Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-reid-land-windfall" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/na tionworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-reid-land-windfall</a>,1,2102145,full.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines >>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. << Much more at the link....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Same story can be found at this link, which hopefully will work... <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061011-040427-8960r.htm" target="_blank">http://washingtontimes.com/nat ional/20061011-040427-8960r.htm</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Sssssh. It's only Republicans who are corrupt. Don't you know anything?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a link to the AP video version of the news article, which includes audio of Sen. Reid hanging up in the middle of a question in regards to the land deal... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DepZhc-oQyQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =DepZhc-oQyQ</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug Reid wisely hung up, knowing that Corrupt Democrats isn't "on message."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Much more about the land deals at this link... <a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2685" target="_blank">http://strata-sphere.com/blog/ index.php/archives/2685</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn I, for one, am shocked that a person in Congress would ever do anything unethical or illegal. Why I think this is the very first time in our entire history that this has ever happened!
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh...wait, here's an article about a REPUBLICAN who is being investigated...Now, why didn't darkbeer post about this? I can only assume it was an oversite. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/14/congressman.contracts.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/10/14/congressman.contracts.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ again, one wrong is not the same as the other ? Let's make light on one because it is a Democrat but hang the Republican ? Or vice versa...I find these statements ARE the problem with why voters are so polarized today. Each makes excuses why what 'their people' ( as if they give a crapola about us) - did is less bad than what the other did
Originally Posted By jonvn "again, one wrong is not the same as the other ?" Absolutely not at all. The reason people are polarized, though, is because of things like what the original poster did. Singling out something someone in another party did, while being silent about the other party. That's what's wrong. That's what I was pointing out. Now, the Congress is made up of individuals. They are going to have their own foibles, and will have problems. They are only human. The problem with these things comes in when it becomes systemmic. That a large portion of the leadership of the house knew about a situation, and did nothing or tried to cover it up. Then you get into wide scale problems. That's what has happened with the Republicans. The other major problem with the Republicans is that they campaigned so very hard about family values, and the Foley scandal flew in the face of that, and THEN was covered up, or at least right now appears to may have been. That sticks in people's throat. This thing about the democrat? Well, he's just another crook that got caught, like the Republican I posted about. I just find it of no use to somehow make general hay out of what one individual Congressman does over another, based strictly on what party they belong to. I'd be inclined to not say anything about this if the OP posted this sort of thing about both parties in Congress, but that does not seem to happen. That was my point.
Originally Posted By DAR I think this may have to do with all the coverage the Foley case has gotten. I'll admit I heard nothing about the Reid case or this other guy until now.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer More Reid problems.... <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4263023.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor y.mpl/ap/politics/4263023.html</a> >>Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use. Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday he was personally reimbursing his campaign for $3,300 in donations he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence. Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years. In that matter, the senator hadn't disclosed to Congress that he first sold land to a friend's limited liability company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land again in 2004 to others. Reid portrayed the 2004 sale as a personal sale of land, making no mention of the company's ownership or its role in the sale. Reid said his amended ethics reports would list the 2001 sale and the company, called Patrick Lane LLC. He said the amended reports would also divulge two other smaller land deals he had failed to report to Congress. "I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation," Reid said in a statement issued by his office. He said he believed the 2001 sale did not alter his ownership of the land but that he agreed to file the amended reports because "I believe in ensuring all facts come to light." Reid labeled the AP story as the "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress. On the Ritz-Carlton holiday donations, Reid gave $600 in 2002, then $1,200 in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005 from his re-election campaign to an entity listed as the REC Employee Holiday Fund. His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year. Reid's office said the listing as salary was a "clerical error." Residents and workers at the Ritz said the fund's full name is the Residents Executive Committee Holiday Fund and that it collects money each year from the condominium residents to help provide Christmas gifts, bonuses and a party for the support staff. Federal election law permits campaigns to provide "gifts of nominal value" but prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal expenses, such as mortgage, rent or utilities for "any part of any personal residence." The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any "obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder." Land deeds show Reid and his wife, Landra, purchased a condominium for their Washington residence at the hotel for $750,000 in March 2001. The holiday fund has existed for years the at the condo, workers said. Reid said Monday he believed the expenses were permissible but he nonetheless was reimbursing the campaign. "These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position," Reid said. Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission's former chief enforcement lawyer, said Reid's explanation is aimed at a "gray area" in the law by suggesting the donations were tied to his official Senate and political work. "What makes this harder for the senator is that this is his personal residence and this looks like an event that everybody else at the residence is taking out of their personal money as they're living there," Noble said.<<
