Comments on: Mitt Romney Is the Seeing Eye Dog for His “Blind Trust”

By: malialitman

malialitman — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:24:27 +0000

Cracklin Charlie,
I don’t know, but it should be!

By: Cracklin' Charlie

Cracklin' Charlie — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:06:45 +0000

Will this be a public take down, Reality Check?

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:09:50 +0000

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!!!

By: malialitman

malialitman — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:03:42 +0000

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.

By: aj weishar

aj weishar — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:18:02 +0000

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.

By: malialitman

malialitman — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:41:17 +0000

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.

By: malialitman

malialitman — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:37:52 +0000

Gindy53,
I couldn’t have said it more eloquently!

By: Gindy53

Gindy53 — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:49:41 +0000

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.

By: Ottoline

Ottoline — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:25:28 +0000

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.

By: malialitman

malialitman — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:03:32 +0000

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.