Hillary and Harry Reid

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
61

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Vroom, HH’s description appears to be pretty accurate.

This whole thing is suspicious as hell.
[/quote]

LOL. His description does not sound accurate, but there may certainly be room for suspicion.

If you can’t see it, saying things like “getting paid for land you didn’t own” is meant to raise suspicion and sound dirty, while falling within the realm of “not lying” by twisting truth amazing amounts for political purpose. Yes, you all hate the word, but that is spin.

Again, suspicion, sure, but you certainly need to be more informed than the bullshit H2 is spewing before you start forming an opinion beyond needing more information.

LOL. You miss the point! If there was any way in the world to get at Reid, the republicans would be all over it and you know it. The fact that you imagine otherwise speaks volumes.

The reason the republicans aren’t clamoring at this is because the style of nonsense you are buying, that put out by H2, has nothing to do with the facts actually known to the republicans.

Again, while I am fine with an investigation, current facts seem to support that he misclaimed the land as personal after having it wrapped within a corporation.

The fact he continued to claim it shows that he made it known that he had an interest in that land, so it should be fairly easy to figure out whether he was directly involved in anything that might influence the value of that land… which is presumably the point of having such a disclosure process.

If there is more to it, I would certainly expect someone to come forward and talk about actions taken or things done – in other words, provide evidence and information.

Yeah, these are true, but we don’t convict people because they are in the other party… there is still the need for supporting evidence prior to hanging the bastards.

You can be sure that people in the media are looking into this, but what you are getting, especially from H2, is not the result of responsible reporting, it is twisting the facts as to present them in the most alarming manner possible without lying. It is what spin is all about.

I’ve presented what I currently have seen to be reported as facts. They are not spin, unless of course THE MEDIA (or I) place values on those statements, such as proclaiming an innocent mistake.

It is up to Reid to claim it was an innocent mistake, and if he did, the media (or I) can say he said so, but to be responsible it cannot make that claim on his behalf.

Making a profit on a declared piece of land is in itself not a criminal proposition. It happens all the time. Use of undue influence or failure to report ownership of such an interest would be the bigger items.

So far, nobody has come up with anything that shows such things, and if they do, again, I’m all for it, fry the bastard. If they don’t, then he shouldn’t be assumed guilty until proven innocent… it just doesn’t work that way.

And, I really wish some of you would begin to discern spin from reality, or at least begin to understand what the facts of the case are instead of buying baloney of the nature being spouted by H2. It is crafted to create an emotional impression - it is not really discussing the facts of the case in a way that lets the reader make their own decision.

When either party does that, it is a complete sham.

62

[quote]100meters wrote:
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?[/quote]

100m,

I’m doing my best to show the difference between known facts and spun presentation, but it doesn’t seem to be making much headway.

It’s almost embarrassing to watch how some people are so easily manipulated by conjecture and spin. I mean, these people are being taken advantage of for political purpose to the point that they should be angry.

I know there are some on the left that will believe anything spun out against the right, as well, but this has to be one of the clearest examples of the difference between known realities and presented statements that I’ve seen in a long time.

Please people, wake up and demand that your own party and pundits treat you with more respect than this. You do know that so far all this appears to be an attempt to direct attention away from the current Foley issues?

63

[quote]100meters wrote:
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.

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?[/quote]

I have several LLC’s,douchebag, how about you?

Your a broken record and you still haven’t made a point other then to deny the obvious.

64

[quote]vroom wrote:
100meters wrote:
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?

100m,

I’m doing my best to show the difference between known facts and spun presentation, but it doesn’t seem to be making much headway.

It’s almost embarrassing to watch how some people are so easily manipulated by conjecture and spin. I mean, these people are being taken advantage of for political purpose to the point that they should be angry.

I know there are some on the left that will believe anything spun out against the right, as well, but this has to be one of the clearest examples of the difference between known realities and presented statements that I’ve seen in a long time.

Please people, wake up and demand that your own party and pundits treat you with more respect than this. You do know that so far all this appears to be an attempt to direct attention away from the current Foley issues?[/quote]

Yes, you have far more patience with these knuckleheads than I…

65

[quote]hedo wrote:

I have several LLC’s,douchebag, how about you?

Your a broken record and you still haven’t made a point other then to deny the obvious.

[/quote]
So you forgot how they work?

And again my point was:
You have no evidence of Reid using influence(the claim you made up). My only point. And an accurate one. Still.

(of course you could debunk this at anytime by providing evidence)

waiting…
waiting…
waiting…

of course I’m still waiting for you to prove several things(democrats and Foley,“recent polls”). Perhaps I’m seeing a pattern here of you making claims that have no basis in reality (translation: you make alot of stuff up out of thin air for no apparent reason).

66

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

I have several LLC’s,douchebag, how about you?

Your a broken record and you still haven’t made a point other then to deny the obvious.

So you forgot how they work?

And again my point was:
You have no evidence of Reid using influence(the claim you made up). My only point. And an accurate one. Still.

(of course you could debunk this at anytime by providing evidence)

waiting…
waiting…
waiting…

of course I’m still waiting for you to prove several things(democrats and Foley,“recent polls”). Perhaps I’m seeing a pattern here of you making claims that have no basis in reality (translation: you make alot of stuff up out of thin air for no apparent reason).

[/quote]

You have this backwards 100. Your the bitch. I don’t do things for you. I argue with the men and you snipe from the sidelines.

Nope, very clear how an LLC works and why they are used. You don’t seem to have a clue. No big suprise since you also seem to think Ried is the Mother Theresa of Nevada.

100 it’s pointless to argue with you because you have no shame and are dishonest to the extreme. Although you are amusing as an internet stalker I find you boorish more then a competent opponent. I know this drives your crazy but I just can’t take you seriously.

Try again to make a point. It’s fun to watch.

I’m sure saint Harry just kept his fingers crossed and hoped those mean old Clark County commissioners would change their minds on their own. No way would he try to influence them. You really don’t understand politics and business do you.

67

Nope, nothing dirty going on here folks. Just a simple, yet complicated and technical, land deal. Nothing to see here people, keep moving.

100m, I breathlesly anticipate your predictable spin.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/reids_smelly_windfall_opedcolumnists_ed_morrissey.htm

REID’S SMELLY WINDFALL
BACK-$CRATCHING WITH DEVELOPERS
By ED MORRISSEY

October 16, 2006 – SENATE Minority Leader Harry Reid’s ethics woes continue to mount. An Associated Press expose shows that Reid pushed through changes in federal law that helped the senator get rich - via complex land deals with a lobbyist who’s also tied up in a federal bribery case.

Reid has now told the Senate Ethics Committee that he’ll amend his past disclosure statements to for the first time cover the business relationships that AP has exposed. But he calls the amendment “technical” - which suggests it won’t explain why his original “disclosures” misled the public on the nature of a partnership that made him a $700,000 windfall.

It isn’t the first time Harry Reid’s ties to real-estate developers have caused people to question the senator’s ethics.

Back in August, the Los Angeles Times exposed Reid’s questionable involvement and compensation in another Nevada real-estate deal. Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, had plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid’s family members. The senator, in turn, helped Whittemore bulldoze through a host of environmental regulations in developing a huge parcel outside Las Vegas, to profit in the tens of millions.

What Reid failed to disclose was his 2001 transfer of ownership of two parcels of land to Patrick Lane LLC - an entity in which he was partnered with one Jay Brown.

AP notes that Brown is a lobbyist, with reported links to organized crime. And he figures prominently in a federal criminal case - which concerns the bribery of members of the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission by developers seeking changes to permit retail development on land they owned, vastly increasing its value.

As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.

Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with “protecting the environment.”)

Normally, the government would have to sell this land at auction, as land swaps had lost the federal government millions in southern Nevada. But Reid insisted on suspending that rule in his Clark County act. The developers that hired his sons as lobbyists prospered with the lower-cost acquisitions of prime real estate through the uneven swaps. Also in the money were those - like Harry Reid himself - who’d already invested money in Clark County real estate.

The L.A. Times revealed the Reid family’s extensive connections with Clark County developers in June 2003, as well as Reid’s extensive legislative interest in the land, but the Brown-Reid investment had not yet come to light - thanks to Reid’s failure to disclose.

Had the investment been known, voters could have made the connection. The Senate Ethics Committee might have taken an interest as well - except that Harry Reid himself sat as the top Democrat on that panel.

Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid’s business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.

68

[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.

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]

This article lays out the essence of the allegations:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/reids_smelly_windfall_opedcolumnists_ed_morrissey.htm

ADDENDUM: Just noted that Hedo posted the same article immediately above my post.

69

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
That said, this isn’t going to get any traction because it’s boring.

BB is correct.

This thread was started by a right wingnut because the GOP scandals are making him nervous.

Oh well…

This from a guy who’s avatar looks like a Great Dane waiting to take it up the poop chute. Did your Great Dane pose for that pic?
[/quote]

Your best arguement is a homophobic comment…does your wife know when you are going to come out of the closet?

70

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
That said, this isn’t going to get any traction because it’s boring.

BB is correct.

This thread was started by a right wingnut because the GOP scandals are making him nervous.

Oh well…

This from a guy who’s avatar looks like a Great Dane waiting to take it up the poop chute. Did your Great Dane pose for that pic?

Your best arguement is a homophobic comment…does your wife know when you are going to come out of the closet?[/quote]

If I ever did anything like that (gay, with dogs, or other sicko stuff — blech!!), it wouldn’t be with the family Great Dane. In your case, it must be a chihauhua.

Have a nice day, B.

71

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This article lays out the essence of the allegations:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/reids_smelly_windfall_opedcolumnists_ed_morrissey.htm

ADDENDUM: Just noted that Hedo posted the same article immediately above my post.[/quote]

That’s what I was looking for, something closer to actual information.

If it turns out he has been doing this stuff and actually using his influence to make himself money, and I have to say it looks like he did from the above, then I think he should resign and/or face legal action.

However, as I’ve said in a different matter, I would like to see some investigation to get at the details and unravel what may or may not be spun allegations here and there. An article alone doesn’t make it fact.

What we are missing so far, to raise the nature of this, is some corroboration from other, hopefully involved, sources. I’d guess it would also be important to understand the ethical rules involved, and what is allowed with disclosure in place. In particular, as it isn’t the stock market, are these turkeys allowed to act on inside information?

What a racket!

72

More…also two other land deals mentioned by AP.

Reid to reimburse campaign for donations By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.

Questioned about the campaign expenditures by The Associated Press, Reid’s office said Monday his lawyers had approved them but he nonetheless was personally reimbursing his campaign for the $3,300 he had directed to the staff holiday fund at his residence.

Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn’t personally owned in three years.

In that matter, the senator hadn’t disclosed to Congress that he first sold land to a friend’s limited liability company back in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the company. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land again in 2004 to others.

Reid portrayed the 2004 sale as a personal sale of land, not mentioning the company’s ownership or its role in the sale.

Reid said his amended ethics reports would list the 2001 sale and the company, called Patrick Lane LLC. He said the amended reports also would divulge two other smaller land deals he had failed to report to Congress.

“I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation,” Reid said in a statement issued by his office.

He said he believed the 2001 sale did not alter his ownership of the land but that he agreed to file the amended reports because “I believe in ensuring all facts come to light.”

Reid labeled the AP story as the “latest attempt” by Republicans to affect the election. AP reported last week that it learned of the land deal from a former Reid adviser who had concerns about the way the deal was reported to Congress.

On the Ritz-Carlton holiday donations, Reid gave $600 in 2002, then $1,200 in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005 from his re-election campaign to an entity listed as the REC Employee Holiday Fund. His campaign listed the expenses as campaign “salary” for two of the years and as a “contribution” one year.

Reid’s office said the listing as salary was a “clerical error” and that the use of campaign money for the residential fund was approved by his lawyers. “I am reimbursing the campaign from my own pocket to prevent this issue from being used in the current campaign season to deflect attention from Republican failures,” he said.

Residents and workers at the Ritz said the fund’s full name is the Residents Executive Committee Holiday Fund and that it collects money each year from the condominium residents to help provide Christmas gifts, bonuses and a party for the support staff.

Federal election law permits campaigns to provide “gifts of nominal value” but prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal expenses, such as mortgage, rent or utilities for “any part of any personal residence.”

The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any “obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a federal officeholder.”

Land deeds show Reid and his wife, Landra, purchased a condominium for their Washington residence at the hotel for $750,000 in March 2001. The holiday fund has existed for years at the condo, workers said.

Reid said Monday he believed the expenses were permissible but he nonetheless was reimbursing the campaign.

“These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position,” Reid said.

Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission’s former chief enforcement lawyer, said Reid’s explanation is aimed at a “gray area” in the law by suggesting the donations were tied to his official Senate and political work.

“What makes this harder for the senator is that this is his personal residence and this looks like an event that everybody else at the residence is taking out of their personal money as they’re living there,” Noble said.

Back in 2000, Congress rebuked powerful House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, R-Pa., for among other things creating the appearance, through poor record-keeping, that campaign committee expenditures were for personal rather than bona fide campaign uses.

On the land dealings, Reid announced Monday he had failed to disclose two other transactions on his prior ethics reports and would account for those on his amended reports along with the 2001 sale.

The first, he said, involved the sale in 2004 of about one-third acre of land in 2004 he owned in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev. And he said he had not reported his ownership since 1985 of a quarter acre of land his brother gave him in 1985.

Reid said the failure to disclose those transactions previously was due to “clerical errors” and they amounted to “two minor matters that were inadvertently left off my original disclosure forms.”

He had asked the Senate Ethics Committee last Wednesday for an opinion on the 2001 land sale but decided to amend his forms prior to the committee acting.

Reid’s announcement came after numerous newspapers nationwide published editorials criticizing both his initial failure to disclose the full details of his Las Vegas land deal and his response to AP’s story.

The $1.1 million land deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. Brown has never been charged with wrongdoing, except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Ethics experts told AP that Reid’s inaccurate accounting of the deal to Congress appeared to violate Senate ethics rules and raised other issues concerning taxes and potential gifts.

73

[quote]hedo wrote:
Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn’t personally owned in three years.
[/quote]

Sigh, the above passage, in the AP, was either written by a retarded AP reporter or one who purposely spun the message. It’s not hard to imagine putting land into a holding company in return for ownership and having an agreement to be bought out upon liquidation of various assets. At least on this point, let’s get serious.

The fact it keeps getting mentioned really makes me skeptical about the reality of other claims being made. I mean, if it’s serious reporting, it wouldn’t have the nature of spin that this snippet certainly does.

The undisclosed land deals sound like bigger fish anyway.

I’m not sure a lawyer approved funding mistake qualifies as a big item. Again, focusing on minutia and throwing in a spin item, makes the whole thing sound bad… but I have to question things since these tactics are being used.

Hopefully real information will come out in an unbiased manner due to ongoing prying and investigations – due to all the media coverage lately. As always, if found guilty of real transgressions then he should resign and/or face trial.

74

LOL!

It just struck me, while refilling my dinner plate, why republicans are not frothing at the mouth over this. Can you guess why?

Because they have been in power for the last X years and if we are going to start looking for lessor skeletons in closets, guess where most of them are going to be?

Think about it… the ability to exert influence is in the hands of the powerful, and we are just looking at business as usual in Washington when it comes to Reid’s ethical issues here.

So, nobody is willing to throw stones because they are all living in their own glass houses. Ahahahaha. What a crock of shit that is. If this spills open the public will get serious about financing and ethics reform… and nobody wants the gravy train to derail!

75

[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL!

It just struck me, while refilling my dinner plate, why republicans are not frothing at the mouth over this. Can you guess why?

Because they have been in power for the last X years and if we are going to start looking for lessor skeletons in closets, guess where most of them are going to be?

Think about it… the ability to exert influence is in the hands of the powerful, and we are just looking at business as usual in Washington when it comes to Reid’s ethical issues here.

So, nobody is willing to throw stones because they are all living in their own glass houses. Ahahahaha. What a crock of shit that is. If this spills open the public will get serious about financing and ethics reform… and nobody wants the gravy train to derail![/quote]

Power corrupts. They are all corrupt. When they are caught they should be booted.

I am surprised you didn’t pick up on this earlier.

76

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
Reid also announced he was amending his ethics reports to Congress to more fully account for a Las Vegas land deal, highlighted in an AP story last week, that allowed him to collect $1.1 million in 2004 for property he hadn’t personally owned in three years.

Sigh, the above passage, in the AP, was either written by a retarded AP reporter or one who purposely spun the message. It’s not hard to imagine putting land into a holding company in return for ownership and having an agreement to be bought out upon liquidation of various assets. At least on this point, let’s get serious.

The fact it keeps getting mentioned really makes me skeptical about the reality of other claims being made. I mean, if it’s serious reporting, it wouldn’t have the nature of spin that this snippet certainly does.

Reid said his amended ethics reports would list the 2001 sale and the company, called Patrick Lane LLC. He said the amended reports also would divulge two other smaller land deals he had failed to report to Congress.

The undisclosed land deals sound like bigger fish anyway.

I’m not sure a lawyer approved funding mistake qualifies as a big item. Again, focusing on minutia and throwing in a spin item, makes the whole thing sound bad… but I have to question things since these tactics are being used.

Hopefully real information will come out in an unbiased manner due to ongoing prying and investigations – due to all the media coverage lately. As always, if found guilty of real transgressions then he should resign and/or face trial.[/quote]

The Associated Press is in the GOP’s pocket…cool. At least that’s one media outlet we can control huh.

You do realize the article references statments made by Ried and his office stating the actions they took and what they will do to rectify the situation don’t you?

The part where Ried affirms he did what he is being accused of kind of invalidates the argument that it’s being spun by the vast right wing conspiracy.

In reality he didn’t committ a crime that we know of. He committed an ethics violation. In fact maybe several according to the statements Ried made to the AP. Who knows what will come of it? Maybe nothing, maybe more.

Denying it after Ried already stated he is going to make amends seems a little comical.

What makes you think the GOP isn’t salivating over this?

77

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Power corrupts. They are all corrupt. When they are caught they should be booted.

I am surprised you didn’t pick up on this earlier.[/quote]

Zap, it would be great if you’d at least try to post something above a grade school level once in a while.

They are not ALL corrupt, though they certainly all have corrupting influences acting on them.

I’m surprised you don’t seem to have any faith in humanity at all.

78

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Associated Press is in the GOP’s pocket…cool. At least that’s one media outlet we can control huh.[/quote]

Yeah, here we go. Look, there are individuals of both stripes in most larger organizations. Spare me the sandbox level political punditry.

You do realize that the claims by the AP were wild and that Reid is suggesting his own view of the situation, which may or may not also be true.

Not at all. You have to be clear on just what the accusations are. Earlier you saw H2 post that Reid was making large sums of money on “land he didn’t own.” Are you buying that retarded claim as stated?

Sigh, you probably are.

My point is that the level of spin used in the language gives you a clue as to the veracity of the statements. However, you do have to pick up on it, and some people flatly refuse to do so.

[quote]In reality he didn’t committ a crime that we know of. He committed an ethics violation. In fact maybe several according to the statements Ried made to the AP. Who knows what will come of it? Maybe nothing, maybe more.

Denying it after Ried already stated he is going to make amends seems a little comical.[/quote]

I don’t think you read what I wrote very carefully. I’m concerned about the unclaimed land and the possible use of influence for personal financial gain.

If that isn’t illegal, it should be.

As for the “selling land he didn’t own” or the “one apparent mistake of paying personal expenses out of campaign funds after checking with a lawyer”, those look to be non-issues, so far, unless more instances are out there.

I mean, if you get advice from a professional, you generally take it. It’s pretty hard to show intent when legal advice and approval is sought in advance.

Because the language coming out is spin, instead of reality. You see, neither party uses spin when the cold hard facts can be used instead. Mere spin can be defrocked with the truth.

Think about that one. It’s huge. I’m dead serious.

If the GOP had him, we’d be reading about how the GOP has him. We aren’t. We are reading bullshit about “making money off of land he didn’t own” which is either total incompetence in reporting (it could happen) or total spin. By the way it had H2 salivating I’d guess it was spin.

We are also reading about very minor expense mishandling, which apparently was run through legal or financial advisors before doing so. Because of the fluff added, one has to wonder if there is any meat at all.

Give it some thought.

79

[quote]vroom wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Associated Press is in the GOP’s pocket…cool. At least that’s one media outlet we can control huh.

Yeah, here we go. Look, there are individuals of both stripes in most larger organizations. Spare me the sandbox level political punditry.

You do realize the article references statments made by Ried and his office stating the actions they took and what they will do to rectify the situation don’t you?

You do realize that the claims by the AP were wild and that Reid is suggesting his own view of the situation, which may or may not also be true.

The part where Ried affirms he did what he is being accused of kind of invalidates the argument that it’s being spun by the vast right wing conspiracy.

Not at all. You have to be clear on just what the accusations are. Earlier you saw H2 post that Reid was making large sums of money on “land he didn’t own.” Are you buying that retarded claim as stated?

Sigh, you probably are.

My point is that the level of spin used in the language gives you a clue as to the veracity of the statements. However, you do have to pick up on it, and some people flatly refuse to do so.

In reality he didn’t committ a crime that we know of. He committed an ethics violation. In fact maybe several according to the statements Ried made to the AP. Who knows what will come of it? Maybe nothing, maybe more.

Denying it after Ried already stated he is going to make amends seems a little comical.

I don’t think you read what I wrote very carefully. I’m concerned about the unclaimed land and the possible use of influence for personal financial gain.

If that isn’t illegal, it should be.

As for the “selling land he didn’t own” or the “one apparent mistake of paying personal expenses out of campaign funds after checking with a lawyer”, those look to be non-issues, so far, unless more instances are out there.

I mean, if you get advice from a professional, you generally take it. It’s pretty hard to show intent when legal advice and approval is sought in advance.

What makes you think the GOP isn’t salivating over this?

Because the language coming out is spin, instead of reality. You see, neither party uses spin when the cold hard facts can be used instead. Mere spin can be defrocked with the truth.

Think about that one. It’s huge. I’m dead serious.

If the GOP had him, we’d be reading about how the GOP has him. We aren’t. We are reading bullshit about “making money off of land he didn’t own” which is either total incompetence in reporting (it could happen) or total spin. By the way it had H2 salivating I’d guess it was spin.

We are also reading about very minor expense mishandling, which apparently was run through legal or financial advisors before doing so. Because of the fluff added, one has to wonder if there is any meat at all.

Give it some thought.[/quote]

You are looking at it thru your anti-Republican bias. If you take that our of the equation you would realize you would be frothing at the mouth if this was a Republican.

Look at the facts. It isn’t spin just because it is a different position then the one you have, especially if the accused admits to the activity in question.

What accusation that the AP accused Ried of doing is wrong? Did he deny anything? He confirmed the accusations in this story. Which ones are not sunstantiated by facts that can be confirmed or by Ried himself. Seriously, if you read some unsubtantiated accusations in the article point them out?

Your not trying to spin this are you Vroom? I didn’t write he didn’t own the land so I’m not sure what that has to do with this article. I said he committed an ethics violation. Additional ethics violations are coming out such as the expense story. Nobody is framing him. He is admitting to it and saying he will make ammends? Is Ried spinning it too?

Do you really think he is clean with all these land deals? Seriosuly.

People only get politicians involved in land deals for their influence or connections. You can get other investors who have more money and who are a lot less maitenance then a politician. I’d never get a politico involved in a deal unless I needed something he was able to deliver. It’s not worth it. I don’t know anybody else who would either.

80

[quote]hedo wrote:
You are looking at it thru your anti-Republican bias. If you take that our of the equation you would realize you would be frothing at the mouth if this was a Republican.
[/quote]
LOL!

Look, the Foley issue, and the recent hullabaloo there is different. There are people coming forward, testifying, providing evidence that there was wrongdoing.

So far, what I’m seeing against Reid doesn’t come to the same level. I have repeatedly said there are things I think sound wrong on his part, especially the unclaimed land deals and the possible use of influence.

Okay, why don’t you, in your own words, tell me the FACTS without attaching spin to them. The actual plain facts! Yes, Reid has admitted to things, but not to the ALL the allegations raised in the media articles.

The part where somebody made money off of land they didn’t own is not a realistic presentation of the facts. The rest, so far, except for the two issues I keep raising, don’t really amount to a hill of beans.

Aha. Okay, yes, he has committed ethics POLICY violations. However, there are violations and there are VIOLATIONS. Filing personally instead of within a company doesn’t seem to really amount to anything as he stands to profit either way.

If the filing difference makes no difference to him, in terms of money or whatnot, then it is more of a POLICY issue instead of something worth getting excited about. There is nobody who is going to go around making people resign because they have inaccuracies or mistakes on filings. Especially if they don’t create personal gains for the one filing, whether republican or democrat.

It’s also a “gray area”, according to the article itself, whether or not the misapplied expenses were actually a violation.

Again, those two issues do not appear to be substantial, but you can run around making a big deal out of them if you like. Fine, go for it. Have a blast. Should be fun!

There are two substantial issues raised which need to be cleared up. Did he provably exert influence for personal gain and did he get any benefit by not claiming the other land deals - such as avoiding scrutiny that would have kept him from taking action to benefit himself.

Seriously, those are the questions that need to be asked and answered. The article does imply that he did this and Reid did not say, or admit, that he did those things. The import of the non-filed material is huge in terms of whether there is an ethics POLICY problem or a serious legal issue.

[quote]Do you really think he is clean with all these land deals? Seriosuly.

People only get politicians involved in land deals for their influence or connections. You can get other investors who have more money and who are a lot less maitenance then a politician. I’d never get a politico involved in a deal unless I needed something he was able to deliver. It’s not worth it. I don’t know anybody else who would either.[/quote]

Land deals are also gotten into by people who become aware that certain parcels of land are going to become valuable. Look, whether or not you or I “think” he has done something wrong in this respect is not the issue.

Do I think he is clean? No. That isn’t the issue is it?

It’s possible, it’s likely, I’d certainly suspect it and believe it, but as with any republican, proof is required. You can’t just assume people are guilty and expect them to resign. It doesn’t work that way. I haven’t seen Hastert resign yet.

I don’t see why you keep jumping the tracks from the facts to the assumption of guilt simply because that’s the way Washington works. That’s exactly the part that causes me so much trouble.

You either have to allow people to jump to their own conclusions about republicans without any supporting evidence, or, instead, if you desire proof before punishing republicans, then you should require proof here as well.

Which do you prefer?