Posted on 10/13/2006 7:12:03 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
A lucrative land deal benefiting U.S. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) deserves full scrutiny by the Senate ethics committee.
In 1998, Reid purchased undeveloped residential property on the outskirts of Las Vegas for $400,000. He bought one lot outright, and a second lot with a partner, Jay Brown. In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a corporation created by Brown. Reid retained an ownership stake in the corporation and continued to pay taxes on the property. There was no written agreement; Brown told the Associated Press that the two had been friends for 35 years and didn't need one.
So the Senate Democratic leader engaged in a seven-figure handshake and didn't feel the need to disclose all the details. Experts on Senate ethics rules say Reid should have disclosed the sale in 2001 on his annual ethics report, and informed Congress of his part-ownership in Brown's corporation. Reid didn't.
After the land was rezoned for a shopping center, the corporation sold it in 2004. Reid received $1.1 million in the sale, turning a neat profit of nearly $700,000 in six years.
While now insisting he did nothing wrong, Reid is also offering to make a "technical change" to his earlier ethics reports if the ethics committee so desires. Simply giving the Democratic leader a mulligan is hardly the way to handle this case. When the Senate debated ethics reforms earlier this year, Reid was out in front to demand the toughest of standards from lawmakers.
"Americans have been shocked and even disgusted by revelations of corruption in our current system by Republican lobbyists, senior Bush Administration officials, members of Congress, and former congressional staff," Reid said in March. "The scandals have shown that some outsiders and insiders believed they could act with impunity."
That's how this case looks, too. Unless Reid comes up with a better explanation for this lack of disclosure, Democrats should not keep him as their leader in the new Congress in 2007.
Maybe I'm weird, but I read the Inquirer's editorial page before I read anything else besides a glance at the front page. That's why this editorial jumped out at me. Hugh Hewitt linked to it early this morning, and I know all the talk radio hosts will be talking about it. I went on a washingtonpost.com chat today and metioned it. This editorial has MADE news, that is way better than just having the Inquirer regurgitate an AP story on page 1.
I gave up on the Stinky years ago, and also got various family members to dump their subscriptions, after they criticized Republicans for "pandering to taxpayers". I kid you not.
Of course it didn't, therefore, he evaded payment of taxes on that earned income.
This is where I think this goes as well. Your income or capital gains on investments are calculated on the difference between your buying and selling price. By converting the land to stock - with no paperwork whatsoever - Harry effectively laundered the investment. I'd bet he reported the total sale properly, hard to avoid that with the amount and title transfer, but I'd bet the farm he reported a cost basis higher than $400K. He will claim the partnership grew and his stock was worth more at the time of sale. Garden variety investment income tax evasion.
And "technical correction" - isn't all law "technical"? Has the goofball ever looked at the tax code he has helped create? "Technical" = following the law.
The folks who pay attention - you, talk radio - already knew about the story. No real damage in writing an editorial about it.
The trick is to limit the exposure to the average casual reader (translation: swing voter) until after the election. Note the call for Reid to step down not now, but next session. They didn't want DeLay to wait that long, did they?
I don't know if it will do any good, but I'm e-mailing the press and asking them why they're silent about Reid and one of the biggest land scams in decades.
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=rCABNAX0apXT2EL6LIOy3w%253d%253d
PATRICK LANE, LLC
Business Entity Information
Status: Active File Date: 4/26/2001
Type: Domestic Limited-Liability Company Corp Number: LLC4299-2001
Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 4/30/2007
Managed By: Managers Expiration Date: 4/26/2031
Resident Agent Information
Name: JAY H. BROWN Address 1: 520 S. FOURTH ST.
Address 2: City: LAS VEGAS
State: NV Zip Code: 89101
Phone: Fax:
Email: Mailing Address 1:
Mailing Address 2: Mailing City:
Mailing State: Mailing Zip Code:
View all business entities under this resident agent
Financial Information
No Par Share Count: 0 Capital Amount: $ 0
No stock records found for this company
Officers Include Inactive Officers
Manager - JAY H BROWN
Address 1: 520 S FOURTH STREET Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89101 Country:
Status: Historical Email:
Manager - JAY H BROWN
Address 1: 520 S FOURTH STREET Address 2:
City: LAS VEGAS State: NV
Zip Code: 89101 Country:
Status: Active Email:
Actions\Amendments
Click here to view 5 actions\amendments associated with this company
(Think Duke Cunningham)
I agree with you. AP would have never come out with this story unless they got Hil's approval.
F***ing BINGO!
Every republican in congress should be demanding Reid resign, but instead they are hiding in the corner afraid of their own shadows. Pathetic.
Its time for Harry Reid to address the people of this country and have his say. We are interested Harry. Then lets see if tax evasion charges are in order. Harry, did you do a bad thing? CRUSIFY HARRY!! NOW!!!
Harry Reid RESIGN NOW! Bump
The only way this story has legs is when the GOP gets out there and asks for Reid to step down..
THE FALLOUT OVER SEN. HARRY REID'S (D-NV) ETHICAL HANG-UP
Newspapers Question Dem Leader's Ethics While
Sen. Reid Calls It "Terrible Journalistic Unfairness"
FACT: Dem Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Hung-Up On Reporter That Exposed Lucrative Land Deal That Violated Ethics Rules:
"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 ..." (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, "Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years," The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
"Reid Hung Up The Phone When Questioned About The Deal During An AP Interview ..." (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, "Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years," The Associated Press, 10/11/06) Sen. Reid: "What a terrible journalistic unfairness." (Roy Hagar, "Reid Says AP Is Unfair," Reno Gazette Journal, 10/13/06)
"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." (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, "Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years," The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
"[R]eid 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 ..." (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, "Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years," The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
"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." (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, "Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years," The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
"Kent Cooper, Who Oversaw Government Disclosure Reports For Federal Candidates For Two Decades In The Federal Election Commission, Said Reid's Failure To Report The 2001 Sale And His Ties To Brown's Company Violated Senate Rules." (John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey, "Reid Got $1 Million For Land He Hadn't Owned For 3 Years," The Associated Press, 10/11/06)
Third Parties Across The Country Say Sen. Reid Acted Improperly, Should Be Held Accountable:
The Philadelphia Inquirer: "Unless Reid comes up with a better explanation for this lack of disclosure, Democrats should not keep him as their leader in the new Congress in 2007." (Editorial, "Reid's Land Deal," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/13/06)
The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A lucrative land deal benefiting U.S. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) deserves full scrutiny by the Senate ethics committee. ... [T]he Senate Democratic leader engaged in a seven-figure handshake and didn't feel the need to disclose all the details. Experts on Senate ethics rules say Reid should have disclosed the sale in 2001 on his annual ethics report, and informed Congress of his part-ownership in Brown's corporation. Reid didn't." (Editorial, "Reid's Land Deal," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/13/06)
CNBC's Larry Kudlow: "[W]hat's up with this Harry Reid scandal? Why aren't newspapers playing this on the front pages? Some pundits say he could go to jail. ... [T]he part that's really troubling is ... apparently [Jay] Brown, who has a checkered past, structured the deal so that Senator Reid could transfer his ownership interest to Brown without disclosing it to the public. ... That is potentially a federal crime." (CNBC's "Kudlow & Co.," 10/12/06)
The Washington Post: "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 ... whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s." (Editorial, "Mr. Reid's Nondisclosure," The Washington Post, 10/13/06)
The Washington Post: "[R]eid'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." (Editorial, "Mr. Reid's Nondisclosure," The Washington Post, 10/13/06)
Las Vegas Review-Journal's John L. Smith: "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." (John L. Smith, Op-Ed, "Timing Is Everything In Harry Reid's Profitable Partnership Deal," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/13/06)
The Oklahoman: "Reid ... is accused of failing to account for a business transaction on which he made a $1.1 million windfall. ... The deal was orchestrated by a lawyer for casino interests in Reid's home state. It appears to violate Senate ethics rules and definitely puts Reid in an uncomfortable place as we head into the final weeks before the election." (Editorial, "Capitol Gains," The Oklahoman, 10/13/06)
The Oklahoman: "[W]hen an AP reporter questioned him on specifics of the deal, Reid hung up the phone. So much for coming clean." (Editorial, "Capitol Gains," The Oklahoman, 10/13/06)
The Oklahoman: "Now that the shoe's on the other foot, will congressional Democrats call on U.S. Sen. Harry Reid to resign? Will they accuse him of being a profiteer along the lines of ExxonMobil and other energy firms?" (Editorial, "Capitol Gains," The Oklahoman, 10/13/06)
The Atlanta Journal Constitution's David McNaughton: "Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would be well advised to stop thundering about corruption in the Republican ranks ... Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others." (David McNaughton, Op-Ed, "Senator Should Look In Mirror First," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/13/06)
Fox News' Megyn Kendall: "[H]arry Reid is under fire, it's all about this land deal he made a few years ago with questions being raised about the Senator's disclosures of the transactions. Now the senate ethics committee is taking a closer look." (Fox News' "Fox News Live," 10/12/06)
Putting this transaction on paper would have been absolutely routine and easy to do.
Senator Reid needs to RESIGN........NOW!
That photo is a gem, IMO.
We need to flood ABC, NBC and the rest of the main stream media and ask why they sitting on this one???
Capt,
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.