You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sweating Obama Camp To Bring In The Big Guns
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
Odumbo and other liberals have used this sleezy tactic before. This is part of the democrat playbook along with election fraud.
'Boston Globe' Joins Obama's Dirty Trick Brigade
We know Gloria Allred has personally met with Barack Obama. We also know Gloria Allred is currently attempting to create a whiff of scandal to aid and abet Obama's war on women narrative over some nonsense involving a scorned woman and a divorce settlement from the nineties. Furthermore, we also know this is how the Axelrod/Obama machine operates to win elections because unsealing divorce records to destroy opponents is exactly what they've done before. What's new in today's scenario, though, is that The Boston Globe has officially joined the Obama/Axelrod/Chicago Dirty Trick Brigade.
No one is saying it's surprising that the Boston Globe would join forces with Chicago, only that it's new. After all, the Boston Globe is infamous for its left-wing bias and longtime animus towards Republicans, including the paper's former governor, Mitt Romney. The paper coming clean like this, though, and openly taking part in manufacturing an October Surprise against Mitt Romney is, however, a new low:
A Massachusetts judge will hold another hearing Thursday before deciding whether to unseal testimony that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave in the divorce case of Staples founder Tom Stemberg.
Ex-wife Maureen Stemberg Sullivan appeared in court Wednesday with lawyer Gloria Allred. They said they did not object to a Boston Globe motion to lift an impoundment order on Romney's testimony in the case from the early 1990s.
Yes, you read that correctly; in obvious alliance with Obama's Chicago Machine, a major news outlet is launching a high-profile publicity campaign to unseal two decade-old documents in the hopes they will damage Mitt Romney less than two weeks out from the election.
Keep in mind that this isn't some obscure court case that just came to everyone's attention today. It's an old story in political circles and even more familiar in Massachusetts. In other words, had it wanted to, the Globe could've requested these records months or even years ago. But by doing so this week and in such a high-profile way, the stunt is meant to ensure that in the waning days of a close campaign, stories and innuendo start swirling --if there's no there there.
And there probably isn't.
But the story that is seeping out there is that mean old Mitt Romney once testified against some poor put- upon woman in a divorce case. Gee, you think that helps Obama out with the Sandra Fluke crowd?
Oh, and the corrupt media that just ridiculed Donald Trump for calling attention to Obama's refusal to release his college and passport records is breathlessly watching and reporting/Tweeting Allred's every move.
See how this works?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/24/Boston-Globe-Joins-Obama-Dirty-Truck-Brigade
'Boston Globe' Joins Obama's Dirty Trick Brigade
We know Gloria Allred has personally met with Barack Obama. We also know Gloria Allred is currently attempting to create a whiff of scandal to aid and abet Obama's war on women narrative over some nonsense involving a scorned woman and a divorce settlement from the nineties. Furthermore, we also know this is how the Axelrod/Obama machine operates to win elections because unsealing divorce records to destroy opponents is exactly what they've done before. What's new in today's scenario, though, is that The Boston Globe has officially joined the Obama/Axelrod/Chicago Dirty Trick Brigade.
No one is saying it's surprising that the Boston Globe would join forces with Chicago, only that it's new. After all, the Boston Globe is infamous for its left-wing bias and longtime animus towards Republicans, including the paper's former governor, Mitt Romney. The paper coming clean like this, though, and openly taking part in manufacturing an October Surprise against Mitt Romney is, however, a new low:
A Massachusetts judge will hold another hearing Thursday before deciding whether to unseal testimony that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave in the divorce case of Staples founder Tom Stemberg.
Ex-wife Maureen Stemberg Sullivan appeared in court Wednesday with lawyer Gloria Allred. They said they did not object to a Boston Globe motion to lift an impoundment order on Romney's testimony in the case from the early 1990s.
Yes, you read that correctly; in obvious alliance with Obama's Chicago Machine, a major news outlet is launching a high-profile publicity campaign to unseal two decade-old documents in the hopes they will damage Mitt Romney less than two weeks out from the election.
Keep in mind that this isn't some obscure court case that just came to everyone's attention today. It's an old story in political circles and even more familiar in Massachusetts. In other words, had it wanted to, the Globe could've requested these records months or even years ago. But by doing so this week and in such a high-profile way, the stunt is meant to ensure that in the waning days of a close campaign, stories and innuendo start swirling --if there's no there there.
And there probably isn't.
But the story that is seeping out there is that mean old Mitt Romney once testified against some poor put- upon woman in a divorce case. Gee, you think that helps Obama out with the Sandra Fluke crowd?
Oh, and the corrupt media that just ridiculed Donald Trump for calling attention to Obama's refusal to release his college and passport records is breathlessly watching and reporting/Tweeting Allred's every move.
See how this works?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/24/Boston-Globe-Joins-Obama-Dirty-Truck-Brigade
Romney lied under oath to help his scumbag buddy screw his wife in a divorce.Romneys scumbag buddy later tried to end the women's health insurance while she was going through a serious illness.Hopefully they can get this story out there
Apart from a close friendship, which is no secret, between Mitt Romney and Tom Stemberg, one turns the question over and over why it is that the now Governor of Massachusetts would have ever testified in a divorce case? We speak here of Mitt Romneyâs relationship with Stapleâs founder Tom Stemberg who is now Romneyâs Campaign Manager. He was called, thatâs why, and had no choice, but Romney did have a choice and an obligation to be completely forthcoming on the stand.
But then, the details havenât been made clearly public, so in some effort to set the long and very winding road straight (for this is really like going through the looking glass, which may well be as it is intended), Mitt Romney and Tom Stemberg go back a long way â all the way to the very founding of Staples when Romney was working for Bain and felt that Staples was perhaps a good investment and was the first investor to come on board to the tune of $650,000 dollars.
It was about a year and half later later, in 1988 when called as a witness by Tom Stembergâs lawyers for a divorce case that Romney said on record that Staples stock was, essentially, âover-valued. In his own-words, Romney said, âI didnât place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companyâs future.â (p. 441, appeals court document No. 95 P 286, Norfolk County) Romney is then asked how many times in the past he has âreviewed these kinds of offeringsâ (441). Yet in the early Spring of 1989 Staples went public. So much for undervalued. Either Mitt does not know his figures, or he was dangerously close to perjuring himself on the stand or outright lying. You decideâ¦Romney.jpg
Of course, as a senior at Bain, the answer can only be many times. Romney goes on to say that Tom Stemberg spoke about the future as if it were today. Tom Stemberg minimized the risk and maximized the high probability of success.â (p. 366 appeals court document No. 95 P 286, Norfolk County). And as Romney says to the attorney, ââ¦and the dream went on.â
What is important to note here is that while Romney was giving this testimony, he was also in dealings with Stemberg and Goldman Sachs to take the company public. That is to say, a company of no worth, in Romneyâs own words â he was about to carry the âdreamâ forward.
Staples went public through Goldman Sachs but three years after Romneyâs initial capital investment. âMitt Romney says heâs prouder of this [Staples] investment than any other.â (Mister PowerPoint Goes to Washington, Mathew Rees, December 1, 2006)
The issue here, if it is not already clear, is why a primary investor in a company that Romney was about to take public and of which he later says he is prouder than any other, he downplayed in a civil divorce case
As a witness for Tom Stemberg, Romney perhaps wanted to downplay the worth of Staples because if he did this then Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg stood to gain a whole lot less from Staples equity because Romney had just undervalued her ex-husbandâs primary asset in a fifty/fifty state. If Staples is not worth very much, if the judge can be convinced of that, then how much can he award in terms of shares?
More, if monies and property are communal in a marriage, why wasnât Staples split fifty-fifty and why was Romney testifying at all, other than the fact that Tom Stemberg, clearly one of Mitt Romneyâs best friends and who recently said of Romney, âI have never met a better venture capitalist [than Mitt Romney]â¦I suspect he will be an equally good president.â (Mr. PowerPoint Goes to Washington, Wide Awakes, syndicated).
Clearly, the relationship between the two has not ended, and thatâs fine: why shouldnât they be friends. But Mitt Romney is running a bid for presidency on certain values and they are directly at odds with what some of what he has done, and certainly, what his best-friends who support him do. Now, since this article was began, Tom Stemberg has been named Romneyâs campaign manager.
Letâs look first at Romneyâs integrity in 1989 at the time of the Stemberg divorce when he was a major shareholder, the first investor, and a boardmember and as such, had, as with any corporation, if the stock was plummeting and in as bad a shape as Romney had said on the stand, why had he not informed shareholders, in particular, didnât he inform major shareholders like Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg (regardless that they were divorcing his best friend, for that would be immoral to withhold, right?) who owned at the time approximately 180,000 shares.
If Staples really was going under as Romney said and was not viable, like any corporate shareholder meeting that would be held, his role as the a primary investor and major shareholder would be to inform the shareholders, particularly large shareholders of the companyâs future and how he did not âplace a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companyâs futureâ (441, Appeals Court, No. 95-P-286, Norfolk County.â and that they were living a âdreamâ to use his word. (âand the dream went onâ¦â (ibid) Romney apparently still has what Boston.com reported as a âdistinct lack of authenticity.â (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/romney_tries_to_rebound_on_record/)
That Romney in the Sullivan-Stemberg case and for Tom Stemberg, and get what you will from his testimony because to one day say the company is worth nothing, then take it public, make millions, then say it is his âproudest achievementâ sounds a lot like flip-flopping which Romney has done on many issues, including abortion when he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and so on â he flip-flops, just as when he was nervous, he by some sources used to flip his tie back and forth. How apt.
In 1994 Romney was all for gay rights and gay marriage and unions, then he did an about face in 2003 and became the gate-keeper. Romney also claimed to have âfew friends in the national rifle associationâ yet now he is all for bearing arms. As the clock tick-tocks, Romney flip-flops. He is like a flounder on the bottom of a boat, just reeled out of the water, unable to breathe in the oxygen and hence, in a panic and choking on his own words. Once you reel Romney in, you see what his real views are, which frankly, are illusory and not real because he remains The Man Who Will Not Be Known.
Apart from a close friendship, which is no secret, between Mitt Romney and Tom Stemberg, one turns the question over and over why it is that the now Governor of Massachusetts would have ever testified in a divorce case? We speak here of Mitt Romneyâs relationship with Stapleâs founder Tom Stemberg who is now Romneyâs Campaign Manager. He was called, thatâs why, and had no choice, but Romney did have a choice and an obligation to be completely forthcoming on the stand.
But then, the details havenât been made clearly public, so in some effort to set the long and very winding road straight (for this is really like going through the looking glass, which may well be as it is intended), Mitt Romney and Tom Stemberg go back a long way â all the way to the very founding of Staples when Romney was working for Bain and felt that Staples was perhaps a good investment and was the first investor to come on board to the tune of $650,000 dollars.
It was about a year and half later later, in 1988 when called as a witness by Tom Stembergâs lawyers for a divorce case that Romney said on record that Staples stock was, essentially, âover-valued. In his own-words, Romney said, âI didnât place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companyâs future.â (p. 441, appeals court document No. 95 P 286, Norfolk County) Romney is then asked how many times in the past he has âreviewed these kinds of offeringsâ (441). Yet in the early Spring of 1989 Staples went public. So much for undervalued. Either Mitt does not know his figures, or he was dangerously close to perjuring himself on the stand or outright lying. You decideâ¦Romney.jpg
Of course, as a senior at Bain, the answer can only be many times. Romney goes on to say that Tom Stemberg spoke about the future as if it were today. Tom Stemberg minimized the risk and maximized the high probability of success.â (p. 366 appeals court document No. 95 P 286, Norfolk County). And as Romney says to the attorney, ââ¦and the dream went on.â
What is important to note here is that while Romney was giving this testimony, he was also in dealings with Stemberg and Goldman Sachs to take the company public. That is to say, a company of no worth, in Romneyâs own words â he was about to carry the âdreamâ forward.
Staples went public through Goldman Sachs but three years after Romneyâs initial capital investment. âMitt Romney says heâs prouder of this [Staples] investment than any other.â (Mister PowerPoint Goes to Washington, Mathew Rees, December 1, 2006)
The issue here, if it is not already clear, is why a primary investor in a company that Romney was about to take public and of which he later says he is prouder than any other, he downplayed in a civil divorce case
As a witness for Tom Stemberg, Romney perhaps wanted to downplay the worth of Staples because if he did this then Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg stood to gain a whole lot less from Staples equity because Romney had just undervalued her ex-husbandâs primary asset in a fifty/fifty state. If Staples is not worth very much, if the judge can be convinced of that, then how much can he award in terms of shares?
More, if monies and property are communal in a marriage, why wasnât Staples split fifty-fifty and why was Romney testifying at all, other than the fact that Tom Stemberg, clearly one of Mitt Romneyâs best friends and who recently said of Romney, âI have never met a better venture capitalist [than Mitt Romney]â¦I suspect he will be an equally good president.â (Mr. PowerPoint Goes to Washington, Wide Awakes, syndicated).
Clearly, the relationship between the two has not ended, and thatâs fine: why shouldnât they be friends. But Mitt Romney is running a bid for presidency on certain values and they are directly at odds with what some of what he has done, and certainly, what his best-friends who support him do. Now, since this article was began, Tom Stemberg has been named Romneyâs campaign manager.
Letâs look first at Romneyâs integrity in 1989 at the time of the Stemberg divorce when he was a major shareholder, the first investor, and a boardmember and as such, had, as with any corporation, if the stock was plummeting and in as bad a shape as Romney had said on the stand, why had he not informed shareholders, in particular, didnât he inform major shareholders like Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg (regardless that they were divorcing his best friend, for that would be immoral to withhold, right?) who owned at the time approximately 180,000 shares.
If Staples really was going under as Romney said and was not viable, like any corporate shareholder meeting that would be held, his role as the a primary investor and major shareholder would be to inform the shareholders, particularly large shareholders of the companyâs future and how he did not âplace a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companyâs futureâ (441, Appeals Court, No. 95-P-286, Norfolk County.â and that they were living a âdreamâ to use his word. (âand the dream went onâ¦â (ibid) Romney apparently still has what Boston.com reported as a âdistinct lack of authenticity.â (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/romney_tries_to_rebound_on_record/)
That Romney in the Sullivan-Stemberg case and for Tom Stemberg, and get what you will from his testimony because to one day say the company is worth nothing, then take it public, make millions, then say it is his âproudest achievementâ sounds a lot like flip-flopping which Romney has done on many issues, including abortion when he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and so on â he flip-flops, just as when he was nervous, he by some sources used to flip his tie back and forth. How apt.
In 1994 Romney was all for gay rights and gay marriage and unions, then he did an about face in 2003 and became the gate-keeper. Romney also claimed to have âfew friends in the national rifle associationâ yet now he is all for bearing arms. As the clock tick-tocks, Romney flip-flops. He is like a flounder on the bottom of a boat, just reeled out of the water, unable to breathe in the oxygen and hence, in a panic and choking on his own words. Once you reel Romney in, you see what his real views are, which frankly, are illusory and not real because he remains The Man Who Will Not Be Known.
But the Sullivan-Stemberg divore case is no joke and speaks yet more to Romenyâs integrity. Romney did a two-step cha-cha - at best - and all for the benefit of a friend (and likely himself) during a divorce case; only a court of law can decide whether or not he perjured himself and what he tells us now. If you did tell the truth then, are you telling the truth now, Mr. Romney? Or did you lie on the stand then about Staples and are now touting itâs great value as your âproudest achievementâ. which is it Mr. Romney, Mr. Stemberg? You canât have it both ways.
For Tom Stemberg to say that the idea of founding Staples was his and his alone and to reap all of the profit and gain is not only ufair, it reeks of sexism, but coming from a man who committed adultery more than once and impregnated another woman during an âaffairâ (call it what you will), this is hardly surprising. In fact, none of this is surprising. The only surprising part is that Mitt Romney â the man who Would Be President â is best-friends with Tom Stemberg, because Tom Stemberg is a lot of things, but family values he ainât. No: heâs Mr. Romneyâs Campaign Manager.
Romney did a good thing when he signed into law legislation creating universal health care coverage in the Massachusetts. Itâs important because no other state had been able to do the same thing, although Europe has socialized medicine which is along the same lines, but the universal health care coverage bill is unique, but Romney may be sensitive to this, at least in part, because his wife Ann has an autoimmune disease â multiple sclerosis.
That said, there are, however, some interesting parallels between Mittâs life, or Mittâs wife anyway, and Tomâs ex-wife Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg; both have rare auto-immune diseases that are (thus far) incurable (Ann Romney has M.S., Maureen Sullivan Stemberg has â among myriad other health problems - and here one must note that Tom Stemberg tried at one point to cut off her health insurance entirely â Sullivan Stemberg has Systemic Lupus, an autoimmune disease in which the bodyâs immune system cannot differentiate between host and enemy and therefore attacks vital organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and so on, slowly attacking each organ. Lupus can eventually lead to lymphoma with chemotherapy as a last and final resort.
Often there is sister auto-immune disease that goes along with Lupus called Sjogrens Syndrom (pronounced show-grins) which, like systemic lupus, causes the body to attack vital organs, only this time, they are different organs and sjogrens takes a different form and is often called sjogrenâs vasculitis for it affects the blood vessels in the body causing painful neuropathy.
Like Annâs or anyone elseâs M.S., or an autoimmune disease, Maureenâs lupus is painful, flares and sparks and spits and flames when irritated by stress (perhaps having your health insurance taken away, only to have it given back the next day or week in a kind of game of cat and mouse that has been going on for years.)
But Ann is married to the âfamily manâ himself â she has no worries on this front and presents the role of the tireless campaigner who will Stand By Her Man, which is great and I would stand by mine, but certainly not if he were a hypocrite.
Itâs great that Mittâs bill would cover Sullivan-Stembergâs healthcare, but would it afford the same level of care that she needs, for one, and secondly, his Campaign Manager sent a form for Sullivan Stemberg to sign that would have effectively, again, cut off her health benefits entirely.
This, among other things, makes one question Romneyâs choices concerning whose company he keeps â for if this is his best-friend, or âwing-manâ as noted earlier, are we going to have the founder of Staples (who was fired from Staples, his own company) as such an integral part of our government. And Romney stands idly by while all of this happens. Or perhaps he has been snowed and doesnât know: donât hear, donât see, donâtâ tell may be his policy on this rather personal issue. If that is the case, how we Romney treat us as individuals? He may speak a good game to an âaudienceâ and put on a great show, but what happens if he ever does get in office? The theory is that every man becomes no man. Or in this case, no woman.
Mitt, isnât it time you spoke with your friend and fellow campaign manager about putting his own affairs in order before moving forward.
For Tom Stemberg to say that the idea of founding Staples was his and his alone and to reap all of the profit and gain is not only ufair, it reeks of sexism, but coming from a man who committed adultery more than once and impregnated another woman during an âaffairâ (call it what you will), this is hardly surprising. In fact, none of this is surprising. The only surprising part is that Mitt Romney â the man who Would Be President â is best-friends with Tom Stemberg, because Tom Stemberg is a lot of things, but family values he ainât. No: heâs Mr. Romneyâs Campaign Manager.
Romney did a good thing when he signed into law legislation creating universal health care coverage in the Massachusetts. Itâs important because no other state had been able to do the same thing, although Europe has socialized medicine which is along the same lines, but the universal health care coverage bill is unique, but Romney may be sensitive to this, at least in part, because his wife Ann has an autoimmune disease â multiple sclerosis.
That said, there are, however, some interesting parallels between Mittâs life, or Mittâs wife anyway, and Tomâs ex-wife Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg; both have rare auto-immune diseases that are (thus far) incurable (Ann Romney has M.S., Maureen Sullivan Stemberg has â among myriad other health problems - and here one must note that Tom Stemberg tried at one point to cut off her health insurance entirely â Sullivan Stemberg has Systemic Lupus, an autoimmune disease in which the bodyâs immune system cannot differentiate between host and enemy and therefore attacks vital organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and so on, slowly attacking each organ. Lupus can eventually lead to lymphoma with chemotherapy as a last and final resort.
Often there is sister auto-immune disease that goes along with Lupus called Sjogrens Syndrom (pronounced show-grins) which, like systemic lupus, causes the body to attack vital organs, only this time, they are different organs and sjogrens takes a different form and is often called sjogrenâs vasculitis for it affects the blood vessels in the body causing painful neuropathy.
Like Annâs or anyone elseâs M.S., or an autoimmune disease, Maureenâs lupus is painful, flares and sparks and spits and flames when irritated by stress (perhaps having your health insurance taken away, only to have it given back the next day or week in a kind of game of cat and mouse that has been going on for years.)
But Ann is married to the âfamily manâ himself â she has no worries on this front and presents the role of the tireless campaigner who will Stand By Her Man, which is great and I would stand by mine, but certainly not if he were a hypocrite.
Itâs great that Mittâs bill would cover Sullivan-Stembergâs healthcare, but would it afford the same level of care that she needs, for one, and secondly, his Campaign Manager sent a form for Sullivan Stemberg to sign that would have effectively, again, cut off her health benefits entirely.
This, among other things, makes one question Romneyâs choices concerning whose company he keeps â for if this is his best-friend, or âwing-manâ as noted earlier, are we going to have the founder of Staples (who was fired from Staples, his own company) as such an integral part of our government. And Romney stands idly by while all of this happens. Or perhaps he has been snowed and doesnât know: donât hear, donât see, donâtâ tell may be his policy on this rather personal issue. If that is the case, how we Romney treat us as individuals? He may speak a good game to an âaudienceâ and put on a great show, but what happens if he ever does get in office? The theory is that every man becomes no man. Or in this case, no woman.
Mitt, isnât it time you spoke with your friend and fellow campaign manager about putting his own affairs in order before moving forward.
I remember when that dick head reporter that was channeling the spirit of Walter Winchell pulled some last minute bullshit on Bush II. He's been gone so long now and always was such an embarrassment that I can't recall his name even. He ended his career with that stuff.. The Boston Globe probably can see the end of their business plan on the horizo,n considering how newspapers are doing in this computer age, so they are pulling out all the stops. Liberals serve a higher calling anyhow so the means justifies the ends.
That's a stretch and you know it AK. Declaring that his opinion of the prosecution's estimated value of the company as "overvalued" is not even in the same realm as your suggestion that they were trying to take a company public that was "worthless".
It is also not a problem for him to say that he believed the company president's hope for the future of the company to be misaligned with the current reality of the company. They were taking the company public for the same reason that everyone takes a company public. They needed investment to grow the company. But this is business 101. Investors don't pay for the expected future value of the company, they pay for the present value of the company in hopes that the expected future value will materialize. So it was for the guy's wife. She couldn't expect to be compensated for the future value of the company. Only for the realistic present value of a private company.
So it isn't a problem for him to testify that in his opinion the stated value of the private company was too high, and then 20 years later, after taking the company public and growing it into a national chain, claiming it as a success story.
Don't stretch so far. It reduces your overall credibility when you have a legitimate point.
It is also not a problem for him to say that he believed the company president's hope for the future of the company to be misaligned with the current reality of the company. They were taking the company public for the same reason that everyone takes a company public. They needed investment to grow the company. But this is business 101. Investors don't pay for the expected future value of the company, they pay for the present value of the company in hopes that the expected future value will materialize. So it was for the guy's wife. She couldn't expect to be compensated for the future value of the company. Only for the realistic present value of a private company.
So it isn't a problem for him to testify that in his opinion the stated value of the private company was too high, and then 20 years later, after taking the company public and growing it into a national chain, claiming it as a success story.
Don't stretch so far. It reduces your overall credibility when you have a legitimate point.