The idea of retiring "retroactively" is absurd. I'm baffled that anyone would actually accept that as an explanation.
It's also extremely poor judgement to remain as owner and head of an organisation that is running, and claim to have absolutely no concern or knowledge of what that enterprise is doing in your name and with your authority. Are you going to do the same thing as President? Is he going to claim when something happens that he didn't know, that he wasn't involved? Is he going to resign Retroactively from committees that perform poorly for example? It's an obvious cop-out and obvious PR and damage control. Here's a brief analysis of the issue http://www.americablog.com/2012/07/romneys-top-campaign-adviser-mitt.html Who's actually accepting this explanation? On 17 July 2012 21:01, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I also wonder if, when he "retroactively retired" he returned the salary > he > drew for those years. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:352728 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
