AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale (did not disclose to Congress).

[rodeodance]

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

AP Exclusive: Reid got $1M in land sale

By JOHN SOLOMON and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writers 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.


In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's 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. He's never been charged with wrongdoing — except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

[RobertSeattle]

1. Uh Oh

Whatever it is Reid, let it all out - and don't blame your staff, the media, or the booze!

[greeneyedboy]

7. "tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself"

cf. Clinton spinmaster's advice reviewed here: http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/05/23/reviews/990523.23deanlt.html

[humbled_opinion]

14. OK I'LL Bite ....

Whatever, this is just partisan politics. Reid did nothing wrong and to be honest he does need to get out in front on this right now. Call it a political witch hunt.

[RobertSeattle]

16. I think he should blame McCain

:evilgrin:

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. I think he should tell them to "go fuck " themselves!

:evilgrin:

[greeneyedboy]

2. and the public responds: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz who?

[RobertSeattle]

4. I bet Faux News won't screw up that (D) designation!

[Debi]

3. That's about the same amount that Senator Allen received in "worthless"

stock options, right?

Why can't people just be honest about $$$? Dammit :mad:

[Up2Late]

5. OH BROTHER! The Muckrakers have been busy looking for this one!

Sounds like another White Water "scandal"/smear campaign starting to me.

[twilight_sailing]

6. Thank you DU for being so brave about this sort of thing.

If Reid has behaved dishonestly, he should be held accountable.

Doing the right thing is beyond politics.

I remember searching the Freepers site for posts of Frist's misdeeds. There was NOTHING.

I'd rather be on the side of the (you) honest guys.

Hope Reid comes out clean, but frankly, I'd prefer a more ballsy leader.

[lephty]

8. John Solomon must not like Harry Reid....

He was the one trying to link him with Abramoff ...search for him at mediamatters.org.

[Stand and Fight]

11. I thought that was the case...

He must have a real beef with the Senator.

[Stand and Fight]

9. The article seems to repeat itself.

It seems to me that this article seems to repeat the same points over and over again. I don't know what the reason behind that was, but I do certainly hope that IF there was any wrong doing on Senator Reid part that he comes out about it NOW. After reading the article it seems to me that he may have gotten confused about how he was supposed to act, because of the conflicts between Senate rules and Nevada law. I would like to read more about this story -- without the repetition -- as it develops. I don't quite see any concrete evidence that the Senator did anything wrong, and this could very well be a political witch hunt. Much like the Clintons and Whitewater... Just my opinion.

[cobalt1999]

10. If Reid is dirty, he needs to go.

I won't be a hypocrite and defend him or attack those that shine a light on corruption like the republicans.

[RamboLiberal]

12. I'm with you - he needs to get out front on this

And if he's dirty - he needs to go or be disciplined, perhaps losing leader status. I want us to show that we are ethical and different from the Repukes and Freepers.

[Howardx]

13. thats right

n/t

[Ravenseye]

27. Agreed. If he's dirty he needs to go

We've had enough corruption over the past 6 years, we don't need any coming from our side.

Though I still am unclear if he is dirty, or whether this is just digging up something completely legal and making it sound bad. I'm not sure exactly what he did wrong. If he did do something wrong though, he shoudl apologize and step down from his leadership position.

[Ian David]

15. Harry Reid voted for DOMA. He's a Conservative. Conservatives are crooks.

I don't care if he has an R or a D next to his name-- if he's dirty, he has to go.

On the plus side, if he knows he's nailed, and headed for the door anyway, then maybe he'll grow a pair and finally start to really fight.

[gratuitous]

17. John Solomon, hmmm . . .

He's the guy who tried to paint Reid as corrupt in the boxing tickets "scandal." You don't suppose this guy has an axe to grind, do you?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008612.php

After all, Mr. Solomon has tried to pump up a phony scandal before, taking liberties with some of the facts, and glossing over other exculpatory facts.

Rove must be running out of broad-brush hacks to do his bidding. I guess Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher aren't useful tools anymore:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/51961

[Stand and Fight]

18. Exactly.

Solomon is a snake. Any of my friends who follow politics here in Nevada think the guy is full of it, and some of them are Republicans!

[NashVegas]

24. Solomon Does All Kinds of Hit Pieces on Dems

He was especially nasty to Dean in 2004. Dean called him for the slimebag he is.

[Beetwasher]

19. BULLSHIT FUCKING HIT PIECE (Kos has the dope)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/11/175829/67

The claim:

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show."

--snip--

"Actually, he did own that land. It just so happened that three years ago, he transfered the property from his own personal name to that of an LLC.

It'd be kind of like me selling Daily Kos, and someone claiming I reaped a windfall from it because I "sold it three years ago". I didn't. Daily Kos became an LLC. As did Reid's piece of land.

And btw, this was all disclosed to the ethics committee. The place were things got sloppy is that Reid continued to disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather than ownership in the LLC which owned the land. But that's it. Fact is, the LLC had no other assets other than this piece of land, and Reid disclosed ownership of the piece of land."

--snip--

[stepnw1f]

23. Read This DU... kick (nt)

[Ravenseye]

28. So it amounts to an accounting error

I still dont' even know what the big deal is. Apparently there is no big deal. What are they claiming is the problem?

[LiviaOlivia]

20. Another John Solomon crapfest

The latest Reid hit piece
by kos
Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:58:29 PM PDT

The AP's John Solomon, the go-to guy at the Associated Press for any anti-Democratic efforts, and this piece is absolute crap. The crux of the claim:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

Actually, he did own that land. It just so happened that three years ago, he transfered the property from his own personal name to that of an LLC.

It'd be kind of like me selling Daily Kos, and someone claiming I reaped a windfall from it because I "sold it three years ago". I didn't. Daily Kos became an LLC. As did Reid's piece of land.

And btw, this was all disclosed to the ethics committee. The place were things got sloppy is that Reid continued to disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather than ownership in the LLC which owned the land. But that's it. Fact is, the LLC had no other assets other than this piece of land, and Reid disclosed ownership of the piece of land.

Solomon is either being dishonest or an idiot. But watch the wingers and GOP try to gain traction off this story to divert from their coddling of a sexual predator.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/11/175829/67

[mac56]

21. This is it?!

This is the best they got on one of our guys?!

Jebus, that's pathetic. I'd be embarrassed if I were them.

[loves_dulcinea]

25. wrong

this is not about criminal indictments. this is about the kangaroo court of public opinion. it is about making the repugs' base feel like their sh*t doesn't stink. it can fall apart as soon as the election is over and not a single one of those repug bastards would bat a lash. i hope it is their best shot too.

[mac56]

26. ???

Are you sure you responded to the right post?

[hijinx87]

22. I hope this is their best shot . . . . .

and they had to run it out early to drown out foley and NK nukes.

'cause it really ain't that bad.

[pepperbear]

29. Reid Got $1M in Land Sale

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2555635


ok DU lawyers, does it hold water?

[Monkeyman]

30. So Hastert got 2.1 million

[Thickasabrick]

31. Go to DailyKos for a thorough discussion. Holds no water

[mcg]

35. DailyKos debunks this elephant shit, link...

http://www.dailykos.com/

The latest Reid hit piece

... this was all disclosed to the ethics committee. The place were things got sloppy is that Reid continued to disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather than ownership in the LLC which owned the land. But that's it. Fact is, the LLC had no other assets other than this piece of land, and Reid disclosed ownership of the piece of land. ...

... there is no charge or evidence or anything that would suggest that Reid used his position of authority to boost the value of the land. ...

[Thickasabrick]

36. The good news is.....this is the best they got! What a bunch of

losers.

[remfan]

32. No...Solomon has done hit pieces on Reid before

and that fact alone, that Solomon has the byline, makes the story crap. Solomon's a fucking hack, and I don't need to be a lawyer to know that.

kos deconstructed it earlier today. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/11/175829/67

[Ignacio Upton]

33. Is Solomon obsessed with Reid?

It seems like whenever he attacks our side he attacks Reid only. To be honest, there are a lot more people on our side who give off more of an appearance of ethics slips than he does.

[niyad]

34. remind me again how much * got for the sale of the rangers?

[enid602]

37. profits

Las Vegas real estate was a sure thing for investors during that period; looks like Reid got in right about the right time. I don't know about his duties to (or failure to) report these profits to Congress, but Reid's $1MM profit is not nearly so fishy as Cunningham buying his luxury beachfront home for $700K less that market value, from none other than a major defense contractor, for cripes sake. Do the republicans really want to go there?

[bluestateguy]

38. Republicans are obsessed with obscure land deals from decades ago

And reading that wonkish, technocratic mumbo jumbo in the article jumbo just about put me to sleep.

[NVMojo]

39. many in Nevada have been wondering where Harry's windfall was going to pop

up so this is no surprise, only how is.

[hughee99]

41. I don't see too much here, except that

in 2001 Reid sold his land to the LLC for 400k. It doesn't really matter whether he was a shareholder in the LLC or not, if they gave him 400k (in cash or in shares) for the land, it should have been disclosed.

[CreekDog]

42. Some of you need to get your facts straight:

1) There was no transaction in 2001 to report, the land owned by two partners became an LLC owned by the same partners in same percentages.

2) Reid reported the sale in 2004 where he made 700k profit (1.1m was the sale price not the profit)

3) Read the article closely for specific accusations it actually makes. Try to find one that has any significance. Even all the talk about the ADJACENT land swap deal was completed before Reid bought it --you or I could have bought the same parcel and sold it for the same amount.

4) As for "personally owned", A tax attorney on Daily Kos wrote the following: "A multiple member LLC is treated as a partnership for tax purposes. Again, if an existing partnership transfers property to an LLC owned by the same partners in the same percentages, the LLC will usually be treated as the same entity as the orignal partnership, and again an individual might reasonably believe that no transfer has taken place."

This is like me transferring my co-owned home to a living trust and then years later, selling it and making money off of it. Anything wrong with that if I reported the sale? Of course not and that's what Reid did. Do I need to report that I put land in a trust run by the same original owners. No. Crikey!

[hughee99]

44. This is why I'm confused...

From the article... "Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown."

So if Reid owned a lot outright, and "sold" it to the LLC, he no longer owns it outright. They were partners on 1 piece of land, but BOTH pieces of land ended up in the LLC, it seems. Reid's compensation for this was an ownership stake in the LLC. He gave up something (full ownership of his piece of land) to the LLC, and got in return an equal share of the LLC. I don't have an issue with the deal itself, however...

It would seem to me like you were transferring your privately owned home to a trust with an existing partner (on other property), and getting a larger control of that trust, and while YOU may or may not have to report it, if you were SENATOR CreekDog it would seem you wouldn't be following the Senate ethics rules if you did not report it.

"Senate ethics rules require lawmakers to disclose on their annual ethics report all transactions involving investment properties — regardless of profit or loss — and to report any ownership stake in companies."

From the article, in 2001 he had an ownership stake in Patrick Lane LLC, and didn't report it. Please explain to me which facts I have wrong.

[hughee99]

45. Unable to edit...

by "equal share of the LLC" I mean equal to the value of the land he added to the LLC, not equal to the other partner.

[CreekDog]

46. Hugh, I think you're making assumptions

The deal doesn't state that Reid gave up part of one property he owned outright for shares in the LLC. Reid's share in the LLC was equivalent to the whole parcel that he owned outright and part of the parcel that he owned jointly.

And now Reid says that whatever the Ethics Committee says in regards to how it should be reported will be done.

But here's the thing...this is really the only issue we can come up with, but the AP article is written so that everything is suspect with words like "engineer", making it sound like Reid made money on someone else's land, Reid sold land and then three years later he makes money on it, etc. Only to find upon careful examination of the article that it doesn't actually say anything. You really have to strain to even say that the transfer really changed anything except giving it LLC status.

It's a whole lot of nothing.

[hughee99]

47. I agree that it's not much

and I don't think that Reid did anything wrong in the deal, from a legal standpoint. The only issue that I can see is that if Reid became a partner in the LLC in 2001, he should have reported it to the ethics committee at the time. While it may have been an oversight on Reid's part, the quote from the Senate ethics rules (if it is correct) indicates that Reid was supposed to disclose this information. Am I wrong in thinking this?

[CreekDog]

48. But was it really a transfer?

But over at DailyKos, they were saying that if you move a piece of land to an LLC and the owners and share of ownership doesn't change, then it's not treated as a transfer by the IRS and apparently by most people.

This is different than Reid becoming a partner in Circus Circus, for instance, or even giving up land to become a partner in a different LLC that had nothing to do with the original property.

The answer to your question is that the Ethics Committee will decide what should have been done, Reid has said he will abide their decision and that will clarify the rule.

So, we won't know the correct answer until we hear from them.

[hughee99]

49. I guess my concern about the transfer of ownership issue is this...

"Reid isn't listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's corporate filings with Nevada, even though the land he sold accounted for three-quarters of the company's assets. Brown is listed as the company's manager. Reid's office said Nevada law didn't require Reid to be mentioned in the filings."

If the land didn't change ownership, then essentially, Reid put his land in an LLC, but still controlled it (since he was the majority partner). Reid's name, however, was not listed anywhere on Patrick Lane's filings, so basically, under the flag of Patrick Lane, Reid could potentially make all sorts of deals while keeping his name out of it. I don't think Reid had any nefarious motives behind it, but I see this situation as having the potential for abuse.

I can picture some senate repuke (call him Sen. A-hole) taking a large amount of privately owned land (lets say $10 million dollars worth) and putting it in an LLC with an existing partner with whom they own $100,000 worth of land. The repuke is given a share of the LLC equal to their contribution, so Sen. A-hole own basically 99% of the LLC. The filings are all done in the name of the guy who owns the 1% (call him John Smith), and nowhere does senator A-hole appear to be connected with this LLC via legal filings. John Smith, the company's manager, can go out and make whatever kinds of deals he wants (with senator A-hole's approval) whether shady or legitimate, and Sen. A-hole's involvement can be almost completely covered up (at least until he takes profits from it, which may not until be after he leaves the Senate). If no one is aware of Sen. A-holes involvement in the LLC, then no one may be looking for a potential conflict of interests if some piece of legislation benefits the LLC, and if he takes the profits after he leaves the Senate, no on may care enough to make an issue out of it.

[CreekDog]

43. Comment 41, pay attention please

The land became part of the LLC and Reid held the same ownership of the LLC as the original land. No transaction, no change in value.