Cycloptichorn wrote: okie wrote:By the way, Cyclops, I think Thomas argument is pretty sound. Unless someone can show Hastert's land value increased much because of the highway, it looks to me like he did little wrong except not reporting the transactions under the trust instead of personally, as he apparently did. Not so easy for Reid. There are many many things involved with that property, including the arm twisting involved with rezoning, the land trades, shady partner, what else we don't know yet.
You can't possibly be serious, with such a post.
To begin,
Quote:
The Foundation says Hastert used an Illinois trust to invest in real estate near the proposed route of the Prairie Parkway, and notes that Hastert's 2005 financial disclosure form, released Thursday, makes no mention of the trust. Hastert lists several real estate transactions in the disclosure, all of which were done by the trust. Kendall County public records show no record of Hastert making the real estate sales he made public today; rather, they were all executed by the trust, the Foundation says.
However, Hastert disclosed the transactions on the annual personal financial statements members of Congress are required to file, the Chicago Sun Times reports. But Hastert did not take the extra steps called for in the House Ethics Manual and volunteer that he held land in a secret land trust called "Little Rock Trust," the newspaper says.
Hastert's land DID increase in value because of the highway. Hastert DID push the earmark through to make the highway. He DID fail to report his land was in a 'secret trust.' Not just an LLC, but a 'secret trust.' At this point, he is at least as guilty as Reid of failing to follow proper reporting procdure.
How do you know it increased because of the highway? Any evidence at all? This is why I said this is what it boils down to. Having lived in cities and suburbs myself, 5 miles is a long way from a highway, so I do not think any increase can be attributed to the highway without experts appraisers providing evidence that it did. If you can provide it, cyclops, then fine, but so far I haven't seen any.
The other issue involving the trust, you are correct, he should have reported it as a trust, however this is more benign in my opinion than entering into a partnership. Many older people simply place their properties into a trust to avoid probate, but they are still the owners. There really is no change in ownership as compared to entering into a partnership, which clearly changes the ownerships status of a property. Lawyers, correct me if I am wrong, but this is my impression from observation of situations.
Quote:And what's worse, the land increased in value because of direct action that we know Hastert took. He pushed through the highway earmark next to land he owned. There isn't even a question of this.
Contrast this to Reid: what did he do, exactly?
I've seen no evidence the land increased because of anything Hastert did.
Quote:You haven't shown any evidence that he had anything at all to do with re-zoning the land. There aren't any articles showing this, or credible allegations that he used his influence to get it done.
Reid's partner, Brown, was directily involved with getting the land rezoned, contrary to what the zoning people originally wanted. This is what Thomas is talking about, cyclops, Brown provided favors to Reid by armtwisting the zoning to benefit his buddy, Reid. Not only that, if Reid was privy to knowledge of land trades that helped decide to buy the land, then that is akin to insider trading. Very crooked, cyclops, inside traders go to prison.
Quote:Also, I'm not sure why you call Reid's partner 'shady.' What evidence have you seen that he is, in fact, Shady, and not just a businessman like all the others you Republicans defend from time to time in conversation? What illegal actions did he take?
He has a history of working with gambling interests, who have had legal troubles in the past. Its spelled, M A F I A, cyclops. Obviously I have no proof, just a suspicion, but I think not without historical reasoning.
Quote:You have nothing, no evidence, no proof. Just a form filed incorrectly. I think you need to admit that your partisanship is causing you to think there is a stronger case against Reid than Hastert, because on Reid's side, we have no evidence showing he did anything at all to increase the value of his land; on Hastert's side, there is some evidence that he did do something to increase the value of his land. It isn't hard to figure out which argument is more persuasive.
Cycloptichorn
The rezoning and land trades both entered into the scenario in Nevada, cyclops. Hastert simply bought land around his farm, then sold it, with no convoluted dealings with other wheeler dealers, land trades, rezoning, etc. and unless the highway can be shown to have definitely increased the values, he did nothing wrong except for the technicality of reporting. Reid's technicality, to repeat, I think is more serious because it involves a transaction rather than simply the legal status of his ownership from personal to a trust. In Hastert's case, no transaction occurred, if I am interpreting this correctly.
