How about an answer Mr Reid? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Drbio · 10-11-2006, 11:24 PM

AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale - Hangs up on reporter who asked about sale

Email this Story

Oct 11, 7:50 PM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.
In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.
The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing - except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court. Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.
_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.
Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

But in a news conference Wednesday in Las Vegas, the senator said he believed he did nothing wrong but was willing to change his ethics report's account of the sale if the Senate Ethics Committee ordered him to do so.

"Everything I did was transparent," Reid said. "I paid all the taxes. Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I'll be happy to do that."
The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.
They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends. The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties - regardless of profit or loss - and to report any ownership stake in companies.

Kent Cooper, a former Federal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.
"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."
"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee." Other parts of the deal - such as the informal handling of property taxes - raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."
Other parts of the deal - such as the informal handling of property taxes - raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

(AP) Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., second from left, tours the City of Las Vegas Fire...
Full ImageStanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.
"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.
SALE HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS
Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.
Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in 2004. His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.

(AP) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaks at a news conference at the City of Las Vegas Fire Training Center...
Full ImageAP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.
Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.
"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.
The informalities didn't stop there.
PROPERTY TAXES LOOSELY HANDLED
Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.
And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.
Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.
"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."
Ultimately, Reid paid about 74 percent of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1 ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.
Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.
Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said.
FEDERAL LAND SWAPS
Nevada land deeds show Reid and his wife first bought the property in January 1998 in a proposed subdivision created partly with federal lands transferred by the Interior Department to private developers.
Reid's two lots were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner - a key to the shopping center deal - came from the government in 1994.
One of the sellers was Fred Lessman, a vice president of land acquisition at Perma-Bilt Homes.
Around the time of the 1998 sale, Lessman and his company were completing a complicated federal land transfer that also involved an Arizona-based developer named Del Webb Corp.
In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.
Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.
For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.
In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.
The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.
In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.
In January 1998 - just days before he bought his land - Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."
None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.
"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.
Lessman said he never talked to Reid or asked for his help before the 1998 land sale, and only met the senator years later at a public event. "Any suggestion that the land sale between Senator Reid and myself is somehow tied in with the Perma-Bilt exchange is completely absurd," Lessman said.
THE REZONING
Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.
Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.
Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.
Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.
With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.
On Jan. 21, 2004, Reid received more than $1.1 million of the sale proceeds. Reid disclosed the money the following year on his Senate ethics report as a personal sale of land, not mentioning Patrick Lane.
A BUSINESS PARTNER'S PAST
Brown has been a behind-the-scenes power broker in Nevada for years, donating to Democrats, Republicans and charities. He represented a major casino in legal cases and dabbled in Nevada's booming real estate market.
Brown befriended Reid four decades ago, even before Reid served as chairman of the Nevada gaming commission and decided cases involving Brown's clients.
Brown's name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.
This past summer, federal prosecutors introduced testimony at the bribery trial of former Clark County Commission chairman Dario Herrera that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrera was convicted of taking kickbacks. Brown was never called as a witness. Brown declined to discuss past cases where his name surfaced, including Herrara. "The federal government investigated this whole matter thoroughly, and there was never any implication of impropriety on my part," he said.

chumdawg · 10-12-2006, 12:28 AM

I love election season!

FishForLunch · 10-12-2006, 03:19 AM

Come on now, it must be a simple misunderstanding. I doubt any democrat has ever tried to use misuse his power to benefit personally. We can address this after the election, we now need to concentrate on the GOP and their culture of corrouption.:-)

MavsX · 10-12-2006, 08:06 AM

crook!

mcsluggo · 10-12-2006, 08:43 AM

whether he wiggles out of this or not, he has to be replaced.

Mavdog · 10-12-2006, 08:55 AM

so this is the best they have on reid?

the only wrong seems to be that reid didn't change his filing to note the title was transferred from him personally to a LLC.

LLCs are very common. they shield the partners from personal liability. typically the managing partner is the one listed, and as noted above that is what nevada law calls for.

he and his partners paid the taxes. where did reid do wrong?

the land swap discussed is a widely used mechanism to place land that is in sensitive environmental areas into the public trust. it is a good vehicle, as it avoids the messy issue of eminent domain, the long struggle to determine value and at the same time preserves the sensitive land from development. this is done in texas as well, and there are many public/private partnerships formed for this very scenario.

reid disclosed his ownership, both in senate filings as well as in the zoning case. commercial land for retail development can easily be 3 times its value as residential land.

the snipers better do better if they want to hang something on reid. this dog won't hunt....

FishForLunch · 10-12-2006, 01:58 PM

See I told you Mavdog says move on nothing to see here!

u2sarajevo · 10-12-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the snipers better do better if they want to hang something on reid. this dog won't hunt....

Thinking aloud here..... What if it were Bush... or Cheney.... or Rice.... or Rumsfeld.

I'm thinking (out loud) that you would have a different view. Strikes me as odd that when Republicans get caught doing something wrong it's the board Repubs that will complain about the action (in alot of cases before you are able to). But when it's a Democrat, that "dog won't hunt...".

capitalcity · 10-12-2006, 02:11 PM

the audio

u2sarajevo · 10-12-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capitalcity

the audio

Hmmmm.... when I try to pull it up it says "Video no longer available".... another YouTube(Google) edit?

capitalcity · 10-12-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Hmmmm.... when I try to pull it up it says "Video no longer available".... another YouTube(Google) edit?

Holy crap they're (moonbat net patrol) fast.

I just watched that link like 20 minutes ago.

Mavdog · 10-12-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Thinking aloud here..... What if it were Bush... or Cheney.... or Rice.... or Rumsfeld.

I'm thinking (out loud) that you would have a different view. Strikes me as odd that when Republicans get caught doing something wrong it's the board Repubs that will complain about the action (in alot of cases before you are able to). But when it's a Democrat, he didn't do anything wrong.

what if it were these you mention? I would say the same thing, they disclosed their ownership so there is not any violation. it doesn't matter who they are in my view, if they broke the law go after them, if they didn't leave them alone.

from what was written above, reid didn't do anything wrong. if any other politico did the same, disclosed their investment and ended up making money, there's no prob. they invested $, took the risk, and ended up with a profit.

it's the american way.

there is no accusation against reid that holds water. I'm an equal opportunity critic.

u2sarajevo · 10-12-2006, 02:17 PM

sure you are..... that's pretty evident....

Drbio · 10-12-2006, 03:00 PM

aw horse shit. mavdog would have been on Bush like creditexpert on ignorance if it had been Bush.

dalmations202 · 10-12-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drbio

aw horse shit. mavdog would have been on Bush like creditexpert on ignorance if it had been Bush.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Drbio again

capitalcity · 10-13-2006, 11:06 AM

newsbusters

YouTube Yanks Another Conservative Blogger's Video
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on October 13, 2006 - 00:19.

On the very day YouTube's disproportionate censorship of conservative videos was splashed over the pages of the Drudge Report, the web site deleted another conservative blogger's video, Gateway Pundit tells how a 17-second clip he made of an AP video was deleted from YouTube for supposed copyright infringement.

Update 9:06. Some commenters are wondering with whom, if anyone, lies the fault. I would place it primarily on the AP for a) lodging a copyright complaint against a 17-second clip, which if that were consistently followed would essentially destroy almost all non-original video on the internet, and b) excercising a double-standard going after Jim Hoft and not the thousands of others who have "stolen" its material on YouTube and elsewhere.

Flacolaco · 10-13-2006, 11:18 AM

HALF the stuff ON YouTube is copyright infringement!!

that's crap.

purplefrog · 10-13-2006, 11:52 AM

Sounds like Reid violated Senate ethics rules but did not necessarily break any laws. Still, this is not good for the minority leader. Looks to me like an ethics investigation is warranted. Reid is not very effective as minority leader anyway, he should be asked by the Dems to step down from his leadership role so someone else can give it a go. Maybe a nice moderate like Barbara Boxer......

purplefrog · 10-13-2006, 11:54 AM

or Ted Kennedy!

capitalcity · 10-13-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

or Ted Kennedy!

Thanks, I just threw-up in my mouth a little bit.

Chappa quit it.

dalmations202 · 10-13-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capitalcity

Thanks, I just threw-up in my mouth a little bit.

Chappa quit it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to capitalcity again!

dude1394 · 10-13-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Thinking aloud here..... What if it were Bush... or Cheney.... or Rice.... or Rumsfeld.

I'm thinking (out loud) that you would have a different view. Strikes me as odd that when Republicans get caught doing something wrong it's the board Repubs that will complain about the action (in alot of cases before you are able to). But when it's a Democrat, that "dog won't hunt...".

You really should give the dems a break. It's hard to identify immorality when you don't stand for much of it.

dude1394 · 10-13-2006, 09:08 PM

FishForLunch · 10-14-2006, 05:36 AM

This dog wont hunt according to Mavdog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Reid should look in mirror first

Published on: 10/13/06

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would be well advised to stop thundering about corruption in the Republican ranks or crying "cover-up" over the GOP's failure to promptly and appropriately deal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and his sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages. Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others.

Currently, he's trying to explain a land deal in Nevada on which he made a pile of money and which may not have been properly disclosed. When the property was sold in 2004, it belonged to a company formed with a long-time friend and included a parcel that once had been owed by Reid. Despite having transferred his parcel to the company, the Nevada Democrat continued to report in Senate documents that he still owned it personally. That's a breach of Senate disclosure rules, according to the Associated Press, which first reported the transaction details.

Reid is now considering whether he should amend his disclosure statement.

Two months ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that Reid had smoothed the way for a campaign contributor and friend to develop a huge tract of land northeast of Las Vegas. Reid tried twice — before he was successful — to get a utility right-of-way moved from the proposed development site onto public land.

The first effort stalled because of objections from the Bureau of Land Management and others that the developer wasn't going to pay anything for a deal that would greatly increase the value of his development site. Eventually, it was determined the developer should pay the federal government more than $10 million.

Then there are the free boxing tickets Reid took from the Nevada Athletic Commission. The panel was hoping to block formation of a national boxing commission; Reid favored one.

Only after the Associated Press reported this summer that Reid got the expensive tickets did the senator decide he would no longer accept such gifts.

Unfortunately, Reid's ethics meter only seems to work when it's too late.

FishForLunch · 10-14-2006, 06:33 AM

Timing is everything in Harry Reid's profitable partnership deal

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is the son of a miner, so he knows something about digging holes.

It's thus far unclear from this week's Associated Press exclusive whether the Searchlight senator finds himself in much of a hole after it was revealed he possibly committed a congressional ethics violation for failing to fully disclose the transfer of land he owned to a partnership in which he held a financial position.

The partnership sold the land three years later, and Reid made a $700,000 profit.

The story is all the more intriguing because Reid's partner in the land deal is his very close friend, Las Vegas attorney Jay Brown, who has found himself in the middle of several controversies over the years. Brown's name surfaced years ago in the FBI's investigation into possible bankruptcy fraud at the Tropicana. He was also mentioned in passing during the public corruption trial of former Clark County Commissioners Dario Herrera and Mary Kincaid-Chauncey. Brown has never been accused of a crime.

A possible ethics violation by a Democrat seems like pretty dry stuff at a time the Republicans in Washington are reeling from the Mark "Page Boy" Foley scandal. With the GOP's November prospects sinking by the day, it's hardly surprising that someone on the Democratic side would take a hit.

That's not to downplay the possible violation, but don't expect this story to have legs -- unless there's more to it. If I didn't know better, I'd almost think this week's exclusive was a scene-setter and not a curtain-closer.

In my mind, the weighty question is not whether Reid benefited from a land deal involving his friend. That's hardly news.

And Reid's potential fumble of a federal disclosure issue doesn't spell scandal. Politics aside, it can probably be remedied with a good scolding.

The question is the timing of the land deal itself and its relationship, if any, to the release of other federal land for private development. In theory, such a purchase could be considered something akin to trading with insider knowledge. Reid's influential friends and political allies are often close to those federal land releases.

dude1394 · 10-15-2006, 10:38 AM

I am kind of wondering where the hue and cry is on this? Corruption being such a popular topic these days.

Maybe we can hear a democrat call for accountability of their own...oh say....never. They defeated the last guy who was ethical, Lieberman.

kg_veteran · 10-15-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I am kind of wondering where the hue and cry is on this? Corruption being such a popular topic these days.

Maybe we can hear a democrat call for accountability of their own...oh say....never. They defeated the last guy who was ethical, Lieberman.

The relative silence on this issue is rather deafening. From Newsbusters:

Quote:

This past week, the media made a very clear distinction between how they view a Republican scandal and one involving a powerful Democrat. MRC analysts found that, over a period of 12 days, the big three networks aired 150 stories on the Mark Foley scandal.

How did those same networks cover an investigation into Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and a very questionable land deal? They generally ignored the story. In the case of CNN, the October 12 "American Morning" aired almost 20 minutes of Foley coverage and devoted 35 seconds to Reid

Not to be outdone, print media also glossed over the emerging Reid scandal. "The New York Times" prefaced a story about Reid earning $1.1 million on a property that he hasn’t owned in three years with this headline: "Senator Offers to Amend Financial Forms." The "Times" is certainly generous in offering the benefit of the doubt...as long as you’re a Democrat.

Mavdog · 10-15-2006, 01:04 PM

the story is a non-issue because...there isn't any story.

of course, that doesn't stop the newsbusters from wrongly saying "reid earning $1.1 million" when he didn't.

and calling it a "questionable land deal" when it wasn't, it was a simple land investment such as goes on every day in america.

wrongly referring to it as "a property he hasn't owned in three years" when not only did he have an interest as a limited partner and was on the disclosure form.

maybe we should have a story on how the right's pundits can't seem to be accurate in their stories...

why isn't there more news on the issue? because there isn't any news in it, much to the right's chagrin.

clearly the right wants a scandal to take the embarassment of their candidate's scandals away. sorry, but they'll need to find a real story in order to do that.

Drbio · 10-15-2006, 01:53 PM

mavdoogie wants us to moveon.org since it doesn't denigrate Bush in any form or fashion.

More intellectually void flatulence from senor libocrat. Of course if Bush had to offer to adjust documents it would be front page NYTimes material and everyone but that ignorant bitch Nancy Grace would be talking about it on CNN.

kg_veteran · 10-15-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the story is a non-issue because...there isn't any story.

You'd love to just sweep this under the rug with an ad hominem attack against the "right wing", but the Washington Post isn't exactly a bastion of right-wing thought, and their editorial page disagrees with you (emphasis added):

Quote:

Mr. Reid's Nondisclosure
The Senate minority leader's incomplete financial filings

Friday, October 13, 2006; Page A28

THE BEST CASE for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is that he was sloppy about financial disclosure rules in accounting for a real estate deal on which he made a $700,000 profit. The more unattractive case is that the senator's inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid's friendship with Jay Brown isn't exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid's dealings doesn't cast the senator in an attractive light. Neither does his response to the AP story, which indicates a casual disregard for the importance of accurate reporting of lawmakers' financial affairs.

Mr. Reid bought undeveloped property on the outskirts of fast-growing Las Vegas for about $400,000 in 1998 -- one parcel outright and a second jointly with Mr. Brown. In 2001, Mr. Reid sold the land for the same price to a corporation he co-owned with Mr. Brown, who in the meantime was getting the land rezoned from residential to commercial use. But the senator didn't report the sale on his annual financial disclosure form. When the new company sold the land to developers in 2004, yielding $1.1 million for Mr. Reid, the senator did not accurately list the transaction or go back and fix the previous forms to reflect the new arrangement.

"Everything I did was transparent," Mr. Reid said at a news conference Wednesday, after the story broke. "Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I'll be happy to do that."

Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown. It's true -- under the inadequate financial disclosure rules -- that even if Mr. Reid had listed the newly formed corporation, Patrick Lane LLC, that wouldn't have by itself demonstrated Mr. Brown's involvement. Nonetheless, that Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane corporation, was not some mere "technical change," as the senator would like to brush it off. It's an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.

Mavdog · 10-15-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You'd love to just sweep this under the rug with an ad hominem attack against the "right wing", but the Washington Post isn't exactly a bastion of right-wing thought, and their editorial page disagrees with you (emphasis added):

"ad hominem attack"? I want their campaign against their targets to be at the least accurate. your posted article has many inaccuracies, as I showed.

and no, let's not "sweep this under the rug". if reid violated the rules, hold him accountable. as I mentioned above, the facts are that the only error he made was to not update the disclosure (remember, the investment WAS previously disclosed...) to show the transfer into the LLC. he also reported the gain when the sale happened.

whatever the penalty for that error (if there indeed is any penalty) apply it.

there is truly an attempt to blow this into something it is not. it is not an attempt to hide anything (remember, he disclosed!) and there is nothing of any manipulation of the law or his role as a senator.

or is this the republican party trying to say that investing in property, taking risk and realizing a return is wrong?

well? is it wrong?

chumdawg · 10-15-2006, 06:19 PM

I think we all know that Reid is getting rich off his position of power.

But still, this is more a technality than anything else. Kudos to the Rebpublicans for getting it out there. But it's way less than newsworthy. Just typical election season warfare.

FishForLunch · 10-15-2006, 08:56 PM

I guess Mavdog will as usual ignore things that do not fit his agenda

Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown. It's true -- under the inadequate financial disclosure rules -- that even if Mr. Reid had listed the newly formed corporation, Patrick Lane LLC, that wouldn't have by itself demonstrated Mr. Brown's involvement. Nonetheless, that Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane corporation, was not some mere "technical change," as the senator would like to brush it off. It's an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.

Drbio · 10-15-2006, 09:23 PM

as always....why should he act differently now?

Mavdog · 10-15-2006, 09:32 PM

let's hear what reid did that was against the law.

well?

kg_veteran · 10-15-2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"ad hominem attack"? I want their campaign against their targets to be at the least accurate. your posted article has many inaccuracies, as I showed.

So you have no response to the WaPo article?

As for the "inaccuracies" you think you pointed out in the Newsbusters articles, let's talk about those:

of course, that doesn't stop the newsbusters from wrongly saying "reid earning $1.1 million" when he didn't.

Wow, what a pathetic semantical attack. They should have used the word "receiving" instead of "earning", but the point was the same.

and calling it a "questionable land deal" when it wasn't, it was a simple land investment such as goes on every day in america.

I guess you just didn't read the AP article.

wrongly referring to it as "a property he hasn't owned in three years" when not only did he have an interest as a limited partner and was on the disclosure form.

Another pathetic semantical attack. He hadn't personally owned the property in three years, which is exactly what the first line in the AP article said.

When the facts get messy for one of your faves, you rely on obfuscation to change the subject.

Drbio · 10-15-2006, 10:23 PM

Of course he won't respond. It doesn't fit his anti Bush agenda.

Pathetic semantical attacks are all he has in his bag....except misdirect, sache and stupidity....but you get the point.

You probably should not use words like obfuscation with the intellectually devoid dog.

chumdawg · 10-16-2006, 12:33 AM

Interesting story, I guess, in a way. But overall a pretty pathetic attempt by the Republicans to send attention away from the fires burning their own asses. If this is an indication of what is in their arsenal this campaign season, I'm not fond of their chances.

I think we all need to start readying ourselves for a Democratic Congress.

Drbio · 10-16-2006, 01:02 AM

*yawn*

Enterpriser my behind.

kg_veteran · 10-16-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Interesting story, I guess, in a way. But overall a pretty pathetic attempt by the Republicans to send attention away from the fires burning their own asses. If this is an indication of what is in their arsenal this campaign season, I'm not fond of their chances.

Your characterization of this is incorrect. An AP reporter broke this story, and he is hardly a Republican operative. The real issue is the utter failure of the MSM to cover the story, to do any investigation into some rather obvious questions that need to be answered, and to even analyze what happened. It's pretty much been the initial AP report, and that's it.

I mean, I realize Dirty Harry's land deals aren't as juicy as being able to post IMs between a gay Republican congressman and a page or two, but it'd be nice to see the MSM do their jobs.

Quote:

I think we all need to start readying ourselves for a Democratic Congress.

Maybe, but that really has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I don't want the MSM to cover the Reid story so that the Republicans will win in November. I want them to cover it so that the truth will come out, and a convenient byproduct will be some semblance of objectivity.