Mitt Romney and Seamus have a lot in common. They both have excrement all over themselves. Since the beginning of the campaign we have heard about the “blind trust” of Mitt Romney. Romney has distanced himself from any responsibility for the management of his money because it is managed by a trustee of a “blind trust.” His lack of knowledge about the investments of the “blind trust” was particularly helpful because of the off-shore investments that would have suggested he didn’t have what Obama is calling “economic patriotism.”
With the release of Romney’s 2011 tax returns we have learned about many unsettling investments that demonstrate the opposite of “economic patriotism” and the opposite of the goals of the Republican Party. For a complete analysis of the absurdity of these returns, see this article from the Business Insider. However even those not versed in sophisticated accounting, realize the hypocrisy of Romney being the Republican candidate for President, and having made investments in these companies:
1. A Pharmaceutical company focused on Stem Cell Research
2. Chinese owned oil companies
3. A Pharmaceutical company that produces the Morning After Pill, a contraceptive that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg
4. Credit Sussie Group, a company fined $536 Million for violating Iran Trade Sanctions
5. Various Chinese companies, including a company sued by a U.S. firm for copyright infringement
6. BNP Paribas, a French based bank with ties to Iran
7. Intesa Sanpaolo, an Italian bank being Investigated by U.S. authorities for handling Iranian funds
These companies and their investment strategies might be offensive but if Romney truly had no input or control over his investments, poor judgment in selecting the trustee of the “blind trust” might be the only thing we could pin on Romney. After all Romney’s web site includes a statement from the trustee of his “blind trust,” Brad Malt who declared that:
“The investments within the trusts are managed on a blind basis by me, the trustee. I have sole responsibility for making, holding and disposing of the investments.”
However the truth is quite the opposite. Practically, it is absurd to think that a trustee of this much money doesn’t take input and guidance from the beneficiary of this trust. Mitt Romney likely has the power to appoint a new trustee, if he feels Brad isn’t living up to his expectations. The real proof of Romney’s control over the “blind trust” is the fact of the timing of the sale of these Anti-American and Anti-Republican Party investments. The “blind trust” sold its interest in the companies listed above the DAY BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE IN IOWA!
Even if Brad could explain one or two sales, the day before the GOP debate in Iowa, for strictly strategic investing purposes, he can’t offer any explanation for the sale of all non-patriotic investments, except that Mitt told him to sell these. In addition a trustee of a “blind trust” is hired to maximize income for the trust and is not typically charged with making charitable contributions. If the goal of the trust was to make charitable contributions, it would be a “charitable trust” which would have its own tax advantages. In 2011 Romney’s “blind trust” made a donation of $4,020,772 to charities, but only claimed a deduction of $2.25 million. Romney would like to take credit for his charitable giving, even though he has said he has no control over the trust. Failing to take a current deduction of $2.25 million for roughly half of this charitable giving would be directly contrary to the best interest of the trust, so that decision must have been made by Romney himself, in order to assure his effective tax rate would be as high as possible, during the election cycle.
Seamus didn’t deserve to have excrement all over himself; Romney does.







15 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm
MrsGunka
Thanks for your explanation Malia. Never being in a position to have a Blind Trust, I didn’t know how they worked. I control a college fund set up for our grandchildren many years ago. They are now in college, and ALL money goes thru my direction. Their is a paper trail for every cent! It is tax free and the IRS is on it. $12,000 pales in comparison. Just how do these people get away with this fraud?
September 29, 2012 at 2:03 pm
malialitman
Mrs. Gunka,
Mitt can afford the best attorneys and the best accountants, so he makes sure that he doesn’t commit actual fraud. The difference is what is “legal” and what is in the best interest of America. Those are two very different concepts.
September 29, 2012 at 12:44 pm
lilylake
E x cellent, e x c e l l e n t, Malia! You have a lot of great observations here.
I’m not a legal person, but I do understand many financial & economic ideas; my father was an economics professor/chairman.
Just the words “blind trust” sound like some kind of financial- legal oxymoron. And a bunch of morons, but many times dishonest ones are getting into or running them!!
You don’t have to be intelligent to learn how to break the rules and get away with financial cheating and outright white collar criminal behavior. It’s happening everywhere, unfortunately. And we do not need a President who has gotten away with these crimes against the American economy and American dreams. Do people realize Romney is the absolute antithesis to a President like Barack Obama? – Lily L
September 29, 2012 at 2:00 pm
malialitman
lilylake,
Can you imagine anyone who had that kind of money allowing someone else to control it? The secret is that the person who creates the trust retains to power to remove the trustee for any reason. Thus, even though the person who created the trust has no legal right to control the trust, they retain practical control by retaining the power to remove the trustee.
September 29, 2012 at 1:34 pm
GeeJay
It still holds true – the more we get to know Mitt Romney, the less we like him. We probably haven’t even seen the tip of the iceberg yet.
September 29, 2012 at 1:56 pm
malialitman
Gee Jay,
I think we won’t see the iceberg, as he’ll never give us his last 5 yeaRs of tax returns.
September 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Ottoline
Malia — Thank you for highlighting this again. A couple points that bother me a lot:
– I understand that trustee Brad Malt is Mitt’s personal lawyer, which is so irregular for a blind trust.
– Rachel Maddow recently explained that the too-low deductions Mitt took (the deductions that are way less than he was legally entitled to) can all be corrected after the election, so Mitt’s tax obligation will be way less again, and he will get money back.
– More than ever, I want to know what Reid and Huntsman, sr., had in mind when they went out on a limb to call for Mitt’s tax returns. I don’t see even rumors about what exactly they wanted to reveal. Of course now that Mitt is losing, it’s less important to put that secret malfeasance out there.
September 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm
malialitman
Ottoline,
I think it might have had something to do with the amount he gave to the Mormon church. I think he’s supposed to give 10% of his gross income, rather than 10% net, and I suspect he gave the latter.
September 29, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Gindy53
The bottom line: if Mitt told Brad to sell the crap he sure as shit told him to buy it in the first place. He knew, both times.
September 29, 2012 at 4:37 pm
malialitman
Gindy53,
I couldn’t have said it more eloquently!
September 30, 2012 at 8:18 am
aj weishar
Malia, your response to Ottoline nails one of the reasons Mitt wants to hide his returns, his notion of tithing. Bishop Romney would be exposed to his congregation and Mormon leaders as whatever the Mormons call lying, the thing Moses called bearing false witness. The more I read about Romney, the more he represents greed, fighting to keep every last penny. He cheats on taxes and tithing. By hiding gross income, he shorts his religion, congregation, and technically his god of their share of his wealth.
September 30, 2012 at 9:03 am
malialitman
aj,
Yes, on the one hand he claims to have no control over this “blind trust” but then takes credit for “charitable contributions.” I don’t think there is anything “charitable” about this man. The story of the woman whose life was in danger due to complications from pregnancy and who had gotten the church’s approval for an abortion, and then Mitt showed up to make her feel bad, is just one example of his “charitable” spirit.
October 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Reality Check
Blind Trust is also what some adopted kids have for the families that take care of them…no missed opportunities right Palin? so when that incompetent who can’t afford attorneys takes Palin to court, will Palin go to jail for tampering with the account? and attempted murder? and fail to follow an executive order? or fail to notify the trust account “birthright owner” and embezzled and transferred monies? you don’t’ think we believe you made money off books? you skimmed just like everyone else has… and a EA portfolio as well…made a lot of money with 100 million to start in 66 eh Palin? Interest income is her take of it from what I understand…Sean installed “vulnerable adult” so the legalities can base payments on the “incompetent” plan of action…others didn’t pan out… so now when the traces are made, and the “birthright owner” and biological parents are…drum roll…whatcha gonna do Palin?
Try and kill someone again? or call a “militia” supporter to inflict some “domestic-terrorism”? nice try won’t work dear…your going down…bye bye!!!
October 2, 2012 at 10:06 am
Cracklin' Charlie
Will this be a public take down, Reality Check?
October 2, 2012 at 11:24 am
malialitman
Cracklin Charlie,
I don’t know, but it should be!