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.
I thought so too :)
I am going to post it on Pelosi threads too. :)
I heard on a call in show yesterday that the county commission that changed the zoning making the property so valuable had Reid's son on it.....
I'd be inclined to agree with you except for the fact that Mark Warner also announced this week he's not running for President.
I think it's actually to Hillary's advantage for the RATS not to retake control of Congress. They'll go for impeachment, insist on bringing the troops home, raise our taxes.
If they did take over, she'd be trying to run for the White House with most of the country saying "Dear Lord, what have we done?"
Could it be this Philly paper was the one sold to private investors a few months back?
If so, maybe this paper is trying to be less partison, viewing Democrats with a critical eye?
Maybe bucking for more educated readers?
I am in complete agreement. The country would be so sick of the Dems' screaming night and day, why would they want more?
"The Houston Chronicle ran a Foley article on the top of the front page yesterday and ran the Reid story on page 7."
The Portland (Maine) Press Herald put it on the third page while running repeated page one spreads on the Foley non story.
My guess is they wanted several parsels of land to be in one "ownership package" in order to get zoneing for both Harry and the Mafia lawyers property, and sell parsels of land as one deal through the LLC company.
I wonder who bought the property? I wonder if they knew Dirty Harry was getting the cash? I wonder if they inflated the price to buy Harry for some other "Pay to Play" deal?
bttt
Also, I think the end always justify the means.
For some reason he felt compeled to get his name off the deed sometime after he bought the property.
I think you have to look at who sold him the property as well. There may have been price games and a kick back to the first property owner if re-zone occured in the future. Look to see if original owner is now cashing big checks from odd source. Possibly from the new owner!
Could it be that Harry "re-zone" was just the grease between original owner and new owner?
Anyone selling property in Nevada has to know that Harry was the "Re-Zone" specialist by now, turning worthless Nevada dirt into gold .
The entire record of the property should be examined for a clear picture. All sale price values should be under scrutiny.
Did the Dems out Foley to cover up the impending truth about Reid?
I'm sure all the MSM will investigate that theory. You know they would if the R and D involved in those two stories were reversed.
Not that it is at all surprising, but if you click on the Reuters Politics link at Drudge, you have to scroll to the third page, past 6 articles referring to Foley, Ney and Republican scandals, before you finally see any mention of the Reid land-deal. And here is the headline:
"Sen. Reid asks panel for opinion on land sale: report"
Maybe Reuters is just ticked that AP broke the story. But if this was Hastert instead of Reid one can only imagine the difference in treatment.
I think Harry has some reason to get his name off the deed, and not on the books at the LLC.
I think "Re-Zone" was the need from the beginning, and Harry was the grease required to get from point A to B, for all parties involved.
I think Harry is in the habit of informal business deals with no paperwork because he would be in jail if all facts were known, in my opinion.
My opinion, we are looking at serious corruption of government in Nevada. Nevada AG should be looking into this as well.
Tell you why...
Harry probably made an agreement to re-zone early on, and was in on the fix with his Mafia buddy from day one of original sale.
CA....
If any one in Nevada needs a re-zone of property, Harry can get it done for a share. (It just cant documented on paper.)
You can't argue with results, Harry gets the job done.
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.