Image publically available.

The AP broke this story about Senator Harry Reid's Nevada land dealings. To make things worse one of his sons is a lobbyinst/attorney and the other a commissioner in Nevada. This problem I see the the close ties between the Reids and various land developers and others that appear to benefit from certain land projects support by Senator Reid. The appearance alone is enough for Reid to concern himself with straightening this out.



Should Reid testify before the Senate Ethics Committee and explain his dealings fully?



Should the Senate initiate hearings on the land development deals and associated lobbying in Washington?


edited to remove image

Although it's definitely bad it won't get the media attention because sex sells and shady real estate deals don't. Also having a (D) behind your name helps as well.

Although Republicans can take the high road on this one if they just ignore it and try not to turn it into another October surprise.

Reid should definitely testify before the Senate Ethics Committee. But this probably won't happen till after the elections..

So let me get this straight- the main heartache here is he did not disclose the profits correctly? I mean, he paid the taxes, he did all the other legal things as far as I can tell, but he didn't disclose properly? And THIS gives conservatives something to talk about? I mean, this trumps Dick Cheney and Haliburton, GW and the medicaid drug bill lie etc etc? OMG- they are really grasping at straws at this point.

Serioulsy- if the worst the dems are doing is missing a blank on a senate ethics form- I can't wait until they are in charge.

Should Reid testify before the Senate Ethics Committee and explain his dealings fully?

Sure. I bet those ethical committee members are getting bored up there. Maybe a little land dealing, tax wheeling and deal making blather will wake them up.

This might evolve into a little game of who can make the best deal in real estate. It's got a name too, Monopoly. Fun to play, boring to watch.

Should the Senate initiate hearings on the land development deals and associated lobbying in Washington?

Washington has a huge problem with lobbying. Real estate isn't exactly the biggest part of the problem. One thing that the legislation might try is limiting this by keeping legislators from going into lobbying until after a certain amount of time passes. Two years might be good. Four might be better. I'd like to see it ten years, but that'll never happen.

The Founders Intent while you are on your holier then though trip you might want to look at some republican politicians who actually made a profit thru legislation they created like Speaker Hastert and Rep Taylor.

Speaker Hastert's Land Deal Questioned



Seat in Congress Helps Mr. Taylor Help His Business



Believe me I hate this that both sides do this to us and we are the ones suffering.

It looks like technical details more than substance, but if Reid did something wrong, I have no problem burning him at the stake.

But this thread highlights the obvious - republicans are no better than the democrats. That's funny. I always thought the republicans were the party of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and integrity.

Obviously, that's too much to ask. Instead, they'd rather be compared to Studds and Reid.

Of course both parties do this. That's why it's the culture of corruption, or whatever. I have no doubt that Hastert's land deals benefitted from the highway project. That's what we expect in Illinois - our Republicans have to be as corrupt as the Democrats, or we just don't respect them. Other than New Jersey or Louisiana, it would be tough to find a more corrupt state than Illinois, nor a more corrupt metro area than Chicago. We tend to value competence over cleanliness. That's why we'll re-elect Mayor Daley again next year, even though we know he's dirty. The alternative would set the city back for decades.

Back to Harry, I wonder how his son Rory voted on the rezoning?

Update - ouch - this has to hurt.

Before this thread drops too much into the realm of partisan mudslinging (even though that was clearly the intent of the thread's creator) can I ask a few basic, non-partisan factual questions?

I am no expert on land deals, but based on the cited article, I am having some difficulty figuring out what the supposed scandal is. The 'crime' if you will that Harry Reid is guilty of is not disclosing this as income. This is against the senate rules, and precident has shown that if this is the extent of the wrongdoing, he should recieve a warning or a slap on the wrist.

His dealing themselves seem in no way illegal or unethical. In fact, he did no dealing himself at all. The dealings of the person in charge of the land and the transactions, Jay Brown, seems also to have done nothing wrong, in fact judging from the article the worst one can call him is a shrewd businessman.


So before we start screaming across the isles about wheither this is less than, equal to or more than equivalent to a Republican having sex with children and the party covering it up, could we get a bit of explanation of precisely what the 'scandal' is supposed to be here?

I'm not in left-wing denial (if this actualy exists) I'm not claiming this is no and could never be a Democratic land scandal or anything like it, I just honestly cannot see anything like one at all here.

Uh, it's "holier than thou" but I got your point. My intention here is not to be holier than thou, but to point out that Democrats are being hypocritical when they use the "culture of corruption" mantra. They have plenty to be ashamed of and ought to remember that what goes around, comes around.

Did we really need an entire thread to prove that politicians are hypocrites? Of course the Democrats are hypocrites and of course the Republicans are hypocrites, it's a brilliant strategy, all you have to do is ignore you're conscience and boom, instant power. Anyway, to the questions.


I don't see why not. Nothing will come of it because it doesn't appear as though Reid has done much wrong beyond a technicality. This really isn't too much of an issue and this is coming from someone who really, really dislikes Harry Reid.

I hope they do, in fact I hope this becomes the all-consuming activity in the Senate...that way they'll be too busy to pass legislation and run our country as ineffectively as they have been.

CP

I also note, that on the same link, the repubs are wanting to start investigating Sandy Berger. Okay- now I see a pattern- trying to deflect some heat off themselves. Non-issue, big time. I just don't see anything to get worked up about on tnis one. No putting troops in harms way with a pack of lies, no Enron style accounting investor fraud, no purposefull lying on spending bills- just failure to disclose on one form. This is the best they got huh? Pathetic

The Founders Intent, I don’t know why you put the words hypocrisy in the subject title. The Democrats have never promoted themselves as the “Clean, upfront, land dealing party”, even though Reid’s error is only a minor infraction. Nice try though.

Should Reid testify before the Senate Ethics Committee and explain his dealings fully?

Should the Senate initiate hearings on the land development deals and associated lobbying in Washington?

If Reid has done anything wrong he should face the ethics committee and be held to any subsequent penalties. There are a couple of key points in this story:


There are groups in Washington who do nothing but look for these types of opportunities. They review proposed legislation and committee decisions, including land swap deals, and then notify developers/investors if they see any potential. If the impending land swap deal were made public, which it apparently was, I really don’t see anything wrong here. I don’t agree with the potential of Reid’s inside knowledge, he may have known before it became public.


Here locally going before the Zoning Adjustment Board is a very public process (if you choose to attend) and I would imagine it’s handled similarly in Las Vegas. One of the keys in getting a zoning change is having an individual, usually a lawyer, who knows zoning/building/development inside and out. Brown appears to fit that bill so it’s not unusual he was able to get the zoning change.

If the zoning change in this particular case was highly irregular, then Brown is the one that might be scrutinized. He has former ties to organized crime and with this particular deal there’s also involvement with the Del Webb Corp who’s founder, Del Webb, was the one that built the Flamingo Casino for Bugsy Siegel. So if there was any “undo” pressure applied to change zoning opinions I wouldn’t imagine it coming from Reid.

I’m glad Cadman brought up Representative Taylor and the Maggie Valley/Ashville story because it underscores what I see as the complexity of the issue while striking a delicate balance of what’s fair.

There’s nothing wrong in my mind with elected members of congress bringing money back to their districts. Many communities can’t afford expansion of roads and other infrastructure on their own and must rely on federal funding.

I’ve witnessed first hand the economic impact of new and expanded road systems: it encourages new business development which in turn creates jobs and the government benefits from some ROI through increased tax revenues. As part of my annual Carolina golf excursion, we stop in Maggie Valley every year and I’ve gotten to know the owners of a restaurant there.

We’ve had lively discussions regarding Taylor with his potential conflict of interests; however it’s these very people who have re-elected him back in office since 1991. And therein lies the rub.

He isn’t the only one who will benefit from the economic development “ear marks”, these restaurant owners will benefit and we can’t blame Taylor for owing key properties. It’s not unusual for an individual to make millions in their district and then run for office. And you can rest assured that he would be donating to his representative if he wasn’t the one elected in order to get road expansion funding.

It’s a delicate balance and one that needs to be carefully scrutinized. As pointed out unfortunately this “skirting the line” has gone on for years and both parties are guilty. At times it’s a bit sickening and maddening but in today’s realm of politics it’s almost impossible to not have a conflict of interest the second one federal dollar is brought home from DC.

There is slightly more to this story, although not necessarily enough to damage Reid in any significant way.

When Mr. Brown (Reid's partner) went before the zoning board, Reid's own son was on the board which approved the zoning change. That zoning change is what greatly inflated the value of the land. It isn't necessarily make it a dirty deal, but it is worth disclosure by Reid.

Reid also misrepresented his relationship with Mr. Brown. Reid actually exchanged the land for a piece of a new investment company, Patrick Lane LLC, to which he sold the land.

The Washington Post (not exactly the country's most conservative newspaper) has an editorial on this.

Nevada to keep billions as part of deal on Kempthorne confirmation
Looks like Harry Reid has land on his mind most of the time. Apparently it's more important to serve his own interests than those of Nevada. This man does not just make little mistakes on his own dealings, and there is, at a minimum, plenty of circumstantial evidence that he is corrupt in his thinking when it comes to land.

Um- first off, looks like the first link you provided is a great deal for all Nevadans- public money from Nevada land sales going to Nevada- that is typically a republican mantra- what is wrong with that? So founders- what is your purpose of this post? This is the equivilent of you forgiving the murderer while chastising the person that called someone else "a poopyhead"- Henry Ried's deal is just so- well, made up really- that it is a pretty lame scandal to cook up here.

Perhaps you missed my post, above. I shall repeat myself.

So before we start screaming across the isles about wheither this is less than, equal to or more than equivalent to a Republican having sex with children and the party covering it up, could we get a bit of explanation of precisely what the 'scandal' is supposed to be here?

"Plenty of (unspecified) circumstantial evidence" does not help. I am honestly asking for your help here, since you started this thread. Can you please explain to me exactly what the great 'scandal' here is?


By the way, you link seems to point out in very specific terms that Reid is an excellent senator who has entirely his state's needs at heart. The article is in fact quite lauditory of the man, and mentions so called 'scandals' not at all. So help me out here, if you are trying to pretend he is some kind of villain, why are you praising him with such a pro-Reid link?


Also, given the timing, can you explain what your actual point is? Are you trying to equate this apparent non-scandal with a republican senator having sex with below-age-of-consent teens, and his party ladership covering it up, even though it meant putting other below-age-of-consent teens at risk?

Please help me here founder's intent. Can you answer these simple, specific questions?




EDIT to add: seems CR had many of the same questions...

V,
Since you brought it up, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the name of the Republican Senator who "had sex with below-age-of-consent teens, and the names of those who "covered it up?" Simply, specifically, etc.

As to the, er, anatomy of the scandal, Reid "sold" the land for exactly the price he paid to Mr. Brown. Then, it was rezoned and sold, and he still received a $1.1MM gain.

For some reason, he appears to have wanted it both ways.
The "sale" yet not really a sale = He didn't want to hold legal title to the land when his son voted on the (profitable) re-zoning
The non-disclosure = He didn't disclose the sale per Senate rules, which was sorta half true because he still received later profit, ergo he hadn't *really* sold the land.

Strange either way, or both ways perhaps.

I’m confused. I see no problem with the Senate launching a full investigation before or after elections, even if he is cleared. I’m not saying he will be found innocent of any wrongdoing, but I don’t think ethics investigations are a waste of time and money. Well, they are no doubt a waste of both to those who hope to reap political points if it is found there was wrongdoing, but the flip side of ethics investigations is upholding the public trust.

Now about your first link, TFI—did you read it? “Some $2.7 billion thus far, [has] gone to parks, trails, conservation improvements and water and education funds in Nevada. The Bush Administration had proposed shifting 70 percent of the profits back to the U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction.” The proceeds went to Nevada apparently with Bush’s approval. If you’re concerned with the wellbeing of Nevadans, do you think diverting those billions to the federal Treasury better serves Harry Reid’s constituents?

When you selected conservative under the politics option, did you mean big government conservative? Not that blackmail in the form of holding up a nomination to further your state’s economic interests is a nice political reality, but the example completely contradicts your statement that Dirty Harry puts his own interests ahead of Nevada’s.

As to your second link, although Dirty Harry blocked the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act in 1996 to give Democrats all the glory by bumping a Republican off the bill it’s apparent the bill did pass, because it’s discussed in the first link you posted!

Dirty Harry strikes again, but you did poorly by choosing two links that provide counter arguments to your argument. Now if you had said senators and congressmen need to stop being questionable attention whores I'd be with you, but then you'd be posting on the wrong thread.

Circumstantial evidence. Wow.

In that case we could go on for ever:
President Bush > Oil ties > Iraq war
VP Cheney > Haliburton > Iraq War
President Bush > Inside Trading > Harken stock
President Bush > Oil ties > record profits for oil companies

I’ll stop now because circumstantial evidence will get you no where in a hurry.

You'll have to do better than that.

Good point CW- let's not make it worse than it already is- he didn't have sex with the page- he just talked sex online with the teen. But a point worth making, in the interest of accuracy and fair play

Time usually helps draw these things out further, and perhaps we don't know all that we really need to know to settle this one. Until other damning evidence comes out, I'll give him the benefit of a doubt. From what I can gather, he didn't document the transfer(s) but he did pay taxes on the property and in no way, seemed to unduly gain from the arrangement that he had. If he had dodged his taxes or sold the land for a gross amount, there would be a point. Given the fact that it was re-zoned and that a mall located onto the land(which I'm sure had a big influence on the property's value) I really don't believe that it falls into the realm of concern for his peers to host meetings over it. Many didn't want to touch what DeLay or others did and I seriously doubt Reid will have a problem. It might be due to corruption, it might also be due to the fact that it isn't serious enough in their eyes.




Had he turned it into $15 million yes. Since the value went up due to what was to be located on the property and that he didn't exactly make out like gangbusters...and paid taxes on top of it, no.

At work today on the radio a fox "news" break came in, talking about how the democrats are playing into that hands of the insurgency in Iraq because of one person saying such in an arab chat room, I would not be surprised if it was o'really at work there to be honest.

To the subject at hand, I don’t know exactly what I am to be looking for here, as for his son being on the committee, at what point do you claim corruption? Should the son just go against to save from teh mudslinging war? Was it just the son on the board that made all of this possible.

So the guy missed a step, I am sure he probably knew he had to but on that note what did it do for him not doing such, did it advance him greatly, it appears as if it would not, so I guess the guy is just fond of political suicide, which I think might hurt his pocket books a bit more. Then again, if we are in the business of spying on politicians, why no cry about bush not wanting to be probed or having secret policy meetings on things like energy with his cabinet of big business? NO desire to cry foul on that, how about we call it the culture of hypocrisy instead of corruption, because it seems like some people should be able to break the law and some cant, and guess what, I don’t even support the dems overall, in elections I vote for what I like, which is Gore, but that’s besides the point, I will vote for anyone that is different from this admin, even if they are handicapped Simply because its the patriotic thing to do anymore.

First, let me say that I hope this mini-scandal takes down Reid. Second, I seriously doubt that it will, in large part because of the his "folksy, 'independent Nevadan'" image, and also because he's invoking the way a lot of business used to be done in Nevada, by a handshake. Of course, its lawyers like Reid and Reid who've pretty much put an end to that era, but nonetheless it is an era that many Nevadans' miss. What Washington thinks about this is secondary, its what Nevadan's think, and I doubt this will get too much traction. Heck, the Republican's in Nevada aren't even serious about unseating Harry. Perhaps we can at least see Rory Reid's political career tank, if he failed to abstain from voting on the rezoning due to an obvious conflict of interest.

It should be noted that Clark County, Nevada (not to be confused with the numerous OTHER Clark Counties out there) has either 5 or 7 County Commissioners. 4 recent ones are all serving Federal time now as a result of G-Sting. (tittie bars and payola....)

Now, all of Nevada's Congressfolk have "land on their minds", because the Feds own 93% (although it may have fallen below 90% now) of the land in Nevada. Busting land loose from the Feds for development is a major issue, and getting the resulting money to stay in Nevada is also a major issue. So on that count, I don't fault Reid, who's perspective is shared with the entire Nevada congressional delegation. (Which, btw, is 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats).

Quite right, my bad. I wrote that in rather a hurry as I was on my way out the door. He in fact propositioned below-the-age-of-consent teens, but as far as we know never actually had sex with any of them. It was this that was covered up.



Yes, and?

Where is the 'scandal', or 'illegality', or even questionable legality' of this?



Yes, I aknowledged that before, he is in violation of senate rules for not declaring this. And as precident within the senate goes, assuming no illegal activity on the assets he did not disclose, that warrants a private reprimand at most.


So, still looking for the 'scandal' here...

Well, I haven't seen to much national outrage over our senator's dealings:


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-05.htm

ANCHORAGE — He wielded extraordinary power in Washington for more than three decades, eventually holding sway over nearly $800 billion a year in federal spending.

But outside the halls of the U.S. Senate, which is a world of personal wealth so rarified some call it "the Millionaires' Club," Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) had struggled financially.

Then, in 1997, he got serious about making money. And in almost no time, he too was a millionaire — thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help.


Ted Stevens is chairman of the influential Senate Appropriations Committee.

Added together, Stevens' new partnerships and investments provide a step-by-step guide to building a personal fortune — if you happen to be one of the country's most influential senators.

They also illustrate how lax ethics rules allow members of Congress and their families to profit from personal business dealings with special interests.

Among the ways that Stevens became wealthy:

• Armed with the power his committee posts give him over the Pentagon, Stevens helped save a $450-million military housing contract for an Anchorage businessman. The same businessman made Stevens a partner in a series of real estate investments that turned the senator's $50,000 stake into at least $750,000 in six years.

It noted Ried in this article BTW- but, having some personal knowledge of a couple of Steven's deal- I also happen to know he is a truly passive investor- he frequently has very little details of the deals his bro-in-law is making, and I am about 95% sure he doesn't make decisions that help his bottom line based on his bottom line.

His son, however, is another story- real crooked sphincter mucsle - got his Dad's attitude without his Dad's love for the state or integrity.

But, I am a bit sympathetic to Stevens and Ried on this one- because, in Ried's case, he followed all local laws, and federal laws with the exception of missing a line on a form- that can be an honest mistake, and a fine and a line in the paper taking him to task will probably insure it doesn't happen again.

Still kinda pathetic of the right wing to have to go this deep to counter-act thier own wrongdoings.

I believe Vermillion is correct in his assessment on this one. It is an infraction and as such, deserved a private or public rebuke. Hearings and resignation? Sounds like a greater punishment than the crime. It would be tantamount to executing someone for jaywalking. A more serious crime that does deserve hearings would be the whole Abramoff thing, Jefferson having $90,000 in his deep-freeze, and Tom DeLay's use of federal expertise to track Texas democratic legislators. By these measurable standards, Reid's "crime" is certainly the weaker one.

There's one part of the article, towards the bottom (in the section titled "The Rezoning"), that definitely calls Brown's behavior into question. First we see that Brown was having no success in getting the zoning commission to rezone the property for a shopping center, and then his agent drops this little wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the commissioners:


Now of course Reid can say that this was done without his knowledge, and put some plausible deniability between himself and what that consultant said. I might even be willing to grant him that, provided that the same standard of evidence gets applied to all politicians who are found in similar sorts of "Cui bono?" situations.