Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
No, it wasn't. The "article" was a blog post talking about media coverage, and anybody (including you) who has been following the story knew exactly what they meant.
|
according to that logic writers can be incorrect as long as we know "what they meant"??
hogwash.
Quote:
|
I'd suggest you read Ed Morrissey's column that I posted above.
|
so I'll ask again, what laws did reid violate? btw, the fact that reid owned the interest in the property with brown is a matter of public record, and has been public since the first day it was active.
as far as the "land swaps", those apparently (according to your posted article) was a positive to all the owners of property in clark county, not just reid and his partner.
Quote:
|
The blog entry and the AP article were correct. If Reid transfers the land to the L.L.C., he no longer has legal ownership of it in his individual capacity. You tried to attack the article as inaccurate, and you were wrong.
|
talk about attempting to use semantics...
reid has ownership in the LLC "in his individual capacity". the article was inaccurate. reid never stopped having ownership.
Quote:
|
That remains to be seen. Of course, I'm not holding my breath, because no investigation into Dirty Harry's partnership(s) (there are more than just the partnership with Jay Brown) will be investigated. Bottom line, Harry didn't want anybody to know about his partnership with Jay Brown. Why? That's the question that needs to be (but won't be) answered.
|
if reid "didn't want anybody to know about his partnership with jay brown", then why did a) the property remain on reids disclosure, and b) why was brown designated in public records as the managing partner and listed on the documents? sure seems that if reid was trying to hide his partnership brown wouldn't be out front of the LLC.
but yet he was.that blows away your accusation of trying to "hide" the relationship.