Harry Reid cleaning up - And no one CARES

I'm not sure exactly what it is that Reid did wrong here; he didn't report the land sale correctly? He profited from a real estate deal that he made?

Cycloptichorn

You're treasing me rght?

OK, the rest of the story.

"_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. "
"

Well, I did read the article, actually.

I guess the illegal part is that Reid didn't disclose to congress that he had sold the land to the developer, not that Reid made profit off of the land, correct?

If this is true, then it should probably be investigated by the Senate Ethics committee. Of course, there are several other things they should investigate as well, but that's neither here nor there.

Cycloptichorn

Here is real corruption, wherein a politician is PERSONALLY profiting, not just whether campaign contributions violate some campaign law. Will the Democrats care? Will the mainstream press care enough to hound Reid forever, demanding a congressional investigation, and labeling the Democrats as the party of corruption? Easy answer, NO.

P.S. There is evidence of other corruption with Reid in his past dealings in Nevada.

Another P.S. How come Bumble Bee isn't all over this story, posting long New York Times and other liberal Newspaper news (opinion) stories?

Follow the link if you want links to documentation.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/11/175829/67



Seems like a lot of hot air to me. But I don't blame you for trying; Reid is a powerful enemy of yours, and it would be a great victory to take him down.

Cycloptichorn

Thank you for straightening us out on that story, Cyclops. I had some questions about the "scandal" even before you set us straight.

For instance, apparently the original article tried to make a scandal out of the fact that Reid sold some land he personally owned to a company, an LLC, that he was part owner of. Then years later, the company sold the land to developers and Reid profited as part owner of the company.

Well, what's so bad about that? That happens all the time.

For instance, suppose I am part owner of an auto body shop. While going driving one nice Sunday in the fall, I spy a 1967 Jaguar XKE with a For Sale sign on it. The Jag is in need of repair. I buy the Jag with a personal check for $10,000.

Deciding the job is too big for me to handle myself, I sell the Jag for $10,000 to the body shop I own with my partner. For three years, we repair the Jag, paint it and shine it up so it looks like it was just driven out of the showroon in 1967. Then we sell it for $120,000, and me and my partner profit from the sale.

A) Will somebody please tell me what I did that was a scandal?

B) Will somebody please tell me what I did which is different from what Reid did?

Well, I admit I haven't figured this out very well, but a few odd things, like:

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.

Why did he not want to talk about it? Must be something to hide. What an odd way to do business. If you believe all of that, I have some swamp land for sale, are you interested? He sold the land supposedly in exchange for a stake in a company, but continued to personally pay taxes for it. Why? And there were no documents to show Reids stake in this strange company. Why? Just an understanding between friends? And his friend is apparently some shadowy guy that does work for gambling interests that have been connected to organized crime. Reid profits a few hundred thousand on land that has been swapped out with the federal government or is near land that has been swapped out, and of course Reid has been instrumental in pushing for land swaps of this kind for the government, with land developers that have contributed to his coffers, and so he is privy to such dealings in various places, plus rezoning is pushed by using Reid's name.

One thing for sure, Reid did not file the proper paperwork as a member of Congress. If he isn't crooked, he sure conducts very shoddy business dealings with so-called questionable friends. One would wonder why a guy like this should be handling business dealings for us?

Reid has been involved in several shady deals with friends and relatives back home in squeaky clean Nevada. This is certainly not the first instance of his questionable dealings, and I think there is more to this story than we know.

certainly a timely story, considering the Mark Foley thing eh? No aspirin factories available to bomb?

None of this is disturbing anymore, just pathetically funny. Corrupt Republicans, corrupt Democrats, and the people eep on voting for them.
Too funny.

"Seems like a lot of hot air to me. But I don't blame you for trying; Reid is a powerful enemy of yours, and it would be a great victory to take him down.

Cycloptichorn "

Of course you would feel this way about one of your own hacks.

I am saddened that you throw your support behind one of the 2 most currpot organizations in the country. The democratic Party.

Well, all I can see is that he misreported the ownership. I'm sure there will be an investigation. In any event, we know about it now.

Can we let this thread be a place to list all such issues of congressmen reaping huge profits from their government positions? I believe, with some investigating, we will see a lot of corruption on both sides of the aisle. Maybe Reid's case isn't all that compelling, but I have no doubt that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.

I seem to recall that Hastert made a killing off of some land thanks to a bill passed b congress. I'm off to look it up.

I notice that you don't even deal with my analogy of the auto body shop. Why?

In Connecticut, you have to pay property taxes on your car. If I sold the Jaguar to the auto body shop I was part owner of, in exchange for an increased stake in the shop itself. it is likely that if I pay the taxes on the car my stake increases even more. In other words, if I get 40% share in the auto body shop for the Jag, then by paying the property taxes for it I get a 41% or 42% share, depending on what the taxes came to when we sold the Jag. Remember, the taxes are just a small part of what the Jag is worth, so the arrangement would amount to nothing more than an "add-on".

Don't forget, while I am paying the taxes, my partner is doing things like buying paint for the car, buying or renting tools to straighten out dents, and obtaining interior trim for the car. That's his part of it, and when we sell the Jaguar and divide up the money, the relative expense of each of these contributions we made will be taken into account.



But that's not going to stop you from a long-winded "analysis" about something you admit you really don't know much about, is it. No, it is not.

Of course, I don't know much about the details, either. But what bothers me about the AP article by Solomon, even before Cyclops straightened us all out with his post, was the attitude it was written in that some scandal had been uncovered. But when you read the AP article closely, stripped of it's chaff, there simply did not seem to be anything in that transfer which seemed unusual at all.

The reason I made the auto body shop example is to illustrate the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong about selling something you own outright to a company which you are part owner of. Not a darn thing at all.

Okay, I don't know much about it, but I did not take your analogy seriously keltic, I did read it, but I did not take it seriously because in the real world do you sell property to an LLC with a friend for 400 grand with no paperwork to show for it, and then whoever happens to feel like paying taxes on the property, then they do? This seems rather bizarre in my opinion. And the friend is a high roller for the casino industry? I don't know about you but I would not dream of buying and selling land in that manner without proper agreements, paperwork, etc. I don't have friends that pay my property tax for me, I don't know why they aren't better friends, but how many normal people do this kind of stuff?

And Free Duck, it would not surprise me about Hastert if something is haywire there.

P.S. keltic, I've never bought anything for 400 grand, let alone sell it to some strange entity without any proper paperwork.

If no one cares, why have you started this thread--obviously, you care. Obviously, the author of the screed you quoted cares. It's being mentioned in other threads, so obviously other people care.

I suspect that conservatives, desparate for some mud slinging ammunition to match the spectacular Foley-Hastert brouhaha are the ones who care, and that there are quite a few of them.

No one cares? I think that's wrong . . . quite a few people care.

Do you care?

This criminal activity is getting little play in main stream media but homosexual activity seems to get all the attention.

So apprently, democrats care more about homosexual activity. Repuglicans are content to hide "behind" homosexual activity to "save a seat".

I'm sorry, has it been shown that Reid engaged in criminal activity?

What was his crime, exactly? Or, what morals/ethics did he break?

Cycloptichorn

It's being studied by the Senate ethics committee...I always get a kick out of one part of the unethical government investigating another unethical part of itself.

I think part of the problem here is that the deal involved land that was obtained through a federal land swap that Reid previously supported. Considering he supported the deal, later purchased land included in the deal. Then, at best, simply didn't disclose the land, or at worst, tried hiding his invlovement in the land ownership/selling.

Now I'm not sure exactly what part he played in the deal, but considering his position, he had the ability to use his power to apply pressure to the decision makers in the various deals... including the deal to rezone the land which had previously been denied multiple times.

I'm not sure if he did anything wrong, but I certainly think that it is suspicious enough to look into.

I suppose that there are many officials, then - including mr. Hastert - who you would think have had land deals that need looking into?

Not to change the subject of the thread. As far as I can tell, Reid is cooperating with the Ethics committee, so someone is looking into it. My guess is that he will be slapped with a censure for not filling out the correct paperwork and that's it.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, certainly, i care if politicians are crooks, and usually take the attitude that they can be considered suspect until they clear themselves.



You have not established that what he did was criminal. Look at the "Who will win in November" thread, in which Cyclo has posted an online comment by an individual identifying himself as a tax lawyer who states in detail why the IRS does not make a distinction between private ownership and ownership by an LLC in which the partnership is in exact relation to the ownership of the land. Unless and until it is established that a crime has been committed, you are just blowing smoke by referring to it as criminal activity. As i've said, i consider politician suspect--but i don't consider anyone a criminal until a crime is alleged and the guilt of the accused party established. I've made absolutely no comment in any of these threads on Foley or Hastert, as i don't know either of them to have acted criminally. The only comments i have made are of the same nature as the comments i've just made that you're whining about. Which is to say, i've commented on the political embarrassment which both sides feel, and hope to make their opponents feel.

Then we have the matter of what you refer to as "the mainstream media"--a term sufficiently and conveniently vague as to make it unnecessary for you to back up your dubious claim. Finally, even if you do establish what constitutes "the mainstream media," you'd then have to demonstrate that said "mainstream media" is obsessed with homosexuality and is ignoring Reid's embarrassment. (Hint: If we are reading about it now, then it is getting more than a little attention.



Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter--all any of them care about is keeping seats in Congress, or capturing seats now held by their opponents.

Spare me your phoney indignation, you've got no basis to complain to or about me.