Someone is bound to post this

[OGTEleven]

It might as well be me.

 

Your thoughts?

[Simon]

Ooh let me go first...

 

Republican: Democrats are unscrupulous thieves and liars!

 

Democrat: Republicans are unscurpulous thieves and liars!

 

Guy with brain: You're both right. Now run out and vote for your chosen thief and liar and then come home and complain about thieves and liars in government.......

[KD in CA]

Who cares about embezzlements and payoffs when we still have a gay sex scandal in full brew.

[VABills]

Who cares about embezzlements and payoffs when we still have a gay sex scandal in full brew.   

802161[/snapback]

Been done before:

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17357

 

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

 

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

 

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

 

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

 

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

 

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

 

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

 

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

 

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

 

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

[Chilly]

Been done before:

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17357

 

blah blah blah

802171[/snapback]

 

lawl @ that website which published the Democrats side of things and cut out completely the Republican offenses of the Washington Post article they cited.

[Simon]

lawl @ that website which published the Democrats side of things and cut out completely the Republican offenses of the Washington Post article they cited.

802204[/snapback]

 

Democrats are unscrupulous thieves and liars!

[OGTEleven]

I was more asking for thoughts about Reid and his actions (and/or inactions) than I was about democrats or republicans in general.

 

I realize that politicians (in general) pull this kind of stuff often. Reid is pretty high ranking. This report has a pretty high level of detail.

 

Do the dems on the board think it is simply a repub dirty trick? Even if it is, should Reid face consequences?

 

Do the repubs think the press will help bury this unlike the Foley thing?

 

Personally, I find it as unsurprising as I would if the same article were published about a prominent repub. Maybe there'll be one of those next week. Either way, way a dirt bag is exposed, we should hold him accountable.

[Bungee Jumper]

It might as well be me.

 

Your thoughts?

802147[/snapback]

 

I think there's a major detail missing somewhere in that story (hell, I know there is. At least one. The story doesn't contain a single detail about the transfer of ownership from Reid to Patrick Lane. That would be a matter of public record, with the details easily discovered). You can't just sell land to someone, hide the fact for three years, then collect a windfall profit when they sell it. The recordation alone doesn't work that way.

 

In fact, it's literally legally impossible to structure a real estate deal that way. And I can think of a lot of possible missing details (e.g. a contract of sale or purchase signed in 2001 with a good faith deposit. but not closed on until Jan 20, 2004, which would be perfectly legal. Hell, I know people that do that for a living) that would make this story a complete non-issue.

 

Ethically...the land swap thing is slimey as hell...and normal. Probably not an ethical violation by the letter of the ethics code (which is a fault in the code...but you think Congress is going to write ethics that'll inconvenience them? ) And the reporting requirements...depends on the missing details. Taking my example, Reid wouldn't have to report signing a contract for a real estate deal, just the closing...which would make the deal perfectly legit and ethical.

 

But until and unless details of the transaction come to light...lambasting Reid for a half-assed story containing a description of a transaction so glaringly incomplete that the legality of it can only be guessed at is bull sh--. It's dumber than Hillary Clinton's cattle futures "scandal", and that was quintessential bull sh--. Come back with a reasonable approximation of the entire story...

[Chilly]

But until and unless details of the transaction come to light...lambasting Reid for a half-assed story containing a description of a transaction so glaringly incomplete that the legality of it can only be guessed at is bull sh--.  It's dumber than Hillary Clinton's cattle futures "scandal", and that was quintessential bull sh--.  Come back with a reasonable approximation of the entire story...

802329[/snapback]

WTB Better Investigative Reporting?

[Simon]

lambasting Reid for a half-assed story containing a description of a transaction so glaringly incomplete that the legality of it can only be guessed at is bull sh--.

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

"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......Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules."

 

C'mon Thomas. Devils advocacy aside, the guy is dirty.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

"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."

 

"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."

 

"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......Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules."

 

C'mon Thomas. Devils advocacy aside, the guy is dirty.

802435[/snapback]

 

And they continue to manipulate the system to ensure their two parties can never lose their stranglehold. It's a recipe for a BAAAAD situation.

[Johnny Coli]

I think there's a major detail missing somewhere in that story (hell, I know there is.  At least one.  The story doesn't contain a single detail about the transfer of ownership from Reid to Patrick Lane.  That would be a matter of public record, with the details easily discovered).  You can't just sell land to someone, hide the fact for three years, then collect a windfall profit when they sell it.  The recordation alone doesn't work that way.

 

In fact, it's literally legally impossible to structure a real estate deal that way.  And I can think of a lot of possible missing details (e.g. a contract of sale or purchase signed in 2001 with a good faith deposit. but not closed on until Jan 20, 2004, which would be perfectly legal.  Hell, I know people that do that for a living) that would make this story a complete non-issue.

 

Ethically...the land swap thing is slimey as hell...and normal.  Probably not an ethical violation by the letter of the ethics code (which is a fault in the code...but you think Congress is going to write ethics that'll inconvenience them?  )  And the reporting requirements...depends on the missing details.  Taking my example, Reid wouldn't have to report signing a contract for a real estate deal, just the closing...which would make the deal perfectly legit and ethical.

 

But until and unless details of the transaction come to light...lambasting Reid for a half-assed story containing a description of a transaction so glaringly incomplete that the legality of it can only be guessed at is bull sh--.  It's dumber than Hillary Clinton's cattle futures "scandal", and that was quintessential bull sh--.  Come back with a reasonable approximation of the entire story...

802329[/snapback]

I don't see where he did anything wrong or shady, either. He owned the land, entered into an LLC with a 75% stake, paid taxes on his part of the LLC, and ended up making $700k when they sold it. The land never changed hands. He didn't make any money on a "sale" when he went into the LLC partnership becasue it's not a "sale". He certainly didn't make $1.1 million if he was already in for $400k.

 

This line in the article is laughable:

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.

 

Isn't that why you enter into an LLC? To freaking limit your legal liability by incorporating? And if he's openly paying taxes on his stake, how the hell is that not public knowledge if he's reporting it to the IRS?

 

The story is riddled with inconsistencies, dead end "facts", worthless opinions from people not privy to any of the details, meaningless links to other persons with no relationship to the deal, and denials that Reid was involved by the principal developers involved in the land sale.

 

This may go down as one of the worst, meatless hit pieces in journalistic history.

[OGTEleven]

I don't see where he did anything wrong or shady, either.  He owned the land, entered into an LLC with a 75% stake, paid taxes on his part of the LLC, and ended up making $700k when they sold it.  The land never changed hands.  He didn't make any money on a "sale" when he went into the LLC partnership becasue it's not a "sale". He certainly didn't make $1.1 million if he was already in for $400k.

 

This line in the article is laughable:

Isn't that why you enter into an LLC?  To freaking limit your legal liability by incorporating?  And if he's openly paying taxes on his stake, how the hell is that not public knowledge if he's reporting it to the IRS? 

 

The story is riddled with inconsistencies, dead end "facts", worthless opinions from people not privy to any of the details, meaningless links to other persons with no relationship to the deal, and denials that Reid was involved by the principal developers involved in the land sale.

 

This may go down as one of the worst, meatless hit pieces in journalistic history.

802534[/snapback]

 

 

I don't really see any problem with him entering into the LLC, but it seems to me that he should have reported it. It is a rule. He should know the rule and bend over backwards to live up to it. He has himself to blame for this becoming a story.

 

IMO, I see no problem with the way property taxes were handled.

 

I'm not real big on all the re-zoning stuff that appeared to take place and increase the value of the land. I can't say I see something illegal, just the kind of crap that goes on with all of these clowns on both sides.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't see where he did anything wrong or shady, either.  He owned the land, entered into an LLC with a 75% stake, paid taxes on his part of the LLC, and ended up making $700k when they sold it.  The land never changed hands.  He didn't make any money on a "sale" when he went into the LLC partnership becasue it's not a "sale". He certainly didn't make $1.1 million if he was already in for $400k.

 

This line in the article is laughable:

Isn't that why you enter into an LLC?  To freaking limit your legal liability by incorporating?  And if he's openly paying taxes on his stake, how the hell is that not public knowledge if he's reporting it to the IRS? 

 

The story is riddled with inconsistencies, dead end "facts", worthless opinions from people not privy to any of the details, meaningless links to other persons with no relationship to the deal, and denials that Reid was involved by the principal developers involved in the land sale.

 

This may go down as one of the worst, meatless hit pieces in journalistic history.

802534[/snapback]

Cliff Notes: Johnny is a Democrat Apologist, so no Democrat could possibly do anything wrong. Ridiculous.

[GG]

I don't really see any problem with him entering into the LLC, but it seems to me that he should have reported it.  It is a rule.  He should know the rule and bend over backwards to live up to it.  He has himself to blame for this becoming a story. 

 

802601[/snapback]

 

As always, it's not the story, it's the coverup. It's perfectly reasonable for him to transfer ownership of one lot into a new LLC that owns three lots, and then sell at a profit.

 

Inquiring minds want to know, "Why not disclose the basic transfer of ownership to the LLC?" Could there have been some inside dealing on the rezoning issue that Reid wanted to avoid scrutiny?

[Johnny Coli]

Cliff Notes:  Johnny is a Democrat Apologist, so no Democrat could possibly do anything wrong.  Ridiculous.

802610[/snapback]

Yes, it's absolutely absurd that I would point out that there is nothing wrong when there was nothing wrong. It's all part of my personal agenda to mislead the readers of the PPP.

[Bungee Jumper]

Inquiring minds want to know, "Why not disclose the basic transfer of ownership to the LLC?"

802612[/snapback]

 

And as I said, ownership may not have transferred until just before the sale to the developer. The details of that "transfer of ownership" are conspicuously absent from that story.

 

Nor did I see, as Coli said, where Reid had a 75% stake in the LLC. He had a 75% stake in two parcels of land (owned one outright, and 50% of another) that he eventually transferred ownership of to the LLC. As I said by way of example: if he and the LLC merely had a contractual agreement to transfer ownership, that isn't an actual transfer of ownership, and shouldn't necessitate reporting...and that contract can remain open for years (as my wife sees in her job all the time). The real questions that speak towards the illegality or unethicalness of the situation are: when was the sale completed, and how was it executed? Neither of those questions are sufficiently answered in the article: as for the first, it's just stated "in 2001" without the supporting evidence that should be very easy to come by (land records are wide open to the public, Reid can't hide either his deed or the LLC's deed to the land), and the second isn't addressed at all. As I said, a big and important chunk of the story's missing; the chunk that actually explains whether what he did was illegal or not.

 

Could there have been some inside dealing on the rezoning issue that Reid wanted to avoid scrutiny?

 

Ya think? Did you know that the contract to build the DC Nationals' ball park and develop the waterfront was granted to the biggest developer in the region by the Sports Commission that included a member who's president of the title firm the developer's using for the real estate deals, and the title firm is owned by the law firm that wrote (literally - what idiot lets a law firm write laws?) the DC laws allowing the rezoning and eminent domain purchases of the private property on the waterfront? Business as usual...

[EC-Bills]

Been done before:

...

802171[/snapback]

 

Wow, never saw that one-sided post coming

[Kelly the Dog]

Seems to me that he simply didn't do something he should have done, but it pretty much lacks anything sinister. If anything, it shows they were trying to do things the right and legal and friendly way, they were just sloppy. Making three times your money on a 400K land deal in Las Vegas that became a development during that time period is actually LOSING money. Without doing anything the land in them there parts was multiplying many times that figure. And land trades with the government are not altogether or always slimy. And getting people like Harry Reid to help is the only way that the most legal and ethical of these things can be done. I happen to know quite a bit about them.

 

Now, Dario, mentioned at the bottom, is a slimeball of the highest order. I know him and he's gone up the river. Reid, to me, in this instance, is guilty of skipping a step and little else.

[Alaska Darin]

Seems to me that he simply didn't do something he should have done, but it pretty much lacks anything sinister. If anything, it shows they were trying to do things the right and legal and friendly way, they were just sloppy. Making three times your money on a 400K land deal in Las Vegas that became a development during that time period is actually LOSING money. Without doing anything the land in them there parts was multiplying many times that figure. And land trades with the government are not altogether or always slimy. And getting people like Harry Reid to help is the only way that the most legal and ethical of these things can be done. I happen to know quite a bit about them.

 

Now, Dario, mentioned at the bottom, is a slimeball of the highest order. I know him and he's gone up the river. Reid, to me, in this instance, is guilty of skipping a step and little else.

802683[/snapback]

Right, because millionaires generally do business without any paperwork. You apologists never cease to amaze me.