Hillary and Harry Reid

[quote]hedo wrote:
I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.[/quote]

Hedo,

This is an interesting point. If Harry was involved in using influence to secure the profits, as opposed to “someone” used influence, then I’d personally hop all over it.

As for misfiling, as a personal asset instead of a corporate asset, I don’t think that is as big an issue. He still declared the asset and the profits from the asset – there doesn’t seem to be much to gain from this portion.

However, I’m open to learn more about some impropriety in the misdeclaration, making it a big deal. I’m also open to learn that others knew he was doing something wrong but worked to cover it up in some way.

Any evidence? Anybody pointing fingers? So far all I’ve seen is an attempt to have the microscopes pointing in a new direction. If there is more here, I hope to hell it comes out and he gets what he deserves.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Again, he owned the land…

Then why did he hide his ownership?

He looks mighty crooked here.

Your spin on this story is laughable.[/quote]

Zap, you are showing a propensity to believe anything bad without any evidence.

Are you willing to let democrats get away with the same, when they fling poo at republicans?

I don’t think you are. I think you suggest that they provide actual evidence, not just potential appearance, before holding someone accountable for something.

How come you have such a blatant double standard?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Again, he owned the land…

Then why did he hide his ownership?

He looks mighty crooked here.

Your spin on this story is laughable.

Zap, you are showing a propensity to believe anything bad without any evidence.

Are you willing to let democrats get away with the same, when they fling poo at republicans?

I don’t think you are. I think you suggest that they provide actual evidence, not just potential appearance, before holding someone accountable for something.

How come you have such a blatant double standard?[/quote]

I do not tolerate corruption from either party. As you will recall I thought DeLay should get booted from Congress. It was the first thing I said in the Tom Delay thread.

Your charge does not stick to me.

My exact quote from the Tom DeLay thread.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They are ALL crooks. Campaign finance reform is a joke. It does not slow the corruption, but it does create more opportunity to catch the crooks.

I actually enjoy seeing these guys go down no matter their party affiliation.

While the mainstream press sharks certainly circle faster when it is Republican blood in the water, I can’t complain too much. Next time a Democrat screws up FOX News will nail him!

[/quote]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Again, he owned the land…

Then why did he hide his ownership?

He looks mighty crooked here.

Your spin on this story is laughable.

Zap, you are showing a propensity to believe anything bad without any evidence.

Are you willing to let democrats get away with the same, when they fling poo at republicans?

I don’t think you are. I think you suggest that they provide actual evidence, not just potential appearance, before holding someone accountable for something.

How come you have such a blatant double standard?[/quote]

because zap believes whatever Hedo and headhunter tell him.

for example hedo didn’t tell him about this:

FBI investigates Rep. Curt Weldon

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is investigating whether Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania traded his political influence for lucrative lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter, according to sources with direct knowledge of the inquiry.

The FBI, which opened an investigation in recent months, has formally referred the matter to the department’s Public Integrity Section for additional scrutiny. At issue are Weldon’s efforts between 2002 and 2004 to aid two Russian companies and two Serbian brothers with ties to strongman Slobodan Milosevic, a federal law enforcement official said.

The Russian companies and a Serbian foundation run by the brothers’ family each hired a firm co-owned by Weldon’s daughter, Karen, for fees totaling nearly $1 million a year, public records show.

therefore zap doesn’t believe it.
also Hedo would ask:
“What evidence do you have that democrats weren’t involved with Weldon.”

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Hedo,

This is an interesting point. If Harry was involved in using influence to secure the profits, as opposed to “someone” used influence, then I’d personally hop all over it.

As for misfiling, as a personal asset instead of a corporate asset, I don’t think that is as big an issue. He still declared the asset and the profits from the asset – there doesn’t seem to be much to gain from this portion.

However, I’m open to learn more about some impropriety in the misdeclaration, making it a big deal. I’m also open to learn that others knew he was doing something wrong but worked to cover it up in some way.

Any evidence? Anybody pointing fingers? So far all I’ve seen is an attempt to have the microscopes pointing in a new direction. If there is more here, I hope to hell it comes out and he gets what he deserves.[/quote]

Vroom

It’s a sweetheart deal. When the property is transferred to an LLC the assignee loses all liability but in this case shares in all profits.

I don’t believe for a minute that you could get the land rezoned that quickly and I don’t think I could either, without throwing a lot of money at the problem. Something Ried wasn’t required to do from the information that is publicly available. If a ranking member of the Senate can get a deal done faster then you or I then you have corruption and the use of influence. I honestly don’t have a problem with it on the surface but to deny it happens seems a bit naive to me.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
HAAAA. I really do get a laugh dealing with you. High school kids…too funny.

No actually 2-0.

I can’t help your lack of reading comprehension. First article described the current issue. The second article describes even more questionable deals he’s been involved with dummy. Does your principal know what you use the schools computers for?

Are you really that stupid? Statement of the obvious I suppose.

Any other opinions you want to offer. Is something in these articles not factual? Your opinions are not supported.

First article: No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.

Second article:No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.(But a good diversion)

Not quite factual: “collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years,”

If you’ll remember my opinion was that the article said nothing of Reid influencing the price of the land (like say Hastert). My opinion is supported by simply reading the article.

Of course if I’m wrong and you’re not making stuff up (again…) please post the quote from the article…otherwise again stop making stuff up.

[/quote]

You haven’t said anything, again. When you do I’ll be waiting.

Now finish your homework and go to bed. Maybe one day you’ll be big. (you may not realize it but this is a bodybuilding site)

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I do not tolerate corruption from either party. As you will recall I thought DeLay should get booted from Congress. It was the first thing I said in the Tom Delay thread.

Your charge does not stick to me.[/quote]

I’m not so sure it doesn’t stick.

You need to have the same standard of proof, to decide someone is a crook.

Now, if you want to throw everyone that has an even a suggestion of potential impropriety out, whether or not there is anything other than pure speculation, equally, then it doesn’t stick.

However, it is possible that I’m remembering the words of others with respect to the need for proof, or that people are innocent, until proven guilty.

Perhaps you are willing to accept that all politicians are guilty unless proven innocent? Is this how you decide the charge doesn’t stick?

If so, I’m sure you see the problem in that as well…

[quote]hedo wrote:
Vroom

It’s a sweetheart deal. When the property is transferred to an LLC the assignee loses all liability but in this case shares in all profits.[/quote]

Hedo, I understand the above, but I don’t think it has much to do with the price of tea in China. He found a way to protect himself from liability. I’d like to hear what is WRONG with finding that way to protect yourself or how he benefited from not changing his filing forms.

It’s not about denial, but it’s about requiring the same standards of proof all around.

Republicans don’t resign or get forced out because of raw opinion that things could be or seem likely to be out of ordinary.

Hastert might get forced out, but it will only happen if the hearings that are going on show there was some type of coverup taking place.

Unless you are loudly proclaiming that the leadership of the GOP needs to be purged for covering up the Foley issue, there is no way you should be clamoring after Reid unless more information shows up.

Simply WANTING to believe he must have done something wrong, and seeing him benefit from what could have been something involving improper influence is not enough.

If he’s guilty, fry him, but for the sake of all that is right about justice in the US, apply the same standards to all parties, whether or not they wear the same brand (political affiliation) as yourself.

Anyway, that’s that part of Zap’s statement I can get behind, fry all the guilty politicians… but demand the same proof of guilt for all… which I’d add to that!

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
HAAAA. I really do get a laugh dealing with you. High school kids…too funny.

No actually 2-0.

I can’t help your lack of reading comprehension. First article described the current issue. The second article describes even more questionable deals he’s been involved with dummy. Does your principal know what you use the schools computers for?

Are you really that stupid? Statement of the obvious I suppose.

Any other opinions you want to offer. Is something in these articles not factual? Your opinions are not supported.

First article: No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.

Second article:No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.(But a good diversion)

Not quite factual: “collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years,”

If you’ll remember my opinion was that the article said nothing of Reid influencing the price of the land (like say Hastert). My opinion is supported by simply reading the article.

Of course if I’m wrong and you’re not making stuff up (again…) please post the quote from the article…otherwise again stop making stuff up.

You haven’t said anything, again. When you do I’ll be waiting.

Now finish your homework and go to bed. Maybe one day you’ll be big. (you may not realize it but this is a bodybuilding site)
[/quote]

I had a feeling you wouldn’t have a quote.

[quote]hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Hedo,

This is an interesting point. If Harry was involved in using influence to secure the profits, as opposed to “someone” used influence, then I’d personally hop all over it.

As for misfiling, as a personal asset instead of a corporate asset, I don’t think that is as big an issue. He still declared the asset and the profits from the asset – there doesn’t seem to be much to gain from this portion.

However, I’m open to learn more about some impropriety in the misdeclaration, making it a big deal. I’m also open to learn that others knew he was doing something wrong but worked to cover it up in some way.

Any evidence? Anybody pointing fingers? So far all I’ve seen is an attempt to have the microscopes pointing in a new direction. If there is more here, I hope to hell it comes out and he gets what he deserves.

Vroom

It’s a sweetheart deal. When the property is transferred to an LLC the assignee loses all liability but in this case shares in all profits.

I don’t believe for a minute that you could get the land rezoned that quickly and I don’t think I could either, without throwing a lot of money at the problem. Something Ried wasn’t required to do from the information that is publicly available. If a ranking member of the Senate can get a deal done faster then you or I then you have corruption and the use of influence. I honestly don’t have a problem with it on the surface but to deny it happens seems a bit naive to me.

[/quote]

If he put his land in the LLC in exchange for interests in the LLC (he did) then if the value of the land goes down the value of the interests go down, so not a sweetheart deal, and OF COURSE people put stuff in LLC’s all the time to protect themselves against lawsuits etc…

The main point here is Reid didn’t use his influence to increase the value of the property. It’s hilarious that it seems suspect to you that somebody could buy real estate outside of a rapidly growing city(Las Vegas’ booming outskirts) and have that land eventually rezoned (total timeline: bought land in 98, LLC 2001, sold 2004). How in the world is that hard to believe?

There is absolutely no issue here, no tax issue (so long as the llc partnership owned the same percentages as the original partnership–which they did 75/25), no legal issue (obviously), and other than forgetting a form, no ethics issue (fully disclosing his ownership of the plots).

And this horrible non-event has HH calling Reid a “maggot”

Meanwhile no comment on Hastert’s LLC.

[quote]100meters wrote:

And this horrible non-event has HH calling Reid a “maggot”

Meanwhile no comment on Hastert’s LLC.[/quote]

I guess I really hit a nerve with John Kerry’s bitch here. Is this your equivalent of slamming down the phone when questioned about something?

You honestly intend to defend a maggot who got a 1.1 million dollar payoff to rezone land HE NO LONGER OWNED? Who lied to the Senate Ethics Committee repeatedly, year after year? Someone who’s partner is a ‘casino’ lawyer?

Remember how, when you were a kid, you’re mom would tell you to not make faces, because it may stay that way? You better stand up, because being bent over all the time as you are for the libs, is becoming your natural position.

Headhunter

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Hedo,

This is an interesting point. If Harry was involved in using influence to secure the profits, as opposed to “someone” used influence, then I’d personally hop all over it.

As for misfiling, as a personal asset instead of a corporate asset, I don’t think that is as big an issue. He still declared the asset and the profits from the asset – there doesn’t seem to be much to gain from this portion.

However, I’m open to learn more about some impropriety in the misdeclaration, making it a big deal. I’m also open to learn that others knew he was doing something wrong but worked to cover it up in some way.

Any evidence? Anybody pointing fingers? So far all I’ve seen is an attempt to have the microscopes pointing in a new direction. If there is more here, I hope to hell it comes out and he gets what he deserves.

Vroom

It’s a sweetheart deal. When the property is transferred to an LLC the assignee loses all liability but in this case shares in all profits.

I don’t believe for a minute that you could get the land rezoned that quickly and I don’t think I could either, without throwing a lot of money at the problem. Something Ried wasn’t required to do from the information that is publicly available. If a ranking member of the Senate can get a deal done faster then you or I then you have corruption and the use of influence. I honestly don’t have a problem with it on the surface but to deny it happens seems a bit naive to me.

If he put his land in the LLC in exchange for interests in the LLC (he did) then if the value of the land goes down the value of the interests go down, so not a sweetheart deal, and OF COURSE people put stuff in LLC’s all the time to protect themselves against lawsuits etc…

The main point here is Reid didn’t use his influence to increase the value of the property. It’s hilarious that it seems suspect to you that somebody could buy real estate outside of a rapidly growing city(Las Vegas’ booming outskirts) and have that land eventually rezoned (total timeline: bought land in 98, LLC 2001, sold 2004). How in the world is that hard to believe?

There is absolutely no issue here, no tax issue (so long as the llc partnership owned the same percentages as the original partnership–which they did 75/25), no legal issue (obviously), and other than forgetting a form, no ethics issue (fully disclosing his ownership of the plots).

And this horrible non-event has HH calling Reid a “maggot”

Meanwhile no comment on Hastert’s LLC.[/quote]

Rezoning is common. Rezoning after denying the rezoning once is not.

When you grow up you’ll learn about that.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
HAAAA. I really do get a laugh dealing with you. High school kids…too funny.

No actually 2-0.

I can’t help your lack of reading comprehension. First article described the current issue. The second article describes even more questionable deals he’s been involved with dummy. Does your principal know what you use the schools computers for?

Are you really that stupid? Statement of the obvious I suppose.

Any other opinions you want to offer. Is something in these articles not factual? Your opinions are not supported.

First article: No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.

Second article:No evidence Reid used his influence to enrich himself.(But a good diversion)

Not quite factual: “collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years,”

If you’ll remember my opinion was that the article said nothing of Reid influencing the price of the land (like say Hastert). My opinion is supported by simply reading the article.

Of course if I’m wrong and you’re not making stuff up (again…) please post the quote from the article…otherwise again stop making stuff up.

You haven’t said anything, again. When you do I’ll be waiting.

Now finish your homework and go to bed. Maybe one day you’ll be big. (you may not realize it but this is a bodybuilding site)

I had a feeling you wouldn’t have a quote.[/quote]

Your a broken record kid…still waiting for you to make a point.

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Hedo,

This is an interesting point. If Harry was involved in using influence to secure the profits, as opposed to “someone” used influence, then I’d personally hop all over it.

As for misfiling, as a personal asset instead of a corporate asset, I don’t think that is as big an issue. He still declared the asset and the profits from the asset – there doesn’t seem to be much to gain from this portion.

However, I’m open to learn more about some impropriety in the misdeclaration, making it a big deal. I’m also open to learn that others knew he was doing something wrong but worked to cover it up in some way.

Any evidence? Anybody pointing fingers? So far all I’ve seen is an attempt to have the microscopes pointing in a new direction. If there is more here, I hope to hell it comes out and he gets what he deserves.

Vroom

It’s a sweetheart deal. When the property is transferred to an LLC the assignee loses all liability but in this case shares in all profits.

I don’t believe for a minute that you could get the land rezoned that quickly and I don’t think I could either, without throwing a lot of money at the problem. Something Ried wasn’t required to do from the information that is publicly available. If a ranking member of the Senate can get a deal done faster then you or I then you have corruption and the use of influence. I honestly don’t have a problem with it on the surface but to deny it happens seems a bit naive to me.

If he put his land in the LLC in exchange for interests in the LLC (he did) then if the value of the land goes down the value of the interests go down, so not a sweetheart deal, and OF COURSE people put stuff in LLC’s all the time to protect themselves against lawsuits etc…

The main point here is Reid didn’t use his influence to increase the value of the property. It’s hilarious that it seems suspect to you that somebody could buy real estate outside of a rapidly growing city(Las Vegas’ booming outskirts) and have that land eventually rezoned (total timeline: bought land in 98, LLC 2001, sold 2004). How in the world is that hard to believe?

There is absolutely no issue here, no tax issue (so long as the llc partnership owned the same percentages as the original partnership–which they did 75/25), no legal issue (obviously), and other than forgetting a form, no ethics issue (fully disclosing his ownership of the plots).

And this horrible non-event has HH calling Reid a “maggot”

Meanwhile no comment on Hastert’s LLC.[/quote]

He had it rezoned after it was denied the first time.

His partner has ties to organized crime.

He hid it from the Senate.

It is worthy of investigation and not sweeping it under the rug.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
I think you’ll hear more about this case. Influence was used to rezone the land. This story will grow.

Hedo,

This is an interesting point. If Harry was involved in using influence to secure the profits, as opposed to “someone” used influence, then I’d personally hop all over it.

As for misfiling, as a personal asset instead of a corporate asset, I don’t think that is as big an issue. He still declared the asset and the profits from the asset – there doesn’t seem to be much to gain from this portion.

However, I’m open to learn more about some impropriety in the misdeclaration, making it a big deal. I’m also open to learn that others knew he was doing something wrong but worked to cover it up in some way.

Any evidence? Anybody pointing fingers? So far all I’ve seen is an attempt to have the microscopes pointing in a new direction. If there is more here, I hope to hell it comes out and he gets what he deserves.

Vroom

It’s a sweetheart deal. When the property is transferred to an LLC the assignee loses all liability but in this case shares in all profits.

I don’t believe for a minute that you could get the land rezoned that quickly and I don’t think I could either, without throwing a lot of money at the problem. Something Ried wasn’t required to do from the information that is publicly available. If a ranking member of the Senate can get a deal done faster then you or I then you have corruption and the use of influence. I honestly don’t have a problem with it on the surface but to deny it happens seems a bit naive to me.

If he put his land in the LLC in exchange for interests in the LLC (he did) then if the value of the land goes down the value of the interests go down, so not a sweetheart deal, and OF COURSE people put stuff in LLC’s all the time to protect themselves against lawsuits etc…

The main point here is Reid didn’t use his influence to increase the value of the property. It’s hilarious that it seems suspect to you that somebody could buy real estate outside of a rapidly growing city(Las Vegas’ booming outskirts) and have that land eventually rezoned (total timeline: bought land in 98, LLC 2001, sold 2004). How in the world is that hard to believe?

There is absolutely no issue here, no tax issue (so long as the llc partnership owned the same percentages as the original partnership–which they did 75/25), no legal issue (obviously), and other than forgetting a form, no ethics issue (fully disclosing his ownership of the plots).

And this horrible non-event has HH calling Reid a “maggot”

Meanwhile no comment on Hastert’s LLC.

He had it rezoned after it was denied the first time.

His partner has ties to organized crime.

He hid it from the Senate.

It is worthy of investigation and not sweeping it under the rug.[/quote]

Of course the only people cabable of sweeping it under the rug would be republicans…They do control the senate you know? Odd there’s no investigation. I wonder if it’s because there’s clearly no issue here?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You honestly intend to defend a maggot who got a 1.1 million dollar payoff to rezone land HE NO LONGER OWNED? Who lied to the Senate Ethics Committee repeatedly, year after year? Someone who’s partner is a ‘casino’ lawyer?[/quote]

Wow, where do you get your “news”. What we see here is a lot of supposition and invective.

I mean, you have heard of incorporating and then owning the assets of the corporation before, right? To use the phrase “paid for land he didn’t own” is certainly a spun statement.

Where the hell are you buying it from that you lap this piss up? Seriously, how can you eat up any old horseshit twisted up. Can’t you see the snow job you are being sold?

Also, from more serious reports, it currently appears that he misclaimed the land as under his personal ownership as opposed to under corporate ownership on his behalf.

You keep talking like a crazy fool and you’ll lose the ability to have anyone take you seriously.

If you have actual EVIDENCE, as opposed to hysterical made up shit from one of the spin artists, perhaps you should present it. To keep presenting opinion as conclusion and fact is retarded.

Doesn’t anyone on the right see this shit happening? How can it be shown any clearer?

And, again, I’ll repeat, if he’s guilty he should fry, but please, let’s find some actual evidence of wrongdoing before assuming guilt because of spinmaster conjecturing.

The issue with Hastert is much different… though there might be spinmasters on the left doing crazy shit too. The general media raises the fact that there are questions about who knew what when, and they support this with the statements made by involved parties and sources.

It’s not just twisted up stuff. However, there is also an investigation taking place which should bring out some information.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You honestly intend to defend a maggot who got a 1.1 million dollar payoff to rezone land HE NO LONGER OWNED? Who lied to the Senate Ethics Committee repeatedly, year after year? Someone who’s partner is a ‘casino’ lawyer?

Wow, where do you get your “news”. What we see here is a lot of supposition and invective.

I mean, you have heard of incorporating and then owning the assets of the corporation before, right? To use the phrase “paid for land he didn’t own” is certainly a spun statement.

Where the hell are you buying it from that you lap this piss up? Seriously, how can you eat up any old horseshit twisted up. Can’t you see the snow job you are being sold?

Also, from more serious reports, it currently appears that he misclaimed the land as under his personal ownership as opposed to under corporate ownership on his behalf.

You keep talking like a crazy fool and you’ll lose the ability to have anyone take you seriously.

If you have actual EVIDENCE, as opposed to hysterical made up shit from one of the spin artists, perhaps you should present it. To keep presenting opinion as conclusion and fact is retarded.

Doesn’t anyone on the right see this shit happening? How can it be shown any clearer?

And, again, I’ll repeat, if he’s guilty he should fry, but please, let’s find some actual evidence of wrongdoing before assuming guilt because of spinmaster conjecturing.

The issue with Hastert is much different… though there might be spinmasters on the left doing crazy shit too. The general media raises the fact that there are questions about who knew what when, and they support this with the statements made by involved parties and sources.

It’s not just twisted up stuff. However, there is also an investigation taking place which should bring out some information.[/quote]

Vroom, HH’s description appears to be pretty accurate.

This whole thing is suspicious as hell.

And 100meters point is stupid. Since the Republicans don’t seem to care Reid may be a crook does not mean we should sweep it under the rug.

Corruption knows no party lines.

Corruption is inherent in politics.

Anytime one of these guys appears to be caught in financial corruption it should be rigorously investigated by the ethics committee and well as by our media that is supposedly a watch dog.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:

And this horrible non-event has HH calling Reid a “maggot”

Meanwhile no comment on Hastert’s LLC.

I guess I really hit a nerve with John Kerry’s bitch here. Is this your equivalent of slamming down the phone when questioned about something?

You honestly intend to defend a maggot who got a 1.1 million dollar payoff to rezone land HE NO LONGER OWNED? Who lied to the Senate Ethics Committee repeatedly, year after year? Someone who’s partner is a ‘casino’ lawyer?

Remember how, when you were a kid, you’re mom would tell you to not make faces, because it may stay that way? You better stand up, because being bent over all the time as you are for the libs, is becoming your natural position.

Headhunter

[/quote]

He still owned the land.
He still owned the land.
He still owned the land.
repeat.

And ethics knew that he owned the land (obviously) so what’s the lie?

Again, wouldn’t it be better to pick actually corrupt dems to make your odd case of a handful of democrats are almost as bad as the entire GOP (which seems like a horrible point to make anyway). I wonder which republican in the senate will call for Reid’s ethics investigation?

Frist?
Santorum?
Allen?
Burns?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You honestly intend to defend a maggot who got a 1.1 million dollar payoff to rezone land HE NO LONGER OWNED? Who lied to the Senate Ethics Committee repeatedly, year after year? Someone who’s partner is a ‘casino’ lawyer?

Wow, where do you get your “news”. What we see here is a lot of supposition and invective.

I mean, you have heard of incorporating and then owning the assets of the corporation before, right? To use the phrase “paid for land he didn’t own” is certainly a spun statement.

Where the hell are you buying it from that you lap this piss up? Seriously, how can you eat up any old horseshit twisted up. Can’t you see the snow job you are being sold?

Also, from more serious reports, it currently appears that he misclaimed the land as under his personal ownership as opposed to under corporate ownership on his behalf.

You keep talking like a crazy fool and you’ll lose the ability to have anyone take you seriously.

If you have actual EVIDENCE, as opposed to hysterical made up shit from one of the spin artists, perhaps you should present it. To keep presenting opinion as conclusion and fact is retarded.

Doesn’t anyone on the right see this shit happening? How can it be shown any clearer?

And, again, I’ll repeat, if he’s guilty he should fry, but please, let’s find some actual evidence of wrongdoing before assuming guilt because of spinmaster conjecturing.

The issue with Hastert is much different… though there might be spinmasters on the left doing crazy shit too. The general media raises the fact that there are questions about who knew what when, and they support this with the statements made by involved parties and sources.

It’s not just twisted up stuff. However, there is also an investigation taking place which should bring out some information.[/quote]

Vroom,
It’s clear that Hedo and Headhunter had no idea what an LLC was before reacting to this…Note that headhunter despite the obvious is STILL saying “land he didn’t own”. They are furious that Reid had the nerve to do something totally legal and without legislative help while under the nose of ethics! How dare they tell ethics they owned that land and not tell them under the LLC they still owned that land! Oh, the non-outrage!

The right way to do it is to not reveal all the land and pass legislation to increase the value of the land—or the Hastert way. When is Reid gonna learn what congress is really all about?