T Nation

Hillary and Harry Reid

[quote]100meters wrote:

But I’ll add that the article is misleading in a couple of ways in that Reid’s profit was 700000 and of course he did own the land…(there was no “sale” to the LLC(75% owned by Reid…) [/quote]

He sold the land back and got his $400,000 back. He then got 1.1 million for land he didn’t own. This was an obvious payoff for the rezoning.

The purpose of our federal government should be national defense, a national law enforcement agency (like the FBI), and a federal court system. A large government like we have, with lots of power to rule our lives, is drawing maggots like Reid and Foley to the top. Then, just as a murderer overwhelms a pickpocket, worse people (far worse) will come along. The welfare state is potting soil for a fascist/communistic state.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
What he did was not against the law. It was against the rules of the Senate. He’ll be given a hearing. Maybe he should resign.

I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Evidence of “influence”, cause none given in the article?

[/quote]

Who does Harry Ried’s son work for these days?

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
What he did was not against the law. It was against the rules of the Senate. He’ll be given a hearing. Maybe he should resign.

I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Evidence of “influence”, cause none given in the article?

[/quote]

Evidence that it wasn’t?

Story from the Right Wing hacks at the Associated Press.

AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writers
Wed Oct 11, 9:56 PM ET

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.

But in a news conference Wednesday in Las Vegas, the senator said he believed he did nothing wrong but was willing to change his ethics report’s account of the sale if the Senate Ethics Committee ordered him to do so.

“Everything I did was transparent,” Reid said. “I paid all the taxes. Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I’ll be happy to do that.”

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, a former Federal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, 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 2004. 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 Herrera that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrera 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_go_co/reid_land_windfall_7

Influence…names…places.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:

But I’ll add that the article is misleading in a couple of ways in that Reid’s profit was 700000 and of course he did own the land…(there was no “sale” to the LLC(75% owned by Reid…)

He sold the land back and got his $400,000 back. He then got 1.1 million for land he didn’t own. This was an obvious payoff for the rezoning.

The purpose of our federal government should be national defense, a national law enforcement agency (like the FBI), and a federal court system. A large government like we have, with lots of power to rule our lives, is drawing maggots like Reid and Foley to the top. Then, just as a murderer overwhelms a pickpocket, worse people (far worse) will come along. The welfare state is potting soil for a fascist/communistic state.

[/quote]

Again, he owned the land. So you’re still wrong, and the rest would theoretically force you to vote democrat, as a welfare state is essential to the neocon philosophy, not to mention they are (factually) the welfare whores of all time. And again if you’re comparing Reid to the average Republican, you’d be forced to vote democratic. Also an oligarchy is potting soil for facism, which is obviously the opposite of the democratic agenda(nothing to do with facism/communism—does Headhunter know what these terms mean?).

Ya still got alot to learn.

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
What he did was not against the law. It was against the rules of the Senate. He’ll be given a hearing. Maybe he should resign.

I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Evidence of “influence”, cause none given in the article?

Evidence that it wasn’t?

[/quote]
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Hilarious though.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Story from the Right Wing hacks at the Associated Press.

AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writers
Wed Oct 11, 9:56 PM ET

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.

But in a news conference Wednesday in Las Vegas, the senator said he believed he did nothing wrong but was willing to change his ethics report’s account of the sale if the Senate Ethics Committee ordered him to do so.

“Everything I did was transparent,” Reid said. “I paid all the taxes. Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I’ll be happy to do that.”

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, a former Federal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, 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 2004. 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 Herrera that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrera 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_go_co/reid_land_windfall_7

Influence…names…places.

[/quote]

Well you reposted the ap article that doesn’t say Reid used his influence to make himself richer.

Then you posted another article that has nothing to do with the AP article.

0-2.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Story from the Right Wing hacks at the Associated Press.

AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writers
Wed Oct 11, 9:56 PM ET

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.

But in a news conference Wednesday in Las Vegas, the senator said he believed he did nothing wrong but was willing to change his ethics report’s account of the sale if the Senate Ethics Committee ordered him to do so.

“Everything I did was transparent,” Reid said. “I paid all the taxes. Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I’ll be happy to do that.”

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, a former Federal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, 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 2004. 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 Herrera that Brown had taken money from a Las Vegas strip club owner to influence the commission. Herrera 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_go_co/reid_land_windfall_7

Influence…names…places.

Well you reposted the ap article that doesn’t say Reid used his influence to make himself richer.

Then you posted another article that has nothing to do with the AP article.

0-2.

[/quote]

HAAAA. I really do get a laugh dealing with you. High school kids…too funny.

No actually 2-0.

I can’t help your lack of reading comprehension. First article described the current issue. The second article describes even more questionable deals he’s been involved with dummy. Does your principal know what you use the schools computers for?

Are you really that stupid? Statement of the obvious I suppose.

Any other opinions you want to offer. Is something in these articles not factual? Your opinions are not supported.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:

But I’ll add that the article is misleading in a couple of ways in that Reid’s profit was 700000 and of course he did own the land…(there was no “sale” to the LLC(75% owned by Reid…)

He sold the land back and got his $400,000 back. He then got 1.1 million for land he didn’t own. This was an obvious payoff for the rezoning.

The purpose of our federal government should be national defense, a national law enforcement agency (like the FBI), and a federal court system. A large government like we have, with lots of power to rule our lives, is drawing maggots like Reid and Foley to the top. Then, just as a murderer overwhelms a pickpocket, worse people (far worse) will come along. The welfare state is potting soil for a fascist/communistic state.

Again, he owned the land…[/quote]

Then why did he hide his ownership?

He looks mighty crooked here.

Your spin on this story is laughable.

from what I can read he broke no actual law, just the Senate rules.

If you or I had done this it would be a non-issue.

[quote]hedo wrote:
What he did was not against the law. It was against the rules of the Senate. He’ll be given a hearing. Maybe he should resign.

I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.[/quote]

Remember Harry Reid somberly intoning against the ethics of Judge Alito regarding the fact he heard a case on appeal in which Vanguard was a defendant, and he owned a Vanguard mutual fund (that actually makes it sound worse than it was – the case had no bearing on the value of his fund)? Reid’s problem was definitely worse than Alito’s.

Reid claims he transferred ownership of the real estate to the LLC on a “gentleman’s agreement,” i.e. it was not documented at all. Just a tad fishy… If it’s illegal, it’s probably tax fraud – but proving an agreement did not exist when both sides have incentive to say it did will mean the only provable items will be not complying with technical legal rules for documentation, and for not complying with Senate ethics rules.

Here’s an interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201486.html

That said, this isn’t going to get any traction because it’s boring.

[quote]Ren wrote:
from what I can read he broke no actual law, just the Senate rules.

If you or I had done this it would be a non-issue.[/quote]

Because we are not in the Senate.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That said, this isn’t going to get any traction because it’s boring.[/quote]

BB is correct.

This thread was started by a right wingnut because the GOP scandals are making him nervous.

Oh well…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:

But I’ll add that the article is misleading in a couple of ways in that Reid’s profit was 700000 and of course he did own the land…(there was no “sale” to the LLC(75% owned by Reid…)

He sold the land back and got his $400,000 back. He then got 1.1 million for land he didn’t own. This was an obvious payoff for the rezoning.

The purpose of our federal government should be national defense, a national law enforcement agency (like the FBI), and a federal court system. A large government like we have, with lots of power to rule our lives, is drawing maggots like Reid and Foley to the top. Then, just as a murderer overwhelms a pickpocket, worse people (far worse) will come along. The welfare state is potting soil for a fascist/communistic state.

Again, he owned the land…

Then why did he hide his ownership?

He looks mighty crooked here.

Your spin on this story is laughable.[/quote]
He didn’t hide his ownership, only the transfer to the LLC, in other words ethics is totally aware of his ownership of the land, so not really crooked at all. Also it’s obviously not spin (Hint: it’s in the article.)

And again if this totally legal transaction is bothering you this much, then the actual crimes of republicans must be REAAALLLLYYYY upsetting you. Welcome to the club.

[quote]hedo wrote:
HAAAA. I really do get a laugh dealing with you. High school kids…too funny.

No actually 2-0.

I can’t help your lack of reading comprehension. First article described the current issue. The second article describes even more questionable deals he’s been involved with dummy. Does your principal know what you use the schools computers for?

Are you really that stupid? Statement of the obvious I suppose.

Any other opinions you want to offer. Is something in these articles not factual? Your opinions are not supported.
[/quote]

First article: No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.

Second article:No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.(But a good diversion)

Not quite factual: “collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years,”

If you’ll remember my opinion was that the article said nothing of Reid influencing the price of the land (like say Hastert). My opinion is supported by simply reading the article.

Of course if I’m wrong and you’re not making stuff up (again…) please post the quote from the article…otherwise again stop making stuff up.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:

But I’ll add that the article is misleading in a couple of ways in that Reid’s profit was 700000 and of course he did own the land…(there was no “sale” to the LLC(75% owned by Reid…)

He sold the land back and got his $400,000 back. He then got 1.1 million for land he didn’t own. This was an obvious payoff for the rezoning.

The purpose of our federal government should be national defense, a national law enforcement agency (like the FBI), and a federal court system. A large government like we have, with lots of power to rule our lives, is drawing maggots like Reid and Foley to the top. Then, just as a murderer overwhelms a pickpocket, worse people (far worse) will come along. The welfare state is potting soil for a fascist/communistic state.

Again, he owned the land. So you’re still wrong, and the rest would theoretically force you to vote democrat, as a welfare state is essential to the neocon philosophy, not to mention they are (factually) the welfare whores of all time. And again if you’re comparing Reid to the average Republican, you’d be forced to vote democratic. Also an oligarchy is potting soil for facism, which is obviously the opposite of the democratic agenda(nothing to do with facism/communism—does Headhunter know what these terms mean?).

Ya still got alot to learn.[/quote]

Let’s see…he sold it before he owned it…or was it he sold it before he bought it…or he bought it and sold it and then sold it again…I’m confused! John Kerry, will you please explain to me how this works again?

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
That said, this isn’t going to get any traction because it’s boring.

BB is correct.

This thread was started by a right wingnut because the GOP scandals are making him nervous.

Oh well…
[/quote]

This from a guy who’s avatar looks like a Great Dane waiting to take it up the poop chute. Did your Great Dane pose for that pic?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Let’s see…he sold it before he owned it…or was it he sold it before he bought it…or he bought it and sold it and then sold it again…I’m confused! John Kerry, will you please explain to me how this works again?

[/quote]

As an aside, I love it when people use that whole “I voted for it before I voted against it” thing about John Kerry, makes you look like a moron.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:

But I’ll add that the article is misleading in a couple of ways in that Reid’s profit was 700000 and of course he did own the land…(there was no “sale” to the LLC(75% owned by Reid…)

He sold the land back and got his $400,000 back. He then got 1.1 million for land he didn’t own. This was an obvious payoff for the rezoning.

The purpose of our federal government should be national defense, a national law enforcement agency (like the FBI), and a federal court system. A large government like we have, with lots of power to rule our lives, is drawing maggots like Reid and Foley to the top. Then, just as a murderer overwhelms a pickpocket, worse people (far worse) will come along. The welfare state is potting soil for a fascist/communistic state.

Again, he owned the land. So you’re still wrong, and the rest would theoretically force you to vote democrat, as a welfare state is essential to the neocon philosophy, not to mention they are (factually) the welfare whores of all time. And again if you’re comparing Reid to the average Republican, you’d be forced to vote democratic. Also an oligarchy is potting soil for facism, which is obviously the opposite of the democratic agenda(nothing to do with facism/communism—does Headhunter know what these terms mean?).

Ya still got alot to learn.

Let’s see…he sold it before he owned it…or was it he sold it before he bought it…or he bought it and sold it and then sold it again…I’m confused! John Kerry, will you please explain to me how this works again?

[/quote]
I’m suprised Rush didn’t explain it to you, or was he on his way to a vaction resort famous for it’s sex trade(Dominican Republic) with a suitcase full of viagra again? Oh the morality, the values!

And hilariously you called Reid a “maggot”

And better you’ve chosen someone with such vile contempt for your intelligence(I use this term loosely) as you’re avatar, you’re proud to be his toilet!
And you teach! My goodness the student of the ultimate anti-patriot (him holding the flag is obscene) teaching our children! Perhaps you could be preparing the next generation of un-Americans from Ohio like Bob Ney, Jean Schmidt, and the I.Q. hating Headhunter.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Let’s see…he sold it before he owned it…or was it he sold it before he bought it…or he bought it and sold it and then sold it again…I’m confused! John Kerry, will you please explain to me how this works again?

As an aside, I love it when people use that whole “I voted for it before I voted against it” thing about John Kerry, makes you look like a moron.

[/quote]

Like Bush wouldn’t tolerate nukes in North Korea, before he would tolerate it.