How about an answer Mr Reid?

[kg_veteran]

REID'S SMELLY WINDFALL
BACK-$CRATCHING WITH DEVELOPERS
By ED MORRISSEY

link

October 16, 2006 -- SENATE Minority Leader Harry Reid's ethics woes continue to mount. An Associated Press expose shows that Reid pushed through changes in federal law that helped the senator get rich - via complex land deals with a lobbyist who's also tied up in a federal bribery case.

Reid has now told the Senate Ethics Committee that he'll amend his past disclosure statements to for the first time cover the business relationships that AP has exposed. But he calls the amendment "technical" - which suggests it won't explain why his original "disclosures" misled the public on the nature of a partnership that made him a $700,000 windfall.

It isn't the first time Harry Reid's ties to real-estate developers have caused people to question the senator's ethics.

Back in August, the Los Angeles Times exposed Reid's questionable involvement and compensation in another Nevada real-estate deal. Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, had plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members. The senator, in turn, helped Whittemore bulldoze through a host of environmental regulations in developing a huge parcel outside Las Vegas, to profit in the tens of millions.

What Reid failed to disclose was his 2001 transfer of ownership of two parcels of land to Patrick Lane LLC - an entity in which he was partnered with one Jay Brown.

AP notes that Brown is a lobbyist, with reported links to organized crime. And he figures prominently in a federal criminal case - which concerns the bribery of members of the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission by developers seeking changes to permit retail development on land they owned, vastly increasing its value.

As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.

Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with "protecting the environment.")

Normally, the government would have to sell this land at auction, as land swaps had lost the federal government millions in southern Nevada. But Reid insisted on suspending that rule in his Clark County act. The developers that hired his sons as lobbyists prospered with the lower-cost acquisitions of prime real estate through the uneven swaps. Also in the money were those - like Harry Reid himself - who'd already invested money in Clark County real estate.

The L.A. Times revealed the Reid family's extensive connections with Clark County developers in June 2003, as well as Reid's extensive legislative interest in the land, but the Brown-Reid investment had not yet come to light - thanks to Reid's failure to disclose.

Had the investment been known, voters could have made the connection. The Senate Ethics Committee might have taken an interest as well - except that Harry Reid himself sat as the top Democrat on that panel.

Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid's business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.

[FishForLunch]

AP is now part of the right wing, how dare they accuse Reid, he was only trying to help a few downtrodden land developers in his district.

[Drbio]

Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid's business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.

I wish, but don't hold your breath.

[FishForLunch]

Here is another asshole using his power to screw the Tax payers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI Raids Home of Rep. Weldon's Daughter
Oct 16 2:00 PM US/Eastern

By MARYCLAIRE DALE
Associated Press Writer

MEDIA, Pa.






The FBI raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter and a close friend Monday as it investigates whether the congressman improperly helped the pair win lobbying and consulting contracts.
Agents searched four locations in the Philadelphia area and two in Jacksonville, Fla., said Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman in Washington. The congressman's home and his offices were not among the locations searched, she said.

Earlier Monday, Weldon called the investigation politically motivated and called the timing suspect. The Republican, who is locked in a tight re-election bid and has clashed with the Bush administration, denied wrongdoing and said he gave his daughter no special help.

"What I find ironic, if there is an investigation, is that no one would tell me until three weeks before the election," Weldon said at an appearance in Media. "This incident was 2 1/2 years ago."

Weierman confirmed that the six raids included Karen Weldon's home in Philadelphia; the Springfield home of Charles Sexton, her business partner and the congressman's close friend; and the office of their company, Solutions North America, in Media.

Federal investigators are looking into whether Weldon used his influence to help the company secure lobbying contracts worth $1 million from foreign clients, two people familiar with the inquiry told The Associated Press.

Weldon, a 10-term Republican from the Philadelphia suburbs and vice chairman of the House Armed Services committee, is in a close race for re-election on Nov. 7 against Democrat Joe Sestak. Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mailed fliers to voters in Weldon's district accusing Karen Weldon of getting help from her father on lobbying projects.

Weldon said his daughter received no special consideration because of him.

"I've never helped my daughter get anything. My kids are qualified on their own," Weldon said.

The congressman also raised questions about the need for a Justice Department investigation, noting that the House Ethics Committee looked into his daughter's contracts soon after The Los Angeles Times reported on them in February 2004. He said he has cooperated fully, turning over 150 pages in documents and answering the committee's questions.

Weldon, regarded by some as a foreign policy expert, has clashed at times with the Bush administration. In the last year, he has repeatedly said a secret military unit called "Able Danger" used data- mining to link four Sept. 11 hijackers to al-Qaida more than a year before the attacks. A Pentagon report rejected the idea

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So you have no response to the WaPo article?

imho they see reid as saying one thing and doing another, they're entitled to their view. they do not however make the case that reid did an illegal act. like I said days ago, if he did an illegal act hold him accountable. from what I've seen, he did what he was required to do (disclosed) he merely failed to update the form of his venture.

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.

really? so if delta airlines issued a press release saying they "earned" $3 billion when they had "received" $3 billion in revenues but had a loss of $1 Billion on that income it would be merely a "semantical" error?

no, it wouldn't. the article was misleading and inaccurate.

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.

yes, did you? what in reids investment, the formation of the LLC and subsequent sale of the property is "questionable"?

from the article, his partner has questionable ties to what seems to be "undesireable" people, but what exactly is "questionable" about the "land deal"? it is a very clear and typical real estate investment...he bought it at a price, held it, improved its value by gaining entitlements and sold it to a developer who purchased reid's piece and adjacent tracts (an assembledge).

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.

so the writer knew that reid did own it for the three years? bottom line, he DID own it. period.

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

like I said days ago, if there is a violation enforce the penalty. I've yet to read of ANY violation other than the failure to update the disclosure form to show the property was hled in an LLC rather than personally. it was still disclosed, both on the acquisition and the sale.

so tell me, what law other than the update did reid violate?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really? so if delta airlines issued a press release saying they "earned" $3 billion when they had "received" $3 billion in revenues but had a loss of $1 Billion on that income it would be merely a "semantical" error?

no, it wouldn't. the article was misleading and inaccurate.

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.

yes, did you? what in reids investment, the formation of the LLC and subsequent sale of the property is "questionable"?

from the article, his partner has questionable ties to what seems to be "undesireable" people, but what exactly is "questionable" about the "land deal"? it is a very clear and typical real estate investment...he bought it at a price, held it, improved its value by gaining entitlements and sold it to a developer who purchased reid's piece and adjacent tracts (an assembledge).

I'd suggest you read Ed Morrissey's column that I posted above.

so the writer knew that reid did own it for the three years? bottom line, he DID own it. period.

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.

like I said days ago, if there is a violation enforce the penalty. I've yet to read of ANY violation other than the failure to update the disclosure form to show the property was hled in an LLC rather than personally. it was still disclosed, both on the acquisition and the sale.

so tell me, what law other than the update did reid violate?

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.

[Mavdog]

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.

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.

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.

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.