles go beyond a standard sedan. For example, Cravaack is charging taxpayers more than $1,000 a month to pay the lease on his 2011 Chevy Equinox, a crossover SUV with all-wheel drive.


Here’s what the seven Republican freshmen’s congressional offices have spent on cars in the past year and a half:

Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN): $25,580.84

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI): $24,525.00

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX): $10,997.45

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO): $20,978.07

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH): $4,889.76

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS): $8,848.00

Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR): $10,746.59


Total: $106,643

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/16/511807/tea-party-car-leases/

.

July 16, 2012

Willard Romney “’I Created An Incredibly Valuable Firm That’s Making All You Guys Rich. YOU OWE ME!’

Admiral Mitt on his boat.....Oh,..whats that?....its sinking?...




" Despite an easily distracted news media and a weekend for the story to cool off, questions about Mitt Romney’s tenure are driving the day again at the start of a new week, and it may only be getting worse for Romney. If you just tuned in, the issue is how long Romney stayed at Bain Capital — he said he left in 1999, but government documents and his own testimony show he stayed on in some capacity until 2002, at which point his campaign claims he “retroactively retired.” Essentially, the campaign is saying that while Romney technically stayed on as CEO and owner for over two years after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, he had no actual responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the company. This may be entirely true, but why bother staying on at all then?



Former Bain managing director Ed Conard, who worked with Romney at the company and has defended him since, provided an answer. He told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes yesterday that Romney stayed on for three years as CEO after 1999 so he would have more leverage in order to extract as much money as possible from the company while he was walking out the door. For over two years, Conard said, Romney and his partners negotiated how much money Romney would get for leaving the company. He wanted more; they wanted to give him less. Speaking as Romney, Conard explained the candidate’s position at the time: “’I created an incredibly valuable firm that’s making all you guys rich. You owe me.’ That’s the negotiation.” Conard explained that Romney stayed on as CEO “in part, yes, of course” to drive a harder bargain with the company.



Conard made a $1 million contribution to the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, gave the maximum $2,500 to Romney’s primary campaign, and recently became famous for writing a book celebrating the virtue of the ultra wealthy, so it’s unlikely that he would misrepresent the past in order to hurt Romney. Romney’s departure time matters because some of the company’s least flattering moments, including the closure of a steel mill in Kansas City, occurred during those three years, when Romney has insisted he was gone and thus not responsible for Bain’s activities. He also submitted ethics forms saying he was not involved in any way with Bain after 1999.



On one hand, Conard’s version of events clears Romney of the most weighty accusations of misrepresentation; but on the other hand, the alibi is almost as bad as the alleged crime. According to Edward’s story, Romney would have none of the headaches he’s dealing with this week about his convoluted departure timeline had he simply left in 1999 and not been so concerned about squeezing as much money as possible from Bain. The story is reminiscent of the one about when Romney started Bain Capital, when he secured a escape clause for himself that guaranteed he could return to his old job at Bain & Company if the new venture failed, meaning there was essentially zero risk for him personally. From the beginning, Chicago wanted to paint Romney as a real-life Gordon Gekko, the Wall Street anti-hero who declares that “greed is good.” In Conard’s narrative, Romney seems to apply this maxim even to his former partners.






http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/romneys_bad_bain_allabi/


.