By Robert Parry
Exclusive: Mitt Romney cites independent fact-checkers to spare him from having to explain exactly what he did with Bain Capital after February 1999. But those fact-checkers are acting less like impartial journalists and more like argumentative lawyers covering Romneys political flanks, writes Robert Parry.
Self-styled independent fact-checkers at the Annenberg Center and the neoconservative-dominated Washington Post have positioned themselves as ardent defenders of Mitt Romneys claims that his Bain Capital tenure ended in 1999 despite questions raised by contradictory information submitted by Romney himself.
Indeed, the behavior of these fact-checkers is rapidly becoming the journalism scandal of Campaign 2012 as the likes of Brooks Jackson at Annenbergs FactCheck.org and the Posts Glenn Kessler act more as querulous lawyers protecting Romney than as journalists seeking the actual facts surrounding Romneys curious business narrative.
Much as the Posts Ceci Connolly and the New York Times Katharine Seeyle engaged in aggressive and dishonest journalism to portray Vice President Al Gore as a serial liar during Campaign 2000, Jackson and Kessler are performing a similar role in portraying President Barack Obama and his campaign officials as liars now. [For the history, see Consortiumnews.coms Al Gore v. the Media or Neck Deep.]
Yet, despite the pro-Romney protectiveness from Jackson and Kessler, the questions raised by the Obama campaign and a number of journalists about Romneys dubious claims are clearly legitimate. These questions about whether Romney completely divorced himself from his venture capital firm when he rushed off in February 1999 to head the Winter Olympics stem, in large part, from public disclosures that Bain Capital filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
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, in his presidential campaign disclosure form in 2011, Romney declared that he has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way after leaving Boston for Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Olympics job on Feb. 11, 1999. Jackson and Kessler treat Romneys bald assertion as fact despite the conflicting evidence.
There are also logical questions that any journalist worth his or her salt would ask: Mr. Romney, does your claim mean you had no contact with your former Bain associates by telephone, e-mail or in person in that time frame? Did you really build a Chinese Wall between yourself and your company?
Common sense would tell you that Romney did have conversations with his long-time subordinates. There was no legal reason not to, and he was involved enough to sign some of the SEC forms listing him as the person in charge. (Only later, after it became clear that Bain-related plant closings and job outsourcing after February 1999 were a political liability, did Romney start insisting that his separation had been total.)
If Romney now confirms that he had some contacts with Bain executives, the next questions would be when, what, why and with whom. Are there e-mail messages or memos that could be examined? So, instead of offering those kinds of details, he cites the work of these independent fact-checkers to shield him from the inquiries.
Much More: The Romney Fact-Checking Scandal | Consortiumnews