What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Harry Reid Implosion countdown (1 Viewer)

TinHat

Footballguy
AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale

Oct 11 2:13 PM US/Eastern

By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON

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.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

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.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. 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. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

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.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

The senator's aides said no money changed hands in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical transfer," they said.

They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends.

The 1998 purchase "was a normal business transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the land."

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.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal _ such as the informal handling of property taxes _ raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

SALE HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS

Reid and his wife, Landra, personally signed the deeds selling their full interest in the property to Brown's company, Patrick Lane LLC, for the same $400,000 they paid in 1998, records show.

Despite the sale, Reid continued to report on his public ethics reports that he personally owned the land until it was sold again in His disclosure forms to Congress do not mention an interest in Patrick Lane or the company's role in the 2004 sale.

AP first learned of the transaction from a former Reid aide who expressed concern the deal hadn't been properly reported.

Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings.

"We have been friends for over 35 years. We didn't need a written agreement between us," Brown said.

The informalities didn't stop there.

PROPERTY TAXES LOOSELY HANDLED

Brown sometimes paid a share of the local property taxes on the lot Reid owned outright between 1998 and 2001, while Reid sometimes paid more than his share of taxes on the second parcel they co-owned.

And the two men continued to pay the property taxes from their personal checking accounts even after the land was sold to Patrick Lane in 2001, records show.

Brown said Reid first approached him in 1997 about land purchases and the two men considered the two lots a single investment.

"During the years of ownership, there may have been occasions that he advanced the property taxes, or that I advanced the property taxes," Brown said. "The bottom line is that between ourselves we always settled up and each of us paid our respective percentages."

Ultimately, Reid paid about 74 percent of the property taxes, slightly less than his actual 75.1 ownership stake, according to canceled checks kept at the local assessor's office. One year, the property tax payments were delinquent and resulted in a small penalty, the records show.

Ethics experts said such informality raises questions about whether any of Brown's tax payments amounted to a benefit for Reid. "It might be a gift," Cooper said.

Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said.

FEDERAL LAND SWAPS

Nevada land deeds show Reid and his wife first bought the property in January 1998 in a proposed subdivision created partly with federal lands transferred by the Interior Department to private developers.

Reid's two lots were never owned by the government, but the piece of land joining Reid's property to the street corner _ a key to the shopping center deal _ came from the government in 1994.

One of the sellers was Fred Lessman, a vice president of land acquisition at Perma-Bilt Homes.

Around the time of the 1998 sale, Lessman and his company were completing a complicated federal land transfer that also involved an Arizona-based developer named Del Webb Corp.

In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.

Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.

For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.

In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.

The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.

In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.

In January 1998 _ just days before he bought his land _ Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."

None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.

"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.

Lessman said he never talked to Reid or asked for his help before the 1998 land sale, and only met the senator years later at a public event. "Any suggestion that the land sale between Senator Reid and myself is somehow tied in with the Perma-Bilt exchange is completely absurd," Lessman said.

THE REZONING



Clark County intended for the property Reid owned to be used solely for new housing, records show. Just days before Reid sold the parcels to Brown's company, Brown sought permission in May 2001 to rezone the properties so a shopping center could be built.

Career zoning officials objected, saying the request was "inconsistent" with Clark County's master development plan. The town board in Spring Valley, where Reid's property was located, also voted 4-1 to reject the rezoning.

Brown persisted. The Clark County zoning board followed by the Clark County Commission voted to overrule the recommendation and approve commercial zoning. Such votes were common at the time.

Before the approval in September 2001, Brown's consultant told commissioners that Reid was involved. "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you," the consultant testified.

With the rezoning granted, Patrick Lane pursued the shopping center deal. On Jan. 20, 2004, the company sold the property to developers for $1.6 million. Today, a multimillion dollar retail complex sits on the land.

On Jan. 21, 2004, Reid received more than $1.1 million of the sale proceeds. Reid disclosed the money the following year on his Senate ethics report as a personal sale of land, not mentioning Patrick Lane.

A BUSINESS PARTNER'S PAST

Brown has been a behind-the-scenes power broker in Nevada for years, donating to Democrats, Republicans and charities. He represented a major casino in legal cases and dabbled in Nevada's booming real estate market.

Brown befriended Reid four decades ago, even before Reid served as chairman of the Nevada gaming commission and decided cases involving Brown's clients.

Brown's name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.



This past summer, federal prosecutors introduced testimony at the bribery trial of former Clark County Commission chairman Dario Herrara that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrara was convicted of taking kickbacks. Brown was never called as a witness.

Brown declined to discuss past cases where his name surfaced, including Herrara. "The federal government investigated this whole matter thoroughly, and there was never any implication of impropriety on my part," he said.
:popcorn:
 
This does not involve a republican

This is not about being gay

This is not about sex

This has no legs

 
This does not involve a republicanThis is not about being gayThis is not about sexThis has no legs
:goodposting: Probably will be on page A10 in the New York Times.Or better yet, Reid will say he was framed and the victim of the vast right-wing conspiracy and blame Bush, which will make the front page.
 
on quick glance, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with this. the guy bought land, and he transferred it to an LLC he owned in part. the LLC sold the land, and the owners made money. for tax purposes (federal, anyway), this type of transaction is treated as though the LLC doesn't exist -- the LLC's profits flow through to its owners. so it looks like the biggest objection here is that they didn't have an operating agreement in place. not the best decision, but not illegal -- people do that all the time. maybe it violates some senate ethics rule, though...i don't know about that...but the article makes it out to be some really sleazy thing, which doesn't appear to be the case.

 
on quick glance, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with this. the guy bought land, and he transferred it to an LLC he owned in part. the LLC sold the land, and the owners made money. for tax purposes (federal, anyway), this type of transaction is treated as though the LLC doesn't exist -- the LLC's profits flow through to its owners. so it looks like the biggest objection here is that they didn't have an operating agreement in place. not the best decision, but not illegal -- people do that all the time. maybe it violates some senate ethics rule, though...i don't know about that...but the article makes it out to be some really sleazy thing, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Except he wasn't listed as a part-owner of the LLC, at least not until after the second sale transaction took place. He might be on the line for more taxes owed. But I think the bigger question has to do with the federal land transfers and Reid writing letters on behalf of Del Webb to make that happen, and getting 18k in campaign contributions from him.
 
I'll follow this closely, because if Reid is dirty, I want him out. But I seriously do not understand what the accusation is here.

This reaks of desperation from the GOP trying anything to change the subject.

 
I deal with transactions like this pretty frequently, and Gorf's right on. Although the rezoning thing looks like it could be shady, there's nothing here that even seems to approach illegal.

Don't know about the disclosure ethics.

 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/posto...d_morrissey.htm

REID'S SMELLY WINDFALL

BACK-$CRATCHING WITH DEVELOPERS

By ED MORRISSEY

October 16, 2006 -- SENATE Minority Leader Harry Reid's ethics woes continue to mount. An Associated Press expose shows that Reid pushed through changes in federal law that helped the senator get rich - via complex land deals with a lobbyist who's also tied up in a federal bribery case.

Reid has now told the Senate Ethics Committee that he'll amend his past disclosure statements to for the first time cover the business relationships that AP has exposed. But he calls the amendment "technical" - which suggests it won't explain why his original "disclosures" misled the public on the nature of a partnership that made him a $700,000 windfall.

It isn't the first time Harry Reid's ties to real-estate developers have caused people to question the senator's ethics.

Back in August, the Los Angeles Times exposed Reid's questionable involvement and compensation in another Nevada real-estate deal. Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, had plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members. The senator, in turn, helped Whittemore bulldoze through a host of environmental regulations in developing a huge parcel outside Las Vegas, to profit in the tens of millions.

What Reid failed to disclose was his 2001 transfer of ownership of two parcels of land to Patrick Lane LLC - an entity in which he was partnered with one Jay Brown.

AP notes that Brown is a lobbyist, with reported links to organized crime. And he figures prominently in a federal criminal case - which concerns the bribery of members of the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission by developers seeking changes to permit retail development on land they owned, vastly increasing its value.



As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.

Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with "protecting the environment.")

Normally, the government would have to sell this land at auction, as land swaps had lost the federal government millions in southern Nevada. But Reid insisted on suspending that rule in his Clark County act. The developers that hired his sons as lobbyists prospered with the lower-cost acquisitions of prime real estate through the uneven swaps. Also in the money were those - like Harry Reid himself - who'd already invested money in Clark County real estate.

The L.A. Times revealed the Reid family's extensive connections with Clark County developers in June 2003, as well as Reid's extensive legislative interest in the land, but the Brown-Reid investment had not yet come to light - thanks to Reid's failure to disclose.

Had the investment been known, voters could have made the connection. The Senate Ethics Committee might have taken an interest as well - except that Harry Reid himself sat as the top Democrat on that panel.

Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid's business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.
Pretty shady, pushing through legislation that he was sure to personally profit from, and lying about it to congress.It's time for Harry to step down.

 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/posto...d_morrissey.htm

REID'S SMELLY WINDFALL

BACK-$CRATCHING WITH DEVELOPERS

By ED MORRISSEY

October 16, 2006 -- SENATE Minority Leader Harry Reid's ethics woes continue to mount. An Associated Press expose shows that Reid pushed through changes in federal law that helped the senator get rich - via complex land deals with a lobbyist who's also tied up in a federal bribery case.

Reid has now told the Senate Ethics Committee that he'll amend his past disclosure statements to for the first time cover the business relationships that AP has exposed. But he calls the amendment "technical" - which suggests it won't explain why his original "disclosures" misled the public on the nature of a partnership that made him a $700,000 windfall.

It isn't the first time Harry Reid's ties to real-estate developers have caused people to question the senator's ethics.

Back in August, the Los Angeles Times exposed Reid's questionable involvement and compensation in another Nevada real-estate deal. Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, had plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members. The senator, in turn, helped Whittemore bulldoze through a host of environmental regulations in developing a huge parcel outside Las Vegas, to profit in the tens of millions.

What Reid failed to disclose was his 2001 transfer of ownership of two parcels of land to Patrick Lane LLC - an entity in which he was partnered with one Jay Brown.

AP notes that Brown is a lobbyist, with reported links to organized crime. And he figures prominently in a federal criminal case - which concerns the bribery of members of the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission by developers seeking changes to permit retail development on land they owned, vastly increasing its value.



As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.

Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with "protecting the environment.")

Normally, the government would have to sell this land at auction, as land swaps had lost the federal government millions in southern Nevada. But Reid insisted on suspending that rule in his Clark County act. The developers that hired his sons as lobbyists prospered with the lower-cost acquisitions of prime real estate through the uneven swaps. Also in the money were those - like Harry Reid himself - who'd already invested money in Clark County real estate.

The L.A. Times revealed the Reid family's extensive connections with Clark County developers in June 2003, as well as Reid's extensive legislative interest in the land, but the Brown-Reid investment had not yet come to light - thanks to Reid's failure to disclose.

Had the investment been known, voters could have made the connection. The Senate Ethics Committee might have taken an interest as well - except that Harry Reid himself sat as the top Democrat on that panel.

Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid's business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.
Pretty shady, pushing through legislation that he was sure to personally profit from, and lying about it to congress.

It's time for Harry to step down.
If we made every politician who's done this step down, there would be no politicians.
 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/posto...d_morrissey.htm

REID'S SMELLY WINDFALL

BACK-$CRATCHING WITH DEVELOPERS

By ED MORRISSEY

October 16, 2006 -- SENATE Minority Leader Harry Reid's ethics woes continue to mount. An Associated Press expose shows that Reid pushed through changes in federal law that helped the senator get rich - via complex land deals with a lobbyist who's also tied up in a federal bribery case.

Reid has now told the Senate Ethics Committee that he'll amend his past disclosure statements to for the first time cover the business relationships that AP has exposed. But he calls the amendment "technical" - which suggests it won't explain why his original "disclosures" misled the public on the nature of a partnership that made him a $700,000 windfall.

It isn't the first time Harry Reid's ties to real-estate developers have caused people to question the senator's ethics.

Back in August, the Los Angeles Times exposed Reid's questionable involvement and compensation in another Nevada real-estate deal. Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, had plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members. The senator, in turn, helped Whittemore bulldoze through a host of environmental regulations in developing a huge parcel outside Las Vegas, to profit in the tens of millions.

What Reid failed to disclose was his 2001 transfer of ownership of two parcels of land to Patrick Lane LLC - an entity in which he was partnered with one Jay Brown.

AP notes that Brown is a lobbyist, with reported links to organized crime. And he figures prominently in a federal criminal case - which concerns the bribery of members of the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission by developers seeking changes to permit retail development on land they owned, vastly increasing its value.



As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.

Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with "protecting the environment.")

Normally, the government would have to sell this land at auction, as land swaps had lost the federal government millions in southern Nevada. But Reid insisted on suspending that rule in his Clark County act. The developers that hired his sons as lobbyists prospered with the lower-cost acquisitions of prime real estate through the uneven swaps. Also in the money were those - like Harry Reid himself - who'd already invested money in Clark County real estate.

The L.A. Times revealed the Reid family's extensive connections with Clark County developers in June 2003, as well as Reid's extensive legislative interest in the land, but the Brown-Reid investment had not yet come to light - thanks to Reid's failure to disclose.

Had the investment been known, voters could have made the connection. The Senate Ethics Committee might have taken an interest as well - except that Harry Reid himself sat as the top Democrat on that panel.

Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid's business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.
Pretty shady, pushing through legislation that he was sure to personally profit from, and lying about it to congress.

It's time for Harry to step down.
If we made every politician who's done this step down, there would be no politicians.
What an awful world that would be...
 
Harry Reid's Real Estate Investing Plan

Human Events October 17, 2006 Mac Johnson

How you can make millions by having Dirty Harry “do nothing” on your behalf? Order now and receive free bonus gift: “Clerical Errors” for Fun and Profit!

Are you stuck in a dead end job so boring that you spend all day at work surfing the web reading witty political commentary? Are you tired of investments that depend on unreliable “market forces” for their returns? Haven’t you always dreamed of a way to make money that was as automatic as the creeping bureaucracy that afflicts our nation’s cash flow like fiscal atherosclerosis?

Well dream no more, friend, because today I am going to let you in on one of the great secrets of American business (and the mainstream media): The Harry Reid Do-Nothing Miracle Investment System! Through this system, you can sit back and watch the cash roll in from questionable desert real estate investments with the sort of reliability that only government can provide. The system is as simple as it is hidden through shell corporations, nepotism and political contributions. Yes, there are just three easy steps to mogul-like millions in Las Vegas real estate:

Find a parcel of land made undesirable by government environmental regulation, utility leases, or simple pesky zoning!

Hire a Reid, invest with a Reid, contribute to a Reid, but above all, know a Reid!

Be patient while Sen. Harry “Papa” Reid does NOTHING UNUSUAL on your behalf and watch those government barriers to wealth melt away! Got a stupid endangered tortoise on your worthless land? Let Harry Reid show the BLM a real “shell game” as that value-killing protected habitat is inexplicably moved miles away!

Want to build a primo strip mall in a residential area? Just have a “Casino Lawyer” drop Papa Reid’s name like a severed horse’s head into the silk sheets of local government. Bada-bing! The zoning changes almost as fast as the value of the land!

Bought thousands of acres of land ruined by a pre-existing government power line lease? Just pick up your personal “power line” to Harry Reid and watch with glee as he does NOT use his influence to push a special bill through Congress. ZAP! The federal right-of-way is moved right out of your way … instant millions!

Think these are just hypothetical sales hype scenarios? No, these are these real life “Reid Estate” transactions.

Real Life Example No. 1: In the early 1990s a helpless corporation, Del Webb, wanted to realize its personal dream and develop some land outside Las Vegas. There was just one problem: the government owned much of it and it wasn’t for sale! Employing the simple Reid Estate wealth building system, Del Webb hired a former Reid aide, donated $18,000 to Harry Reid’s campaign fund and then did the obvious next thing: it purchased “environmentally sensitive” lands 400 miles away near Lake Tahoe. After two letters to the Interior Department from Sen. Reid and a personal meeting organized by him, at which a government employee said he felt “pressured” by Reid, the Interior Department allowed Del Webb and its partners to swap that environmentally valuable land near Lake Tahoe for the environmentally worthless (but commercially valuable) land in Las Vegas. Reid claims to have done nothing unusual.

BAM! Instant value. IT’S JUST THAT EASY TO MAKE MONEY IN REID ESTATE!

Real Life Example No. 2: In a remarkable coincidence, land adjoining the above “swapped” land was then sold by a Del Webb partner to … Sen. Harry Reid and his partner, Jay Brown. The transaction was at fair market value, Reid later stated. Mr. Brown, described by the Associated Press as a “casino lawyer” whose “name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery,” and Sen. Reid wished to develop the land as a strip mall—which would have a much fairer market value than the land they bought, which was zoned strictly residential. A Reid Estate rezoning was called for!

But first Sen. Reid sold his land (for the exact price he had paid for it) to “Patrick Lane,” a limited liability corporation created by Mr. Brown, in exchange for a share of that limited liability corporation. This move created no net value, but coincidentally resulted in Reid’s name being removed from the deed before Mr. Brown went publicly before the zoning board to represent Patrick Lane LLC, a corporation that somehow omitted Mr. Reid’s name from any of its public corporate filings.

When the first board rejected the rezoning as “inconsistent” with Clark County’s Master Development Plan, Brown appealed and the Clark County Zoning Board and the Clark County Commission overruled the decision. Coincidentally, Mr. Brown’s agent had stated to commissioners during the appeal, "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you." Strange—that Reid’s name was so carefully removed from legal documents and then dropped casually in the halls of government—and right before the commission overruled the previous decision. Well, the important thing is that the residential land Reid bought for $400,000 was soon sold for $1.1 million (Reid’s part) as a commercial property. And all because Sen. Reid did nothing unusual. That’s the power of the Reid Estate system! Let the wheels of government grind away your financial worries!

Real Life Example No. 3: But even the first two examples are nothing compared to the experience of one Harvey Whittemore, a simple lobbyist and long-time practitioner of the Reid Estate system. Whittemore inadvertently got a great deal on a 42,832-acre property once intended as a missile test range. The land was a development nightmare, because it was infested with the endangered Desert Tortoise and the entire road frontage along U.S. 93 was blocked by a mile-wide power line corridor leased to the federal government. Either one of these problems alone might take an act of Congress to solve. But Harvey Whittemore had that in mind all along! Whittemore understood the importance of “Step 2” of the system: “Hire a Reid, invest with a Reid, contribute to a Reid, but above all know a Reid!”—and he had all the bases covered.

"You have to understand how close the Whittemore and Reid families are," Whittemore told the Los Angeles Times. "My relationship with Sen. Reid goes back decades." In addition, Whittemore’s personal attorney is Leif Reid, the senator’s son. Rory Reid, another of the senator’s sons and head of the Nevada Democrat Party during the Clark County Commission’s decision to rezone his father’s property, was made a partner in Whittemore’s law firm. In fact, all four of Reid’s sons (Rory, Leif, Josh and Key) have worked for the firm during their careers. Whittemore has given tens of thousands of dollars to Harry Reid’s campaigns, thousands to Rory Reid’s successful campaign to be elected to the Clark County Commission, and thousands to Josh Reid’s unsuccessful bid to be elected to the city council of Cottonwood Heights, Utah.

Although neither Sen. Reid nor Leif Reid intervened on his behalf, according to Sen. Reid, the Bureau of Land Management gave Whittemore clear title to 10,000-acre rent-free lease constituting the Desert Tortoise Preserve in the middle of the site, in exchange for 10,000 acres on the eastern edge of the 5-mile by 13-mile tract. Local officials of the Interior Department objected to this minor “boundary adjustment” of the preserve, but were overruled by Washington. The Desert Tortoises, it turns out, were willing to move to the Mormon Mountains.

The federal power corridor was a bigger problem. But after Sen. Reid inserted a measure into a federal land bill opening up the property across the highway for the corridor, then repeatedly inserted a provision into bills to move the corridor across the highway, that pesky 15-square-mile corridor just disappeared. At first, this was to be a gift from the government to Mr. Whittemore, but after a minor stink was raised, Whittemore offered to pay $160,000 for the 15-square-mile improvement. Eventually, he was forced to pay the $10.4 million that government appraisers said the change was actually worth.

But that was still a bargain, since together the federal changes to the corridor and the Desert (and Mountain) Tortoise habitat freed up more than 20,000 acres of highway-accessible Reid Estate for a development that will eventually include 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses (several by Jack Nicklaus), and all the associated strip malls this new city will require. I suggest they call it “Tortuga Hills.”

But there was one last obstacle to clear. The EPA suddenly decided that bulldozing desert streambeds, as proposed, might be bad for the streambed environment. A flurry of calls from Sen. Reid arranged meetings between the EPA, Whittemore and Leif Reid. Nevada’s junior senator, Republican John Ensign, was enlisted in the cause, clearing the way for the senior senator, Harry Reid, to also become more directly involved in talking to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. Can you guess what the outcome was? That’s right—the system worked. The Harry Reid Real Estate Investment System, that is. The project proceeded with minimal changes.

There are other examples, as well. But you can see how this simple investment system, accessible by every citizen (no mater how unconnected), works to create millions and millions of dollars of new government-unleashed wealth for its practitioners.

How successful is the system for its inventor, Sen. Harry Reid? So successful he doesn’t even remember how much land he owns anymore! He’s constantly “remembering” old parcels just before the ethics committee asks about them. Such oversight is often the result of “clerical errors”—just like Sen. Reid accidentally paying personal obligations with campaign funds was the result of “clerical errors.” “Clerical errors” are soon to be added as “Step 4” of the system: “What to claim upon getting caught using the system.”

In fact, the system is so successful that Harry Reid, that beacon of morality from Searchlight, Nev., can now stop worrying about money altogether, and concentrate on his true calling: fighting the “culture of corruption” in Republican Washington.

Get with the system! It works for Harry, Harry’s friends, Harry’s sons, and even Harry’s son-in-law—but that’s a whole other (998 acre) story. The system can work for you, too.
 
As I posted in the other thread(Sorry, untill you bumped this today i had no idea mine was a :honda:)

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium.Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid's office said Monday his lawyers had approved them but he nonetheless was personally reimbursing his campaign for the $3,300 he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn't personally owned in three years.In that matter, the senator hadn't disclosed to Congress that he first sold land to a friend's limited liability company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land again in 2004 to others.Reid portrayed the 2004 sale as a personal sale of land, not mentioning the company's ownership or its role in the sale.Reid said his amended ethics reports would list the 2001 sale and the company, called Patrick Lane LLC. He said the amended reports also would divulge two other smaller land deals he had failed to report to Congress."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," Reid said in a statement issued by his office.He said he believed the 2001 sale did not alter his ownership of the land but that he agreed to file the amended reports because "I believe in ensuring all facts come to light."Reid labeled the AP story as the "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress.On the Ritz-Carlton holiday donations, Reid gave $600 in 2002, then $1,200 in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005 from his re-election campaign to an entity listed as the REC Employee Holiday Fund. His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year.Reid's office said the listing as salary was a "clerical error" and that the use of campaign money for the residential fund was approved by his lawyers. "I am reimbursing the campaign from my own pocket to prevent this issue from being used in the current campaign season to deflect attention from Republican failures," he said.Residents and workers at the Ritz said the fund's full name is the Residents Executive Committee Holiday Fund and that it collects money each year from the condominium residents to help provide Christmas gifts, bonuses and a party for the support staff.Federal election law permits campaigns to provide "gifts of nominal value" but prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal expenses, such as mortgage, rent or utilities for "any part of any personal residence."The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any "obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder."Land deeds show Reid and his wife, Landra, purchased a condominium for their Washington residence at the hotel for $750,000 in March 2001. The holiday fund has existed for years at the condo, workers said.Reid said Monday he believed the expenses were permissible but he nonetheless was reimbursing the campaign."These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position," Reid said.Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission's former chief enforcement lawyer, said Reid's explanation is aimed at a "gray area" in the law by suggesting the donations were tied to his official Senate and political work.
:popcorn:
 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
True. But in addition to his other questionable Land deal...smoke usually = Fire.
It's possible. I look forward to seeing where this goes. But they'll have a hard time getting traction with the Reid chase if they don't get Hastert first.
You won't get an argument out of me of getting rid of Hastert.. I have no idea where your link went as no point to read something I already believe should be done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
Think about this: he used campaign funds to give staff workers a Christmas bonus. This isn't him coming up with some roundabout way to enrich himself. If one of those workers turned out to be his daughter or wife, then I might raise an eyebrow. But a total of $3,000 spread out among several people? I'm not surprised that even his lawyer wasn't aware the payment was illegal. After all, indicted lawmakers are allowed to use their campaign contributions for their legal defense, even when they drop out of a race. I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here, but this seems like jaywalking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
Think about this: he used campaign funds to give campaign workers a Christmas bonus. This isn't him coming upo with some roundabout way to enrich himself. If one of those campaign workers turned out to be his daughter or wife, then I might raise an eyebrow. But a total of $3,000 spread out among several people? I'm not surprised that even his lawyer wasn't aware the payment was even illegal. After all, indicted lawmakers are allowed to use their campaign contributions for their legal defense, even when they drop out of a race. I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here, but this seems like jaywalking.
support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium.
Not saying it bought him any favors or not. But if one person is giving "bonuses" of $3000 to the support staff, while someone else doesn't, doesn't that provide some smoke that he was paying off favors?:shrug:No idea.. He now has two infractions against rules. Just as you think Haserts is slime, reid is starting to show some true colors of his own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
Think about this: he used campaign funds to give staff workers a Christmas bonus. This isn't him coming up with some roundabout way to enrich himself. If one of those workers turned out to be his daughter or wife, then I might raise an eyebrow. But a total of $3,000 spread out among several people? I'm not surprised that even his lawyer wasn't aware the payment was illegal. After all, indicted lawmakers are allowed to use their campaign contributions for their legal defense, even when they drop out of a race. I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here, but this seems like jaywalking.
:lmao: Nice beating around the bush. So, it is about the amount not the crime? At what amount does it become a problem?
 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
Think about this: he used campaign funds to give staff workers a Christmas bonus. This isn't him coming up with some roundabout way to enrich himself. If one of those workers turned out to be his daughter or wife, then I might raise an eyebrow. But a total of $3,000 spread out among several people? I'm not surprised that even his lawyer wasn't aware the payment was illegal. After all, indicted lawmakers are allowed to use their campaign contributions for their legal defense, even when they drop out of a race. I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here, but this seems like jaywalking.
:lmao: Nice beating around the bush. So, it is about the amount not the crime? At what amount does it become a problem?
I love how he says "I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here."I mean, when have the democrats ever thought rules applied to them?
 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
What if he stole $3000 from the local quikimart?
:shrug: Sort of like he if he was going 73 MPH in a 70 MPH zone. You have to realize that for these guys $3K is sort of like pocket change, small pocket change. They are used ot working with millions, billions, and trillions of dollars and I doubt that they even give a thought to a picayune amount like $3K. Just get off their backs and let them have their little dalliances and hope that they at least try to get the big stuff right!

:banned: :bag: :banned:

 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
Think about this: he used campaign funds to give staff workers a Christmas bonus. This isn't him coming up with some roundabout way to enrich himself. If one of those workers turned out to be his daughter or wife, then I might raise an eyebrow. But a total of $3,000 spread out among several people? I'm not surprised that even his lawyer wasn't aware the payment was illegal. After all, indicted lawmakers are allowed to use their campaign contributions for their legal defense, even when they drop out of a race. I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here, but this seems like jaywalking.
:lmao: Nice beating around the bush. So, it is about the amount not the crime? At what amount does it become a problem?
So you don't think there should be a difference between misdemeanor theft and felony theft?I'm sure he'll get some sort of censure from the Senate, probably a slap on the wrist. I doubt if it will be big because I'm guessing a lot of these guys use campaign donations for personal stuff. The big thing is if he did anything illegal in the land deal.
 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
What if he stole $3000 from the local quikimart?
$3000 is the total given to all the employees combined, right? So counting the bell boys, the cooks, the maids, etc., we're talking about $100-$200 tips each to 10-15 people, right?Regardless, he shouldn't have been dipping into campaign funds for this purpose and should be reprimanded. TinHat, could you provide a link to your outrage to of Tom Delay's conduct that was exposed over the past year or so? TIA
 
Using campaign funds to give your employees $3,000 in Christmas bonuses does not rise to the level of high crimes, IMO.
Is there an amount that would make it a high crime in your opinion? Or are you saying that using campaign funds in any amount for for Christmas bonuses doesn't rise to that level?
Think about this: he used campaign funds to give staff workers a Christmas bonus. This isn't him coming up with some roundabout way to enrich himself. If one of those workers turned out to be his daughter or wife, then I might raise an eyebrow. But a total of $3,000 spread out among several people? I'm not surprised that even his lawyer wasn't aware the payment was illegal. After all, indicted lawmakers are allowed to use their campaign contributions for their legal defense, even when they drop out of a race. I'm not trying to defend the breaking of rules here, but this seems like jaywalking.
:lmao: Nice beating around the bush. So, it is about the amount not the crime? At what amount does it become a problem?
So you don't think there should be a difference between misdemeanor theft and felony theft?I'm sure he'll get some sort of censure from the Senate, probably a slap on the wrist. I doubt if it will be big because I'm guessing a lot of these guys use campaign donations for personal stuff. The big thing is if he did anything illegal in the land deal.
A $3K theft is a misdemeanor theft? I would have thought it would hit felony a heck of lot lower than $3K, learn something new every day. I knew we, as a society, were getting a lot more lenient on criminal behavior but that is pretty bad.And if a lot of these guys are illegally using campaign donations for personal use and they are caught they should be taken to task for it, and for a lot more than a slap on the wrist. Republican or Democrat.
 
I like how while Pantagrapher expressed such outrage over the DeLay rumors, willing and ready to catalogue anything he could find for us on the republican, ready to assume guilt ,when it comes to the democrat Reid, Pantagrapher is ready to assume he is innocent and defend him immediately. Its absolutely partisan.

But the problem here isn't that we know Pantagrapher is just playing partisan politics. The problem is republicans who refuse to grow a spine and fight back. Republicans are all too willing to get twisted around on these issues and condemn their own guy, while the democrats never condemn theirs.

There is no reason for any of the republicans here to condemn a single thing a republican does if people like Pantagrapher can't even be suspicious of Reid. And you know it.

 
TinHat, could you provide a link to your outrage to of Tom Delay's conduct that was exposed over the past year or so? TIA
That is the most ridiculous charge you could make. What we need to see is leftists on this board immediaqtely condemn Reid, immediately assume Reid is guilty, which is how they have treated DeLay and countless other republicans. That's where you start. Don't go twisting this around. The onus is on people like you here.
 
TinHat, could you provide a link to your outrage to of Tom Delay's conduct that was exposed over the past year or so? TIA
That is the most ridiculous charge you could make. What we need to see is leftists on this board immediaqtely condemn Reid, immediately assume Reid is guilty, which is how they have treated DeLay and countless other republicans. That's where you start. Don't go twisting this around. The onus is on people like you here.
But Ried's heart is in the right place. Repugs don't have a heart. :mellow: :sarcasm:
 
from the LATimes

deal in the desert for Sen. Reid? A bill he wrote could have affected the friend who sold the land. By Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writers January 28, 2007 BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ. — It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled. In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time. Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.
drip drip dripHow long are the democrats going to Harry Reid bilk the American taxpayers out of millions of dollars?
 
from the LATimes

deal in the desert for Sen. Reid? A bill he wrote could have affected the friend who sold the land. By Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writers January 28, 2007 BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ. — It's hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled. In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid's price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time. Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.
drip drip dripHow long are the democrats going to Harry Reid bilk the American taxpayers out of millions of dollars?
:lmao: Why not post the entire article?I'm no Harry Reid fan, but this is nothing. Who was harmed? The guy who sold Reid the land is happy with the deal. :hifive:
 
A lot of this stuff does look shady and not at all the type of thing that I would prefer government officials involved in.

I agree that none of the things posted on here are enough to get Reid thrown out of the Senate, but I think that he should be reprimanded and investigated to see if he used undue influence or evaded taxes.

I'm all for ethics investigations that involved members from either party since they are ALL guilty of this sort of ####.

 
I'll follow this closely, because if Reid is dirty, I want him out. But I seriously do not understand what the accusation is here.This reaks of desperation from the GOP trying anything to change the subject.
:goodposting:My least favorite thing about this country is our inability to recognize the blatantly obvious machinations of politics.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top