Sen. Harry Reid Got $1M in Land Deal

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by carpro, Oct 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/11/D8KMJ8I00.html

    AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale
    Oct 11 2:13 PM US/Eastern

    By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
    Associated Press Writers

    WASHINGTON

    EXCERPT

    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.
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh-oh! This doesn't look so good....

    It's worth reading the entire story.
     
  3. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carpro

    Does this mean that they are in agreement that this would be a wrong thing for a politician to do?

    Wayne
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    A long time Senator like Reid should certainly know the Senate rules. He definitely has an ethical problem there.

    I'll need to know more before deciding if he also has a criminal problem.

    I'll agree with Daisy. It doesn't look good.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Washington%20Post%20Buries%20Report%20on%20Reid's%20Questionable%20Land%20Deal


    Washington Post Buries Report on Reid's Questionable Land Deal

    (CNSNews.com) - Bias? Hmmm. The "Foley scandal" gets another mention on the front page of Thursday's Washington Post, but you'll have to turn to page A-3 to see the article headlined "Reid Land Deal Under Scrutiny." The sub-head makes it sound like the Harry (Democrat of Nevada) Reid case is nothing more than a question of "disclosure requirements." It's not the land deal itself -- but the way Reid reported it, the Washington Post suggests. Here's the first sentence: "Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Senate's top Democrat, said yesterday that he was in discussions with the chamber's ethics committee to determine whether he should amend his financial disclosure forms to include details of a real estate transaction that allowed him to collect $1.1. million." The report in USA Today raises deeper questions about Reid's apparently calculated effort to hide his questionable land dealings with "a behind-the-scenes power broker."
     
  7. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reid's pending dificulties pale in comparison to the evil deeds of Dennis Hastert. We simply must try to run Hastert out of office.........at least until the elections are over. Reid has done nothing any other Damnolcrat wouldn't do if they could get away with it.
     
  8. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yea, it's all those dirty democrats fault.:sleep:
     
  9. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why, of course, Terry!!

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So lying on a financial report about $1,000,000 pales in comparison to not having an investigation about something you apparently didn't know about?

    And people wonder why this country is so messed up ... It is because of this kind of moral equivocation where lying is okay and telling the truth is not, depending on what side of the aisle you are on.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The entire state of politics in the United States is so sad right now.
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or, to put it another way, being careless about paperwork pales in comparison to covering up a criminal act in order to maintain a political advantage?

    Back at 'cha.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    It seems to escape the attention of some that Reid's "partner" is a well known lobbyist.

    Financial relationships with lobbyists cause real problems for some Republicans, but naturally Reid, a democrat, appears to be getting a pass not only from the members of his party but the media as well.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Notice the bias at work. You assume Reid was careless. If he was a Republican, you would likely assume that he was covering up his connections with a shady financial deal with a lobbyist.

    You assume Hastert covererd up a criminal act was. There is no evidence of that as of yet. I have routinely appealed to wait until the full story is known.

    I say the same thing about Reid. This news was out several days ago, but we need to find out what the whole deal is before we cast judgment.

    Why won't you join me in that plea?

    Your bias seems to routinely cause you to defend Democrats while lambasting Republicans. The truth is that there are a good number on both sides that need defending, and a greater number that needs lambasting. But let's do it on facts, not on assertions and presumptions. Let's wait until all the evidence is in.
     
    #14 Pastor Larry, Oct 14, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2006
  15. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    In fact, I had noticed.

    You don't get it - it's not my assumption that Reid was careless, it's what he said about himself in his own defense. It's your assumption that he's lying, without all evidence being in.

    But you already cast judgement in the above quote. "Lying", you said. Now you're backtracking.

    [sarcasm]Yeah, I jumped right to his defense in my first post to this thread.[/sarcasm] I didn't like your unfair comparison which you know very well is what I was responding to.

    I was mocking your bias. Take your own advice and you'll appear less hypocritical.
     
  16. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Pastor Larry. My tongue was firmly planted in cheek. I was using absurdity to illustrate a point. or trying too
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,911
    Likes Received:
    295
    How long has Reid been a Senator?

    It does seem at least passing strange that he would be so "careless about paperwork" with his experience in the Senate.

    Holding the leadership position he does, I would think he would try extra hard to abide by Senate rules.

    This all sounds vaguely familiar. I seem to recall a whole Bunch of democrats in the House who were also "careless about paperwork" and scrambling to fix it ,all the while trying to bring Republicans before the House Ethics Committee for the very same thing they had been so "careless" about.
     
  18. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought he was worse than that.

    Abramoff caused Democrats problems, too. The Reid story is still new, not yet a week old, and the facts and implications are still rolling in.

    Be a little patient; I'm sure the Republicans will get a lot of mileage out of this. I wouldn't be surprised if Reid were soon ousted.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't assuming anything. I was mkaing a point about the way that assumptions and biases come into play. Sorry I didn't make that clearer for you. I don't know if Reid lied or covered anything up. As I said, let's get the whole story.


    No, I didn't backtrack. Again, I was trying to make a point and didn't write clearly on this matter.

    As is common, it is very hard to anticipate all the ways in which people will not understand what I am thinking. I should have been clearer. My apologies for not being clearer.

    I do not know if Reid lied or tried to cover somethign up. We need to get all the facts.

    I lean towards the right because ... well, it's right.

    Seriously, my bias is slightly towards the right, but primarily towards the truth and fairness. It is clear that you and others will tend to give some on the left an almost free pass on some issues, while vehemently attacking those on the right. That shouldn't happen. If you think I am hypocritical because I call for us to withhold judgment until we have the facts, then so be it. But in most places, that isn't considered hypocritical.
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh. I thought when you said that Reid lied, you must have either known he had or assumed he had. Or are you going to claim that you weren't refering to Reid at all?

    How are you going to weasel out of "So lying on a financial report about $1,000,000 ..." and "It is because of this kind of moral equivocation where lying is okay..."?

    So when you said "lying" you didn't really mean "lying" or that anyone, such as Reid, had actually lied? I can't imagine why you would choose a word and repeat it in the same post when that was not what you meant.

    If your point was that you & your kind are morally superior to me & my kind, you failed to prove it. If that wasn't your point, then you are correct that you are not clear.

    No, that's my bias, substituting left for right.

    That's just your bias against me and other liberals totally overwhelming your self-proclaimed but otherwise inevident tendency towards truth and fairness.

    No, I think you're hypocritical for lecturing others for what you do yourself (mote, beam).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...