Mitt Romney losing the Bain battle, ctd.

Until today, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler has generally applied a simple rule in evaluating the accuracy of attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain: If the alleged activities took place after February of 1999, the attack was false. Why? Because Mitt Romney said that he had retired from Bain in February of 1999 and if he no longer worked for Bain, then he couldn't be held responsible for its actions.

Over the past few weeks, however, reporting from Mother Jones, TPM, Boston Globe, and Daily Kos have undermined Romney's claim to have had nothing to do with Bain Capital after February, 11 1999. And now Kessler has reassessed:

Going forward, unless new evidence emerges, on a case-by-case basis we may withhold the awarding of Pinocchios when the claim rests mostly on the question of when Romney stopped managing Bain Capital.

Moreover, reports Kessler, neither Romney nor Bain are providing sufficient evidence to counter the evidence undercutting his retirement claim:

Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had 'no role whatsoever' at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response.

With Kessler reporting that Bain won't provide evidence of Romney's lack of involvement in board meetings, it appears that Romney's last line of defense is crumbling. Politics is moving in slow motion today, but in the coming weeks, this shift will be a big deal.

1:55 PM PT: By the way, isn't it absurd that Mitt Romney's definition of losing the Bain battle ... is for people to believe that he worked there?