Another Reid Debacle?
Just when I didn’t think it possible for Harry Reid to get into more trouble, I’m proven wrong. Let’s back up first to tell people that Sen. Reid amended his “ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal…” Rather than sounding contrite, Sen. Reid instead sounded like a combative partisan:
“Republicans may believe in cover-ups. I believe in ensuring all facts come to light.”
Right, Harry. We know that you believe “in ensuring all facts come to light.” It’s just that you believe in ensuring these facts come to light after a media organization has published the verifiable facts that they obtained.
“Last week, a highly misleading report by the AP implied that I made a profit selling land I no longer owned. That article was wrong. Here are the facts: I bought the land in 1998, I sold it in 2004, and I listed my ownership of the land on official Senate disclosure forms every single year. Now I have taken an additional step. Today, I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation.”
Then why didn’t your ethics disclosure form state that Jay Brown, your partner, paid a substantial portion of the property taxes? Why are you lying now, Sen. Reid? This is what the AP’s John Solomon and Kathleen Hennessey reported last week:
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.
and:
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.
It seems that Sen. Reid’s account isn’t the factual statement he’s implying it is. It also is the ‘abridged version’, omitting a few important steps. First of all, why did he and his wife Landra sign the deed to a company that “Jay Brown, a longtime friend” had started?
I also checked Dictionary.com for the definition of personally. Here’s what it says:
1. through direct contact;
2. as if intended for or directed at one’s own person;
3. as regards oneself: Personally, I don’t care to go;
4. as an individual.
Does Sen. Reid always use the term personally when he’s talking about himself plus his business partner? My guess is that he’d say yes. I’d bet that he’d say that only when he’s caught.
Sen. Reid’s underlying problem, the real problem if you will, is the problem all liars face: that they forgot which version of the story they told to which authority. That’s the beauty of telling the truth. You don’t have to remember what you said to which person and your words can’t trip you up.
Technorati Tags: Culture of Corruption, Harry Reid, Scandal, Real Estate
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
October 16th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Media, Corruption, Harry Reid, Scandals | [...]
October 16th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Reid to amend ethics reports over land deal…
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid announced today he is amending his ethics reports to Congress to…
October 16th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
[...] Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. « Ted Turner says the United Nations is handling North Korea crisisperfectly, [...]
October 16th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
This is one of the more insipid threads on this blog. The more interesting question is, why haven’t you blogged on Rep. Curt Weldon’s apparent misdeeds? Let’s compare and contast.
Harry Reid bought some property in Las Vegas in 1998 as an investment, and on the advice of a friend and business partner, who thinking the land was a good risk, bought the lot next door. Since the plan all along was to hold the real estate while it appreciated in value, Reid and friend Jay Brown decided to combine the lots in 2001 for zoning and eventually, sales purposes. They formed a Limited Liability Corporation, calculated the ownership percentages based on the value of the property each purchased and contributed to the joint effort. Lo and behold, the real estate tripled in value by 2004, as it happened that the property was located in the second-fastest growing metropolitan area between 2000 and 2003. Realizing the market was at or near its peak, they sold the property in 2004. Reid or the LLC paid the taxes on the propoerty. Reid reported the purchase in 1998, and not thinking much of the transfer in 2001 — it was, after all, merely a tax maneuver that is commonly utilized — didn’t bother to report the transfer. However, the proceeds of the sale were completely disclosed to the Ethics Committee on Reid’s annual filing.
So, the question is, what was Reid trying to hide? His gains? Well, he did report them. His associated with Jay Brown? Well, both Reid’s and Brown’s names were on the Articles of Incorporation for the LLC, no? They also had to file an income tax return on the LLC, and the IRS and most states require the disclosure of and attribution to each owner. I’m sure that Brown also donates a sizeable amount of money to Reid’s political efforts, so that disclosure must be listed on the appropriate forms. It’s not like they were trying to hide an association. Reid even referred to the guy as such a close and trusted friend, that he implicitly believed that Brown would manage the investment.
So, who was harmed in the scenario? It seems like everyone from Reid to the US taxpayer came out accurately — and pretty well — compensated for the investment’s success.
This smacks of an alterior motive, like somebody getting revenge, being quietly backed by republiCON operatives in an effort to cause confusion just before an election. There is no wrong-doing there, but accusing Senator Reid now will certainly grab the headlines, and may have a conflict in the mind of some voters who only see one side of the story — notably, the side that is in heavy rotation on FOX News.
Also on FOX News is a story headlined Weldon Questions Timing of FBI Raid at Daughter’s Home and including a statement from Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., “I would absolutely never use my position to help anyone in an unusual way.” First, note the structure of the headline, which implicitlty grants authority to the Representative, and spins the whole matter as a political dirty job. And then, in a quote that is right out of the republiCON playbook, throws in that one word that will eventually give them the out they’ll need for cover. “Unusual” to say the least. I’m sure Weldon uses his position to help many people, in this case specifically his daughter and her business partner, on a regular and usual basis. According to Merriam-Webster online, the definition of “usual” is:
On a usual basis, Rep. Weldon used his office to benefit friends and family. For a “longtime family friend,” Weldon paid a $20,000 yearly salary as a consultant to interface with Oto Melara, the weapons manufacturing arm of Finmeccanica. The friend had no prior lobbying or political experience. What expertise did a real estate agent bring to the table of a weapons manufacturer? The ability to force the Navy to test the arms on the new class of combat ships, thanks to her close ties with Weldon.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Three things:
(a) It’s apparent that StopBush! doesn’t hold a day job
(b) He can cut and paste Moveon.org’s activist press releases. (well, not really. what a mess)
(c) If you’re going to call yourself StopBush, do you expect people to read something that longwinded?
President Bush will be out of office by 2008, and hopefully you’ll retire as well.
November 4th, 2006 at 10:23 am
[...] The concept that Proposition 89 will somehow eliminate corruption is also absurd, and seems to rely on the mistaken premise that political contributions are nothing more than bribes. Rather, political contributions are a type of freedom; freedom of speech/expression by allowing people and companies to support the candidates they wish. Occassionally a candidate can be bought. Yet, even with public financing a candidate is still able to accept personal bribes. Consider Rep. Duke Cunningham, or Senator Harry Reid. [...]