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.
Looks like the story is getting legs.
I'm REALLY hoping this story has legs, but I'm not holding my breath.
And pundits wonder why folks hate politicians ...
Bingo, Squeako! Screamin' Dean on the outs? Couldn't happen to a better Dem!
This is a VERY complicated land deal....hope Hugh Hewitt can explain it today. Harry Reid is DIRTY Mafia.
Who in the hell gives away title to the property yet remains a 'partner' on a possible future development...ON A HANDSHAKE?
I've got a kitty litter box at home that smells better than this deal.
Of course it didn't, therefore, he evaded payment of taxes on that earned income.
Pretty cut & dry. He'll be wearing an orange jumpsuit before too long. Oh, and Harry! Watch out for your cornhole, bud.
Amazing. I would've thought the MSM would have a news blackout about this. Even AP is hitting Reid hard.
Oh c'mon. That's like Clinton rewriting his "Plan for Terror" (after Burglar stole it out of the national archives) and making it read like he actually "Tried , really tried to get Bin Laden".
Someone has some explaining to do.
Although quite liberal and therefore biased, the majority of reporters still TRY to be unbiased, at least in THEIR minds. The result of this is usually laughable, but so ingrained is the liberalism, they cannot see it.
When something like this comes out, however, the cognitive dissonance may simply be too great, even for them. Calling for Reid's head may be their way of saying "See? We are unbiased, we went after a Dem!"
I'll bet somebody one hundred dollars U.S. that it was 100% financing no $$$ down!
Drip, drip, drip, ouch!
Reid won't go anywhere, until after the election.
Then, Hillary will determine whether she wants to become new Senate [majority] Leader for the Dems or run for the White House.
For her, the Senate position would be easier to attain and would be a powerful position.
Decisions, decisions.
Maybe this story will go a bit longer!
I watched Jim Angle's story on Brit's show last night and I must say I was really disaapointed with Angle's presentation.
Now I am feeling a little better.
The more we talk about this and the more liberal rags like the Philly Inquirer have the guts to call Reid on the corruption and unethical behavior, the longer it will have legs. The original AP story earlier in the week was very detailed and involved Reid, his son(s?), Jack Abramoff and his long time friend, a mob lawyer.
We need to explain it to the press as it is much more complicated story involving fake corporations for tax purposes, favoritism for land deals (abuse of power), corruption than the Foley scandal that was held by ABC until just the right time a month before the election.
Reid must go! Reid must go! (Keep repeating until it gets real traction) Reid must go!
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.