How A Prosecutor Would Attack Romney's 1999 'Retroactive Retirement'

Peter Cohan, Forbes.com

With the concept of retroactive retirement, Ed Gillespie, Romney senior advisor, has done wonders to keep alive the story of the gap between Mitt Romney’s claims that he retired or took a leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999. 142 documents Bain Capital filed with the SEC contradict Romney’s claim, according to the New York Times.

And based on my July 17 interview with a recently retired prosecutor who has argued securities law cases in front of a judge and jury, there could be a way to make Romney legally accountable for the gap between his claim of leaving Bain Capital and the information in those SEC filings.

Before getting into the details of this prosecutor’s imaginary case against Romney, let’s examine why he would want to retroactively retire from Bain Capital — meaning when he became governor in 2002, he changed his story (history) – saying he had retired in 1999.

To understand this, it’s worth noting that when Bain & Co. CEO, Bill Bain, asked Romney to head Bain Capital, Romney negotiated a promise from Bain that if Bain Capital failed, Romney would be reinstated at the consulting firm with honor and with full credit — in salary and tenure — for the time he spent at Bain Capital.

full: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/18/how-a-prosecutor-would-attack-romneys-1999-retroactive-retirement/