WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

You are each making arguments that are only understandable (let alone interesting) to people who are already invested in the political fight and whose political loyalties are already cemented.

Politics, especially at this stage, isn't about what's fair or even about who is right. It is about winning.

Excuse me, but that sounds a lot like Foxfyre's 'the jury is still out between evolution and ID, I don't really know which side to trust, so I'll just keep an open mind about it.' Puleeaze!

Thomas writes

Quote:

Excuse me, but that sounds a lot like Foxfyre's 'the jury is still out between evolution and ID, I don't really know which side to trust, so I'll just keep an open mind about it.' Puleeaze!

Puleeaze tell me anyplace where I EVER said the jury is still out between evolution and ID? If you insist on using me as an example of that sort, at least pick something that I'm actually guilty of.

As for selling land to an LLC, I don't know what state or planet Cyclop is from, but here that would not be a 'technical transfer', but it would be a sale the same as if sold to an individual, a partnership, a C-Corp, S-Corp, or 501C3 not for profit group. So far there are no allegations of such, but if further investigation shows that Reid used the appearance of such a sale that wasn't really a sale to hide income or avoid tax liability, that would definitely be illegal.

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas writes

Quote:

Excuse me, but that sounds a lot like Foxfyre's 'the jury is still out between evolution and ID, I don't really know which side to trust, so I'll just keep an open mind about it.' Puleeaze!

Puleeaze tell me anyplace where I EVER said the jury is still out between evolution and ID? If you insist on using me as an example of that sort, at least pick something that I'm actually guilty of.

As for selling land to an LLC, I don't know what state or planet Cyclop is from, but here that would not be a 'technical transfer', but it would be a sale the same as if sold to an individual, a partnership, a C-Corp, S-Corp, or 501C3 not for profit group. So far there are no allegations of such, but if further investigation shows that Reid used the appearance of such a sale that wasn't really a sale to hide income or avoid tax liability, that would definitely be illegal.

As far as I can tell, he was a member of the LLC, and paid the tax on the property the whole time he owned it. A transfer of property from your personal portfolio to an LLC on which you sit as a member is a 'technical transfer.'

If there is any information that he didn't sit as a member of the LLC, or that he didn't pay the taxes on it, I'd like to see it.

Cycloptichorn

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

According to the AP report, the deal was put together by Reid's longtime friend Jay Brown, "...a former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations." Apparently Brown structured the deal so that Reid could transfer his ownership interest to Brown without disclosing it to the public. And here's the kicker: Reid didn't disclose the sale on his financial disclosure forms filed with the Senate.

Not to make too big a deal of this, but falsifying that report - as Reid apparently did - is a federal crime. Under Title 18 US Code Section 1001, it's a false official statement. For which Reid could be sent to jail.

Puleeaze tell me anyplace where I EVER said the jury is still out between evolution and ID? If you insist on using me as an example of that sort, at least pick something that I'm actually guilty of.

Foxfyre wrote:

Puleeaze tell me anyplace where I EVER said the jury is still out between evolution and ID? If you insist on using me as an example of that sort, at least pick something that I'm actually guilty of.

My mistake. I should have taken global warming instead. Sorry.

He was not a member of the LLC.

He sold the land while reporting to Congress that he still owned it, a clear Senate ethics violation . .

Thomas you are missing my point. Even in the immigration debate, what is important right now is that the Democrats win.

Quote:

He was not a member of the LLC.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have enough evidence at this time to make this statement.

Quote:

He sold the land while reporting to Congress that he still owned it, a clear Senate ethics violation . .

He sold it?

Is there a bill of sale showing this?

Unless further documentation can be provided alledging that Reid broke the law, there isn't enough provided to date that allows you to say that he conclusively did. I have earlier said that the ethics committee is looking into it, as they should; but I wouldn't expect much to come from it, if I were you.

Now, I don't suppose you have any comment on Hasterts' 'sweetheart deal,' of which I have started a new thread to discuss, and in which there is far more evidence that Hastert took action to increase the value of the land illegally.

Cycloptichorn

ebrown_p wrote:

Thomas you are missing my point. Even in the immigration debate, what is important right now is that the Democrats win.

More precisely, what's important to you right now is that the Democrats win. What's important to me is that Congress gets gridlocked.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

He was not a member of the LLC.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have enough evidence at this time to make this statement.

Quote:

He sold the land while reporting to Congress that he still owned it, a clear Senate ethics violation . .

He sold it?

Is there a bill of sale showing this?

Unless further documentation can be provided alledging that Reid broke the law, there isn't enough provided to date that allows you to say that he conclusively did. I have earlier said that the ethics committee is looking into it, as they should; but I wouldn't expect much to come from it, if I were you.

Now, I don't suppose you have any comment on Hasterts' 'sweetheart deal,' of which I have started a new thread to discuss, and in which there is far more evidence that Hastert took action to increase the value of the land illegally.

Cycloptichorn

You didn't really read what I wrote did you.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

He was not a member of the LLC.

I'm pretty sure that you don't have enough evidence at this time to make this statement.

I have the evidence that this is what his spokespersons said.

Quote:

He sold the land while reporting to Congress that he still owned it, a clear Senate ethics violation . .

He sold it?

Is there a bill of sale showing this?

I don't know. But his spokespersons said that he did. If there is no bill of sale, the deal looks even more fishy.

Unless further documentation can be provided alledging that Reid broke the law, there isn't enough provided to date that allows you to say that he conclusively did. I have earlier said that the ethics committee is looking into it, as they should; but I wouldn't expect much to come from it, if I were you.

Now, I don't suppose you have any comment on Hasterts' 'sweetheart deal,' of which I have started a new thread to discuss, and in which there is far more evidence that Hastert took action to increase the value of the land illegally.

Cycloptichorn

You didn't really read what I wrote did you.

Of course I did. What part of my response are you confused about?

I guess we can assume that you aren't, in fact, too interested in Hastert's land dealings?

Cycloptichorn

Why are we talking about Reid here? There is a thread for that. Specifics should be dealt with there.

The charges he sold the land by forming an LLC are pretty outrageous when you start to delve into the specifics of an LLC.