-By Warner Todd Huston
Once again The New York Times lends its "paper of record" as a vehicle for Obama's reelection campaign by leaving out important parts of a story, parts that mitigate in favor of GOP candidate Mitt Romney.
Specifically, the Times is repeating the Obama claim that Romney committed some sort of fraud (team Obama says he's a "felon") for his work at Bain Capital, a charge that is false by any reading of the facts.
Yes, once again, The New York Times gives only one side of the story.
In a July 12 piece in The Caucus blog, Times reporter Michael D. Shear once again gave credence to the smear against Romney seen in the deeply flawed reporting of the Boston Globe, a story that appears to be little else but retaliation by the Globe against Romney.
The New York Times gives all the space needed to regurgitate the old story of Romney's tenure at Bain Capital rehashing all the old accusations. But one thing The Times does not correct, and should have, is the false claims by team Obama that Mitt is a "felon." That accusation was conveniently left out of the story.
This accusation is one of the most scurrilous of the campaign thus far. Imagine, without proof, in fact without any truth behind them at all, team Obama has been calling Romney a felon. This should shock anyone claiming they want a serious discussion of the issues during this campaign because the claim that Romney is a "felon" is either based on total ignorance of securities law, or, worse, a simple desire of team Obama to lie through their teeth.
Romney's camp has rightfully complained that Obama's campaign spokesmen and staff are out of control with these "felon" lies but few Old Media outlets are running that part of the story, preferring instead to focus on the easily proven lies that the Boston Globe story once again kicked up.
But the fact is Mitt Romney committed no SEC violations or any felonies when he left Bain in 1999.
As lawyer and blogger John Hinderaker notes, those claiming that Romney committed any crimes or perpetrated fraud in 1999 is simply ignorant of the law.
…the fact that Romney was a “controlling person” for purposes of securities laws has nothing to do with whether he was running the company; nor is his status as a shareholder or director -- Romney owned the company until a buyout was completed in 2002 -- relevant. And whatever titles may have been recited in the filings shed no light on whether he made the investment decisions that the Obama administration now wants to criticize.
Sadly, while The Times keeps spinning Obama's narrative for him, they are allowing the truth to go unreported.