Skip to comments.Romney's 'October surprise' WILL be released: Judge allows Mitt's secret evidence...be public
Posted on 10/25/2012 8:06:35 AM PDT by Justaham
Original title: Romney's 'October surprise' WILL be released: Judge allows Mitt's secret evidence in bitter divorce of ex-Staples CEO to be made public
Celebrity attorney Gloria Allred has won her battle to have Mitt Romney's sworn testimony in the bitter divorce of the ex-Staples CEO released to the public - in what is claimed could provide a damaging blow to his campaign.
The Boston Globe filed the application to unseal the records and lift a gagging order on all parties involved after receiving a tip-off that there was 'juicy information about Romney' in the documents.
On Wednesday, there were claims that Romney's testimony in 1991 meant that Maureen Stemberg received a poor divorce settlement in the divorce from former Staples CEO Tom Stemberg after he said the company's stocks were 'overvalued'.
But Romney's lawyer said he would happily allow the transcripts to be released - leaving them to be left open to interpretation. The documents have yet to be seen by the press.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This is so dumb. Nobody cares about stock testimony in some 20 year old divorce.
Okay, so what does Romney do now? Stay above this inanity or attack Obama on HIS sealed records? What’s the best political maneuver?
Did the judge issue a written ruling or is this just shooting from the lip? Why would the governator be involved in the ruling?
“But Romney’s lawyer said he would happily allow the transcripts to be released - leaving them to be left open to interpretation.”
Does Romney’s lawyer not realize how the Obama campaign and the MSM would “interpret” something like this???
TRANSCRIPT ONLY! Gag orders remain, LOL! BWAHAhahahahahahaha!!
Didn’t Romney’s lawyer say he (Romney) didn’t have a problem with the records being made public?
I’d say stay above the fray. It worked on the tax returns. Any time Romney says, “Fine with me if people look” he will look presidential and every time some Obama drone brings it up they will look desperate.
Ah, There at least five threads on this issue today on FR, yours is the only one who said she won.
The judge is a Deval Patrick political operative. Patrick and Barry are buddies.
Allred is all-stupid.
I love how she is chasing rabbits.
Google News has breaking news links up now showing how Mitt Romney AND the ex husband Tom Stemberg have no problems with releasing 20 year old details.
There was then - and there is now - NOTHING TO HIDE.
(insert evil laugh here)
The best thing is probably to do or say nothing.
Presuming there is nothing damaging in the Romney's testimony, the Kneepad Media can analyze it to death. But, no one else will be interested.
However, the gag order is still in effect. This is good, because it means the ex-wife can't start making wild accusations that Romney would have to refute or suffer in silence.
That one is simple. He ignores it. To attack Obama on his sealed records in response to this indicates some sort of equivalence which there is none. If Romney was going to attack Obama on his sealed records he should have done it months ago. In addition Romney never had to attack Obama on this issue. he should have had surrogates (besides Trump) do it for him.
Romney should be harping on Libya, Eqypt, Iran and the wrecked economy, contrasting Romney’s leadership experience with Obama’s and explaining what he would do differently. Let surrogates mess with birther and sealed records crap. There is so much stuff to go after Obama on that Romney must be selective.
So, you have a rabid whore of the legal system, conspiring and working with a probably very left leaning judge to prostitute the system and release sealed testimony in a blatant attempt to harm Romney on the eve of the election.
...and for what? A 20 year old divorce case where Romney was called to give testimony about the worth of the stock? Seriously? He gave sworn testimony about the stock...what was he supposed to do, lie, so the woman would get a better settlement?
This is all they’ve got. They’ve never had anything on Romney so they either come up with these inane attacks about a dog in a car top carrier 30 years ago, a fisti-cuff in High School 50 years ago, and now a woman who did not get what the left considers an “optimum” settlement because Mitt gave truthful testimony about the husband’s stock?
But the press will latch on to this and make it the talk of the news for the next week...even while the stench of treason is in the air, hanging over this nation as a result of Obama’s Benghazi debacle.
An American Lament in 2012
I think the fact that they aren’t afraid of it will speak volumes.
And lemme ask you this: How would Obozo and his minions have interpreted it if Romney had tried to keep this stuff sealed?
It’s a nothingburger. The only thing they can do with it is make a whiny attack ad that goes nowhere.
"On Wednesday, there were claims that Romney's testimony in 1991 meant that Maureen Stemberg received a poor divorce settlement in the divorce from former Staples CEO Tom Stemberg after he said the company's stocks were 'overvalued'."
Ha Ha. We're supposed to get all angry about a private company being "overvalued" twenty plus years ago... when Obama and his people deliberately overvalued bankrupt solar companies run by his donors so that they could get guaranteed, taxpayer-funded loans?
I agree, except for this: Let Libya happen on its own. It’s only going to get worse. Keep talking about the economy. There’s a reason Obama was trying to bait him into attacking on it at the most recent debate.
you know what this means??
romney just lost the psychobitch ex-wife vote...
This lady loves to hate her ex-husband and anyone associated with him. Romney’s role at their divorce hearing was testimony about the value of Staples stock 2 years before it went public. Apparently, at the time he considered it worth about 2.25 a share. She got 500,000 shares from the court and she must have sold half of them at 2.25 a share.
But she held on to 250,000 shares which she sold later for who knows what.
In any case, 2 years later, the new start-up, Staples, went public at $19 a share. (For curiosity seekers: Staples is selling today at about 11.50 a share.)
She’s mad that Romney didn’t predict a higher price years later. Therefore, Romney “cheated” her, too.
The 11.41 price today says that Romney could not have known the ups and downs of the price. In the last year alone, Staples has gone into the 16’s and now down into the 11’s. That’s a $5 swing in less than a year. In a 2 year time frame it suggest a $10 swing is not out of the ordinary. With a new start-up business, who the heck could begin to know with certainty??? I’d expect a person to be cautious predicting something like that.
But, even Romney’s testimony gave the lady over a million bucks. We all should be so abused.
I have never heard a dumber “october allred surprise” than this one.
Apparently, her gripe with Romney is that he isn’t a prophet.
Listening to Allred’s news conference outside the courthouse now. She is a piece of work.
Wants to represent her client (for some sort of relief which I can’t figure out), but is (obviously) desperate to get Romney’s testimony to the public, and yet claims not to be a surrogate for the Democrat party.
Ten minutes after the Romney transcripts get released, her client won’t see her ever again... except on a TV screen.
It’s just really nice to see her fret under the weight of a gag order!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.