On Sunday's show, we'll be talking about the slew of recently enacted voter ID laws and Texas' challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We'll discuss the ever-growing evidence of fraud and corruption on Wall Street, including the recent developments involving Peregrine Financial, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, and the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal. And we'll have Edward Conard, a former partner at Bain Capital, the investment firm co-founded by Mitt Romney, to discuss the revelations this week about Romney's record at the firm, including reports that Romney invested in companies that sent American jobs overseas.
We'll also examine Mitt Romney's money trail and disputed record at Bain.
Joining Chris tomorrow at 8am on MSNBC are:
Edward Conard, former partner at Bain Capital from 1993-2007 and author of "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You've Been Told About the Economy is Wrong."
Alexis Goldstein (@alexisgoldstein), Occupy Wall Street activist and former vice president of information technology at Merrill Lynch.
William Black, associate professor of economic and law at University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry."
Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, Communications Director for Latino Decisions and visiting scholar at University of Texas-Austin.
Dedrick Muhammad, senior economic director of NAACP
Alyona Minkovski (@thealyonashow), host "The Alyona Show" on RT, the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel.
Stephen Carter, law professor at Yale University and Bloomberg View Columnist. Author of "The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln."
::Blogged by Katherine Guthrie (@kguth1130), production assistant for Up with Chris Hayes::
Leave a Comment:
A little surprised that there's been no talk about the Freeh Report on this weekend's Up...I get that it's been talked about elsewhere but I'd like to have it discussed more substantively...in a way that only Up and MHP Show seem capable of doing.
Besides, hard to imagine a more textbook example of the "twilight of the elites" than what's been uncovered at Penn State.
Breaking news: I now know http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/07/lp-vp-judge-gray-announces-1000000-donation/#comments
Thank you for continuing to allow Alexis Goldstein on your show. It is a rare opportunity for any one in the Occupy movement to have a platform to express their viewpoint. I don't agree with much that Conard has said, but give him credit for being on the show and allowing honest questions be asked of him. Much more than you can say about his former boss.
Occupy movement,is not moving much these days.
Alexis needs to comb her hair out of her eye's then maybe she will be able to see.
And she never was a trader, she was in IT.
Oh well shes getting her 15 minutes of fame
Legal is not moral. We let the corrupt buy legislators, who fight regulation, law creation, and rules that are meant to outlaw corrupt behaviour. Why do we have a problem? We're too stupid to elect moral legislators. The corruption starts there.
Chris, you did it AGAIN! You let Conrad from Bain get away with a patently misleading statement and then you agreed with him because you didn't know any better.
Conrad made the statement that the Wells Fargo Settlement reflected what the government REALLY thought of the case against Wells Fargo and that if the government really thought they had a better case, they wouldn't have settled for a sum like that. He made it sound like this was a "no, never mind case", which it was NOT. And then YOU AGREED WITH HIM!!!
Don't you realize that there are regulatory MAXIMUM FINES in these cases and that is ALL the government CAN ask for??? I don't know what the regulatory maximums for this case are because I don't know under which statutes the govt filed, but I guarantee to you that there is NO WAY that for 4000 affected people that the government can ask for Billions of dollars.
When you get someone as smart as the Bain guy on your show, YOU REALLY NEED to have an ex-regulator on YOUR SIDE so you DON'T let these guys take you for a ride!!!
Agree...Chris should have had Bill Black on the show to "discuss" the Bain issue with Conard...
This guy is nothing more than a "propaganda" tool for Romney and the repubs...
Needed someone to ask him pointed questions...they gave him an open forum...
Chris did nobody but Romney a service today!! Unfortunately, this is happening WAY too much on Chris's show these days, where he lets his guests walk all over him. I think I'm out of here until Ezra Klein gets this time slot!!!
Where is all the money?
The rich have a lot, the banks and corporations have a lot more, and China has most of the rest.
So, how is there ever going to be enough demand for goods and services to get the economy going again, when 98% of the population do not have enough money to survive, let alone spend on extras?????
The ONLY thing that will get the economy going again is to take the money back from the greedy psychopath criminals that have taken more than their fair share over the last 50yrs., then spread it around to the people that need it, so 98% of the people can start spending, to get demand up for goods, to restart hiring and the economy. Then STOP the free traiders and bring back tariffs. You want to sell here - build it here or we put a tariff on it. The only beneficiaries of free trade are multinational corporations, banks, the stock market, and the rich and few employees that are involved.
The links below are to a National Academy of Science newly published study by major universities that explain what is wrong with rich people and why they should be tax to the max, like it was in the 1950's , the most prosperous time in American history. Nobody knows any history. They forget why there are unions in the first place. Without unions, most companies would abuse their employees, everyone would be poor, like working at Walmart & collecting food stamps, They forget how well tariffs worked,(no income tax).
PLEASE LOOK AT THESE:
pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract
pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract
wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/income-and-ethics/
And the truth comes out. Mitt had no say in the day-to-day operations of Bain from 1999 going forward.
The liberals are going to hate these facts...
And it is showing the lies from the obama camp.
Totally disagree...this guy has not said anything worthwhile...it is obvious he has been told what to say and this will get him in good graces with his repub/1% buddies...
Don't believe a word he's saying...In the first hour he made it obvious that he is a proponent and beneficiary of the Bain business model which is not good for the majority of society...These fast talkers have basically helped destroy the world's economy...They probably feel the Libor scandal is just part of everyday business as well...
Amazed that they gave this guy this air-time to spew his useless chatter...
I was wondering why he agreed to be on the show.
His book came out in June.
That's why.
In addition, he is making quite a name for himself and getting into the good graces of the repub party...
Please do NOT have this guy back~
He represents the 1% and is spewing their propagandized story via Up...
go read the SEC fillings, go read what they say.
Just because you do not like the truth in no way means it's false.
Think back to when you 1st found out there is no Santa Claus, you did not want to beleive it at 1st.
The libreals on the show are showing they have clue as to how compaines operate.
All they can do is turn a deaf ear.
Conard is nothing more than a Romney supporter who is trying to make a name for himself...Surprised to see Chris give him an open forum to tell this propagandized and faux "story..."
He is another rich, arrogant tool of the wealthy 1% and I doubt anyone of the listeners buy his "story..." He lives in the world of the 1% where making $5 million per year is peanuts...
Whether Romney was still involved at Bain after 1999 is - to me - irrelevant.
Business person #1:
Owner of a factory that keeps it open and thriving when failure is not an option and firing people (family run so all employees are family) is not an option. The owner does this by streamlining production and analyzing customer requirements and changing products to meet and increase demand.
Business person #2:
Person with money who invests in the factory, but makes money off the investment whether or not the factory stays open or the employees keep their jobs.
Which business person has the skills that could potentially be useful in leading the country? Business Person #1. Romney is like Business Person #2.
IMHO
Victoria is overlooking that the cost of my clothes hasn't gone down. Outsourcing isn't charging the consumer less. It is only allowing executives and shareholders to increase their capital gains. It is pure greed, plain and simple!
What is Mitt afraid of with his denial of involvement with the day to day operations at Bain after February of 1999? Bain's 1999 purchase and investment in Stericycle. Specifically, he profited from the disposal of medical waste that included aborted fetuses. It's not a business that's going to attract a lot of votes from his Republican Christian base.
What is wrong with making things in this country and paying people well to do it? People with good incomes can afford to spend more, pay higher prices for stuff, and increase demand in the economy. The economy should work for the benefit and well being of the people and not be structured to hoard all the wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else.
Chris really blew it. He had a chance to make a name for himself with this interview. But, instead he seemed to apologize to Conard for even questioning him. Chris also was lacking in data to dispute several of Conard's claims. In the middle of the interview I thought how much different it would have been if Chris Matthews had been there. At least he would ask some hard hitting questions.
Truth hurts at times.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your hate for Mitt.
You are asking the wrong question - of course Bain is good for capitalism - given the fundamental goals - however the bigger question is: are practices of Bain good for sustaining Democratic values? Romney is running for president of the US government not CEO of a private equity firm. The accountability for "we the people" is a much higher calling. It requires stewardship of public policy that comprehends the fiscal, legal and moral dimensions of the "bottom-line."
The Conrad information was disingenuous at best. Nothing in the record about Bain Capital would suggest that they would give a nickel to someone because of that person's prior contribution to the value of the "franchise" with which they were associated. Ask those steelworkers who were laid off. So the question for Conrad should have been, what leverage did Romney really have over Bain Capital to force this deal. At a guess, the fact that the SEC filings showed Mitt was the legal owner, sole shareholder, CEO, etc., reflect a reality that Mitt and Conrad don't want to discuss.
Romney had no voting rights, no say in the day-to-day operations.
Go read the 13d.
sec.gov
Conrad also admitted Romney invested in Bain after his resignation from it. Thus, Romney invested in the practice of outsourcing American jobs.
Chris, you usually see the key points on important issues. But you missed the key point of the issue involving Romney and Bain from 1999 to 2002. Romney was the CEO and the 100% stockholder of Bain during that time period. He had full responsibility for what his firm did, regardless of how active his involvement was. (As a side point, if you want to know Romney's real involvement in decision making, it would be a mistake to take him at his word.) To illustrate the importance of accepting responsibility, consider an analogous example. Suppose that a President of the USA had no particular interest in the Department of the Interior (or some other department in the Executive branch.) Suppose he claimed to delegate 100% of the responsibility to his Secretary of the Interior, and therefore, he had no responsibility for what happened. The point is, he can't. He's the President, and has responsibility for all of the Executive Departments whether he wants it or not. The same goes for Romney and Bain from 1999 to 2002. Romney had responsibility whether he wanted it or not. (I find it disturbing that the media has not picked up on the point that Romney wants to deny his responsibility as CEO on the grounds that he delegated it away.) This is a critical point about responsibility and about CEOs. It is recognized by our legal system in the case of CEOs. It is recognized by our entire country in the case of Presidents of the US.
Go read the 13d. He had no voting rights, no control over the day to day operations.
Also, his claim to being in Utah is irrelevant. The types of decisions a Bain executive would make can be made simply with a phone call. The American people aren't as ignorant as the media wants to believe.
Mr. W. Mitt Romney, in his capacity as sole shareholder, sole
director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Investors VI, Bain
Capital, Brookside Investors Inc. and Sankaty Investors II and in his capacity
as sole shareholder, a director and President of Sankaty Ltd may be deemed to
share voting and dispositive power with respect to the shares held by CLEC
members. The filing of this statement by Mr. W. Mitt Romney shall not be
construed as an admission that he is, for the purpose of Section 13(d) of the
Exchange Act, the beneficial owner of such shares based on their pro-rata share
of membership interests in CLEC.
And there it is the 13d.
OK. I'm not a legal expert. But it sound like you aren't one either. To be honest, it sounds like you are someone who has little clue what you are talking about. Instead, you seem to be a pro-Romney hack that is trying to confuse the situation. But I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong.
So, enlighten me. Why would sharing voting and dispositive power mean that Romney (as CEO) had no responsibility for what Bain did? Please explain the legal meaning of these terms in a way that makes sense to someone unfamiliar with this area of law. And as part of your sharing with us your wisdom on legal matters, please address the following question: if the firm had broken any rules or made incorrect filings between 1999 and 2002, would Romney in his role as CEO been legally liable?
If no one remembers Romney at a board meeting from 99-02 does that he lied so he could be governor ?
Today's program was especially good but I do have a question regarding the Romney-Bain segment. You kept mentioning the $100,000 annual salary that Romney received for the three years in question but if you go back and look at the documentation that appeared on telvision earlier this week; you will see that it clearly showed an annual salary with the word "OVER" preceding each $100,000 figure. Why did you not ask the former Bain executive on your panel "How much over $100,000 was Mr. Romney"s annual salary?