Posted on 10/11/2006 11:21:50 AM PDT by Prost1
WASHINGTON - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Or animals or cigarettes.
I expect sometime tomorrow Reid will have press conference and will step down
Sure.
Right into the macacca.
It is highly unlikely that AP would run this as "Breaking News" unless there was something more to the story.
AP is the democrats' friend, but if AP smells blood, they have to go with it.
HA HA FOX is carrying the story now!
couldn/t happen to a better guy--caught with his hand in the cookie jar
Pelosi does not have to go far to "drain the swamp"...
Pelosi does not have to go far to "drain the swamp"...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I dont understand why he set up the deal the way he did.
He buys the land, sells the land for ownership in the guys company.
Is there any document that shows he got rights to the company for the land? If there is, and he can show it was his money to begin with when he originaly made the purchase, he may skate.
But if he has a big cash transfer from some crook into his accounts, then buys the land, thats where he may get nailed.
I guess the only way to know is to have the FBI do a search of his banking records.
Apparently it wasn't a cash sale (donation...whatever!). He and his wife allege they transferred the land to the LLC in return for an "informal" interest in the LLC.
But therein lies Reid's problem. On one hand he says it was an " informal" ownership agreement between friends. He hopes this explains away why he didn't disclose his interest in the company in his filings (not to mention his misreporting that he still owned the land). But when he took the $1.1 million dollar payoff, that rather diminishes the "informality", doesn't it? Seems to me that indicates a VERY specific understanding between friends as to what Reid's share was to be when the deal was completed.
Sorry, even Harry can't have it both ways.
Of course, the real question is whether the MediaCrats let him get away with it.
So who should be the 1st in line to arrest Reid?
IRS, FBI, Capitol Police, Nevada AJ...
Another thing: the article says
Reid isn't listed anywhere on [the LLC'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.Anyone intimately familiar with Nevada corporate law??? Does the law really not require the disclosure of a "partner" with a 75% claim on the proceeds from a sale of the firm's assets?
I think this should be pushed as hard as possible. Certainly, if it was a Republican, it would be front page stuff, and the headline would be about questionable deals and failing to report, etc. Initial reports about the deal will show that Reid made $1.1 million on a property that he bought for $400k in partnership with a guy who has questionable ties, and that he failed to report it properly. It will not be enough to get him to resign, but it will silence the Foley stuff, and be a welcome sign that Republicans are willing to fight back. However, if it is not enough to get a prosecution going, it will be a short-lived story.
That his interest in the partnership was not in writing is somewhat suspicious. A development agreement is never oral, and an agreement involving real property is required to be in writing to be enforceable. I don't care how close a friend you are to your partner, you put it in writing. There may have been a reason why he didn't put this partnership in writing that is shady, but I don't know what it would have been. Such an intent is belied by his paying with personal checks for the property taxes, and continuing to report the property as owned by him personally. If he had done it the right way, he would have simply reported the transfer of the property and that he had an interest in the partnership. Functionally, no difference. If he had been trying to hide his involvement, he would not have used personal checks, he would have given money to a third party and had them pay the expenses. Instead, the partners seem to have paid the expenses and agreed to settle up later. This is common.
So, at this point, I am intrigued and perfectly willing to beat Reid up for a while, but not very optimistic that this is the killer scandal that will rid us of that pest.
Thanks for the ping bitt.
Tax fraud?
"Does the law really not require the disclosure of a "partner" with a 75% claim on the proceeds from a sale of the firm's assets?"
No, but congressional filings certainly do. He did not fill out his federal forms accurately or truthfully.
IOW, he lied on his Federal Filings! I believe a Perjury offense. And no sex involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.