• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1M in Land Sale (1 Viewer)

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How about that. With all the bad news which is good for Democrats, there is finally something coming out that Republicans can sink their teeth into. Seems that Harry Reid made a crapload of money off of some land he hadnt owned for years, but told Congress he did own.

Oops Democrats - About that culture of corruption you keep talking about? Care to add a little to that statement? Which party is corrupt? Come on. I know you can say it if you try hard enough. Let me help you. Starts with a D.

Article is here.
 
AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale

The Culture of Corruption strike again.......Damn Hypocrite Democrats
....

RESIGN MR SPEAKER.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_go_co/reid_land_windfall


AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writers
Wed Oct 11, 7:50 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.
 
Re: AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale

this is typical with the leaders of the party of "the poor and the working man"

greedy bastrds who pretend to side with the unwashed masses against net tax payers.
 
Re: AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale

TurtleDude said:
this is typical with the leaders of the party of "the poor and the working man"

greedy bastrds who pretend to side with the unwashed masses against net tax payers.

They are such hypocrites, it makes you sick.......
 
Re: AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale

Disgusting, I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Corruption has no place in government. Resign Mr. Reid.
 
Resign Mr. Reid. Disgusting.
 
Re: AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale

Navy Pride said:
You better quit posting about democrats and liberals.....your going to spoil your reputation...
;)
:confused: Dan is a conservative? What spoilage of reputation?
 
Maybe the Reid and Foley scandals will cancel each other out. :lol:
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Maybe the Reid and Foley scandals will cancel each other out. :lol:

People should remember both. Foley is gone. Time to go after Reid.
 
WHat is disgusting is that these ppl do not feel there is anything wrong with this unless they are caught.
The fact that this even happens is bullshit. What kind of society do we live in today when criminals are the ones running our country?
 
jfuh said:
WHat is disgusting is that these ppl do not feel there is anything wrong with this unless they are caught.
The fact that this even happens is bullshit. What kind of society do we live in today when criminals are the ones running our country?

I thought the Democrats had already called it - The culture of corruption. Funny that there are now crickets from them in this thread.
 
danarhea said:
I thought the Democrats had already called it - The culture of corruption. Funny that there are now crickets from them in this thread.
crickets? what do you mean?
 
jfuh said:
crickets? what do you mean?

Oops. Just noticed you are a Democrat. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
Oops. Just noticed you are a Democrat. LOL.
I'm not a democrat; liberal? yes.
 
Lets see where this goes first. The AP journalist has before attempted to do a hatchet job on Reid it seems and got that story wrong.

And what did Reid actually do wrong?

Seems that Harry Reid made a crapload of money off of some land he hadnt owned for years, but told Congress he did own.

According to the first debunking out there he did own it. He bought it years ago, and later transfered title to a company in which he was part owner. When that company later sold the land he got profit plus his originial investment. That land prices have risen aint a shocker is it now and if you buy low and sell high, then you should get a profit no??

What he did do wrong it seems, is that he did not tell the Congressional comittee that he had transfered the deed to a company in which he was part owner... but he did technically still own the land.

Its also convenient that it comes during a hell storm on the Republicans and just before the election.

But thats politics it seems.. doubt there is any "meat" for the republicans to dig in unless they want to start critizing the way land has increased in value or something equally as stupid.
 
PeteEU said:
Lets see where this goes first. The AP journalist has before attempted to do a hatchet job on Reid it seems and got that story wrong.

And what did Reid actually do wrong?



According to the first debunking out there he did own it. He bought it years ago, and later transfered title to a company in which he was part owner. When that company later sold the land he got profit plus his originial investment. That land prices have risen aint a shocker is it now and if you buy low and sell high, then you should get a profit no??

What he did do wrong it seems, is that he did not tell the Congressional comittee that he had transfered the deed to a company in which he was part owner... but he did technically still own the land.

Its also convenient that it comes during a hell storm on the Republicans and just before the election.

But thats politics it seems.. doubt there is any "meat" for the republicans to dig in unless they want to start critizing the way land has increased in value or something equally as stupid.
source for this?
 
source for this?

A "liberal blog" of course, and hence the the "attempt" part. Lets see if there is any water in the debunking over the next few days..

Although the accusation being brought up by the AP journalist is rather weak. Property values do go up, and if you sell property you bought cheap, then you do make a profit...

If anything they can bust him on not fully reporting the signing over of the land to the company he was a part owner of, but that has to be a technicallity no? He after all did own the land, and part of the company, so technically he kept some ownership of the land even though the land was transfered to a company.

I dunno, seems fishy attempt to stain a politican.. very weak evidence of any wrong doing compared to some of the other "corruption" cases.
 
If hyping this is the best our Local Hardcore Republicans can do to overshadow the Foley Fiasco.....Things are looking much worse in November than I thought.

I gotta believe they will dig up something far worse in the next couple weeks, at which point I'm sure certain members here will selectively forget they questioned the "Timing" of the Foley scandal since attempting to blame the Dems for not preventing it ain't working.
 
tecoyah said:
If hyping this is the best our Local Hardcore Republicans can do to overshadow the Foley Fiasco.....Things are looking much worse in November than I thought.

I gotta believe they will dig up something far worse in the next couple weeks, at which point I'm sure certain members here will selectively forget they questioned the "Timing" of the Foley scandal since attempting to blame the Dems for not preventing it ain't working.

:lol: I love it. When the Foley story broke and the republicans accused the dems of trying to "hype" it, they all said "no way." Now when the shoe is on the other foot, the party without direction is crying foul. Transparent!
 
CurrentAffairs said:
:lol: Transparent!

One) I am not a Democrat, and in fact have never been (used to be republican actually)

Two) I was , and am well aware the Dems are using the Foley issue to fuel anti republican sentiment, I believe I have in fact, pointed this out.

Three) Had I actually been a Democrat, I fail to see where I cried foul...I actually voiced opinion. Perhaps you might dispute it with something approaching debate.

Four)
CurrentAffairs said:
:lol: Transparent!
.....How can you possibly see thru anything....with those blinders on.
 
PeteEU said:
Lets see where this goes first. The AP journalist has before attempted to do a hatchet job on Reid it seems and got that story wrong.

And what did Reid actually do wrong?



According to the first debunking out there he did own it. He bought it years ago, and later transfered title to a company in which he was part owner. When that company later sold the land he got profit plus his originial investment. That land prices have risen aint a shocker is it now and if you buy low and sell high, then you should get a profit no??

What he did do wrong it seems, is that he did not tell the Congressional comittee that he had transfered the deed to a company in which he was part owner... but he did technically still own the land.

Its also convenient that it comes during a hell storm on the Republicans and just before the election.

But thats politics it seems.. doubt there is any "meat" for the republicans to dig in unless they want to start critizing the way land has increased in value or something equally as stupid.
How about the WHOLE story. A big part of the reason why that property became so valuable was due to Reid's influence on some "land use" issues. He used his position to make money for himself. THAT'S the issue here. Not that he made money, but that he used his position to do so.
 
faithful_servant said:
How about the WHOLE story. A big part of the reason why that property became so valuable was due to Reid's influence on some "land use" issues. He used his position to make money for himself. THAT'S the issue here. Not that he made money, but that he used his position to do so.

So...you decided I am a Democrat/Liberal/Biased.....whatever

Thus I suppose I am Jaded and partisan in your mind...Correct?
Yet, we have a man in a position of power making money , possibly illegally, which I agree is bad. You decide to get into the details and focus on how bad this truly is....by the way I agree he needs to be investigated.
At the same time we have a man in power possibly hitting on little boys that work for him over the internet, and this is your reaction:

"In the end aps, it's everyone's fault. Society failed this poor man and we need to bear the responsibility for his actions. In light of this (and keeping with general level of intelligence associated with the OP), I'm suggesting that every American be fined the sum of $1, to be deposited in a fuind for the Faithful Servant Home for Indigent Neo-Cons, Stray Cats (the band, not the animals) and Hugo Chavez."

Please do not accuse me of partisanship again....
 
Wait a minute, I read this, and other articles about it, and I fail to see the big scandal here. Perhaps someone should enlighten me. As it is, according to the Washington Post, the basics facts are as follows:

1.
Reid and his wife purchased the land in Clark County, on the outskirts of Las Vegas, in 1998 for $400,000. The acquisition was done in tandem with an adjacent property that was bought by Reid's friend of 35 years, Jay Brown, a former casino lawyer whose name has surfaced over the years in organized-crime investigations, according to the AP. Brown has never been charged with criminal wrongdoing, the AP added.

So, first off, Reid and his wife bought some land on the outskirts of Vegas in 98 for 400k. It was next to some property that Reid’s friend owned. This guy Jay Brown is a casino lawyer, and in the past his named has been associated with organized-crime investigations. What lawyer Casino Lawyer has not been at times associated with organized crime investigations? No scandal there.

2.
In 2001, Reid transferred his property into a partnership company that he co-owned with Brown. The transaction was done, according to a statement by Manley, to make it easier for the Reid family and the Brown family to try to rezone the undeveloped land so a shopping center could be built on it.

So, three years after buying the land, Reid transferred his property into a partnership company that was co-owned with Brown. This was done to make it easier to develop the property into a shopping center. I don’t see anything odd about that at all, it happens all the time. One guy buys some land on the outskirts of town, where he thinks that the town will grow into, and thus drive prices up. His buddy buys some land next to it, they form a partnership in order to combine the size of their property, thus make it more attractive to development, thus increase its value. No scandal there.

3.
The local zoning board, overruling a staff recommendation, granted the land's reclassification and Reid's share of the company was sold for $1.1 million to shopping-center developers in 2004, leaving him with a theoretical profit of $700,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html

Ok, so 6 years after purchasing that land on the outskirts of Vegas, one of the fastest growing metros in the United States, amazingly, at the height of the real estate boom, the land is worth a lot more than what Reid and his partner originally paid for it. They then got the local zoning board to approve the sale, which happens all the time in every city in the United States, and then made a ton of money. No scandal there.

Now, it seems to me that the only impropriety here, unless I am missing something, is that Reid failed to inform the Senate Ethics Committee that he no longer directly owned the land, but instead it was in a partnership, of which he was a partner. So he informed the Senate Ethics Committee of the purchase, and the sale of the land, but not of transferring it into a partnership.

Honestly, unless I am missing something, I don’t see the big scandal here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom