Reid Got $1M in Land Sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property .....

[101A]

I did read the whole thing. Really not much there from a legal standpoint. He should have reported that the way he owned the land had changed, but that's far from impeachable.

I'm sure legally it will all stand up to scrutiny, after all, who rights the laws? Reid apparently anticipated the smell that might eminate from this deal. I bet that's why he didn't report the "sale" in the first place. It was too near the time of the initial purchase - which considering there were campaign contributions, federal land grants, et al; is probably where the more questionable practices occurred.

Now the story is about the reporting, not the original deal. Why'd he hang up on the reporter? To buy himself time to get his story straight, T's crossed and I's dotted and all that.

[ChumpDumper]

Reid already had the land--he just switched some of the legal liability to a corporation. He didn't make that public in the report, which was a mistake, but it was hardly a secret since his partner publicly announced Reid's stake in local government hearings. There's just not alot of meat here.

[JoeChalupa]

Looking for meat is what got Foley in hot water.

[xrayzebra]

If the dimm-craps do it, it is not a big deal. Only the Republicans have a
culture of corruption. I love Reid's little statement about they are big buddies
and don't need to put things on paper. Except Reid's buddy has been connected
to the mob in the past. But never mind, we got to protect the pages, even when
the congressman has resigned. Wonder if Reid pay the correct taxes on something
he cant do ent. What happens if they audit him?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If the dimm-craps do it, it is not a big deal. Only the Republicans have a
culture of corruption. I love Reid's little statement about they are big buddies
and don't need to put things on paper. Except Reid's buddy has been connected
to the mob in the past. But never mind, we got to protect the pages, even when
the congressman has resigned. Wonder if Reid pay the correct taxes on something
he cant do ent. What happens if they audit him?

he knows a guy who may have connections to the mob makes him guilty?

I'm all for keeping anyone in Congress accountable to the law but this reeks of desperation..

One more time Ray Foley abused his position to attempt to have sexual contact with a minor..

The House leadership denied ever hearing about it until it recently...now it is apparent that is not completely true..

You playing stupid is wearing thin on me..!

[101A]

he knows a guy who may have connections to the mob makes him guilty?

No, he has a unreported, non-do ented part ownership of a company/piece of land relating to a govt/epa land swap, with subsequent arm-twisting of a zoning board for a favorable change in definition, tied in with a couple of developers/campaign contributors, with a guy who may have connections to the mob.

But don't worry, it's really all about failing to report a land sale, oh, and Republicans want amnesty for pedophiles.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, he has a unreported, non-do ented part ownership of a company/piece of land relating to a govt/epa land swap, with subsequent arm-twisting of a zoning board for a favorable change in definition, tied in with a couple of developers/campaign contributors, with a guy who may have connections to the mob.

But don't worry, it's really all about failing to report a land sale, oh, and Republicans want amnesty for pedophiles.

I heard about the supposed 'arm twisting' concerning the rezoning on the hush show today..any proof of that? Or is that an assumption that has to made to make this weak case stick?

[xrayzebra]

he knows a guy who may have connections to the mob makes him guilty? No just stupid for doing business with the mob



One more time Ray Foley abused his position to attempt to have sexual contact with a minor..Yeah, I know Reid would never abuse his position. He is pure as driven snow.



The House leadership denied ever hearing about it until it recently...now it is apparent that is not completely true..

You playing stupid is wearing thin on me..!

Oh, well sorry I am aggravation to you. But who really cares, except you..
[

[101A]

I heard about the supposed 'arm twisting' concerning the rezoning on the hush show today..any proof of that? Or is that an assumption that has to made to make this weak case stick?

Look, I've got no idea; I've only read a couple of reports on this, but there is certainly enough for me to assume:

1. Reid knew it might not look good (not reporting the sale and hanging up on the reporter)
2. Reid netted at least a million bucks, and presumably so did his friend and other campaign contributors.
3. It was all facilitated by action at the federal level which Reid was supporting and/or even pushing.
4. It smells (and there are no doubt deals like this ALL over the place with fed congressman, state congressman & city council members, from all walks of life and all sides of the aisle)

[ChumpDumper]

I agree it smells, but it's unlikely anything will come of this.

[Yonivore]

His hanging up on the AP Reporter is a good clue that he was caught with his pants down around his ankles on this one.

We'll see where it leads.

[JoeChalupa]

If the dimm-craps do it, it is not a big deal. Only the Republicans have a
culture of corruption. I love Reid's little statement about they are big buddies
and don't need to put things on paper. Except Reid's buddy has been connected
to the mob in the past. But never mind, we got to protect the pages, even when
the congressman has resigned. Wonder if Reid pay the correct taxes on something
he cant do ent. What happens if they audit him?

If repug-a-craps hide a pedophile the issue is "When did the Dems know about IT!". Please.

[JoeChalupa]

His hanging up on the AP Reporter is a good clue that he was caught with his pants down around his ankles on this one.

We'll see where it leads.

That sounds more like one of Foley's pages.

[Yonivore]

That sounds more like one of Foley's pages.

Has it been discovered yet that he actually had sex with an underage page? I've kind of lost interest in the story once it was discovered that all who were involved may have been consenting adults and that his communications with underage pages may have been limited to e-mails asking for pictures and stuff.

And, actually, the reference probably sounds more like Bill Clinton or Sandy Berger.

[JoeChalupa]

Consenting adults? Oh, you mean like Bill and Monica. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Yonivore]

Consenting adults? Oh, you mean like Bill and Monica. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yep. Unlike non-consenting adults like Juanita Brodderick.

But, we haven't even gotten to the sexual harrassment aspects of Foley's behavior, have we? Hey, you don't hear anyone crying over the s bags departure. I think cavorting with pages (and interns), over whom you have responsibility, is de able.

[Ocotillo]

this thing smells alright. It smells like another manufactured "scandal" by the right to try and distract people from the foul odor emanating from the Republican side of the aisle. Reminds me of Whitewater. Clinton was smeared with that for years and nothing came of it for him. Second verse, same as the first.

[Nbadan]

No, he has a unreported, non-do ented part ownership of a company/piece of land relating to a govt/epa land swap, with subsequent arm-twisting of a zoning board for a favorable change in definition, tied in with a couple of developers/campaign contributors, with a guy who may have connections to the mob.

But don't worry, it's really all about failing to report a land sale, oh, and Republicans want amnesty for pedophiles.

1) There was no transaction in 2001 to report, the land owned by two partners became an LLC owned by the same partners in same percentages.

2) Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit)

3) Read the article closely for specific accusations it actually makes. Try to find one that has any significance. Even all the talk about the ADJACENT land swap deal was completed before Reid bought it --you or I could have bought the same parcel and sold it for the same amount.

4) As for "personally owned", A tax attorney on Daily Kos wrote the following: "A multiple member LLC is treated as a partnership for tax purposes. Again, if an existing partnership transfers property to an LLC owned by the same partners in the same percentages, the LLC will usually be treated as the same en y as the orignal partnership, and again an individual might reasonably believe that no transfer has taken place."

This is like me transferring my co-owned home to a living trust and then years later, selling it and making money off of it. Anything wrong with that if I reported the sale? Of course not and that's what Reid did. Do I need to report that I put land in a trust run by the same original owners. No.

- Thanks to creekdog of DU for that research.

[PixelPusher]

1) There was no transaction in 2001 to report, the land owned by two partners became an LLC owned by the same partners in same percentages.

2) Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit)

3) Read the article closely for specific accusations it actually makes. Try to find one that has any significance. Even all the talk about the ADJACENT land swap deal was completed before Reid bought it --you or I could have bought the same parcel and sold it for the same amount.

4) As for "personally owned", A tax attorney on Daily Kos wrote the following: "A multiple member LLC is treated as a partnership for tax purposes. Again, if an existing partnership transfers property to an LLC owned by the same partners in the same percentages, the LLC will usually be treated as the same en y as the orignal partnership, and again an individual might reasonably believe that no transfer has taken place."

This is like me transferring my co-owned home to a living trust and then years later, selling it and making money off of it. Anything wrong with that if I reported the sale? Of course not and that's what Reid did. Do I need to report that I put land in a trust run by the same original owners. No.

- Thanks to creekdog of DU for that research.

Nbadan having to explain the concept of LLC's to Yoni and 101A. Now I've seen everything.

[Yonivore]

Okay, here's the Harry Reid scam, by the numbers:

1. What he did.

As Curt over at Flopping Aces points out, this deal really isn't that hard to understand: In 1998, Reid bought the land, zoned for residential use, for $400,000.

In 2001, Reid sold the land for no profit to a friend, getting a share of the limited liability company that held the property.

The LLC tried to get the land rezoned for commercial use, but was rebuffed by the Clark County Zoning Commission.

The LLC then appealled the decision to the full Clark County Commission and lobbied the commission, going so far as invoking Reid's name to the commission in a public hearing on the matter.

The zoning commission's original decision was then vetoed, and they rezoned the property for commercial use.

In 2004, the property was sold for $1.6 million, netting the LLC $1.2 million profit.

Reid never reported the sale of the property to the LLC, as he is required by law to do.

2. Why he did this.

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 who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid's friendship with Jay Brown isn't exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid'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. . . .

Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown. It's true -- under the inadequate financial disclosure rules -- that even if Mr. Reid had listed the newly formed corporation, Patrick Lane LLC, that wouldn't have by itself demonstrated Mr. Brown's involvement. Nonetheless, that Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane corporation, was not some mere "technical change," as the senator would like to brush it off. It's an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.

That's from the Washington Post, by the way.

Instapundit just has more on the link.

3. Even more reason why he did this.

Land deals are the meat-and-potatoes of government corruption, sometimes illegal, sometimes merely smelly. Behind every crooked politician, there's a crooked land deal. My first big story was the existential essence of the land deal: a couple of the local pols used insider advance knowledge to buy up land around a proposed freeway interchange for resale under the name of a dummy company.

The goverment builds on, buys, sells, or rezones land. Said land increases in value. Pols, friends, relatives invariably exploit the change. Harry's part of a grand bipartisan tradition. If more reporters were covering this stuff at City Hall, there would be many fewer bad guys of either party in Congress.

4. How the media is covering it.

Short answer: It's not. Although Instapundit links several print editorials about the scandal, the TV media is almost entirely embargoing it. Just keep scrolling at Newsbusters to see that it hardly rates a mention, anywhwere, while Mark Foley continues getting multiple mentions per newscast.

The most brazen and absurd non-coverage comes, of course, from the New York Times.

They do mention the story.

Check it out:

New York Times reporter Philip Shenon covers the possible financial scandal involving House Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid…very carefully. For one, "Senator Offers to Amend Financial Forms" is the most benign headline imaginable -- as if Reid is doing everyone a favor by offering to follow the law.

Contrast that with the negative headline over the Times' AP story about Republican Sen. George Allen from Monday, which has no problem focusing the blame: "Virginia Senator Did Not Disclose Stock Options.

[Nbadan]

Reid never reported the sale of the property to the LLC, as he is required by law to do.

Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit).

The premise of the idiotic article by Solomon is that Senator Reid hid the sale by not reporting the sale of the property into the limited liability company. That is completely bogus. The contribution of property into a partnership or limited liability company (which is normally taxed as a partnership) is tax free and is not a sale. Senator Reid reported that he owned the property and reported the gain on the sale. I doubt that there is a reporting requirement for non sale or not taxable events and so the whole claim is bogus.