I'm sure Dingy Harry is near the front of the line to give George Allen (R-VA) a good going-over for his supposed ethical lapse in reporting on some stock options.

As noted, Democrats are the party of do as I say...

 

I'm still waiting for the news cycles to really catch up on who *really* sat on the Foley scandal and then leaked it out as an October surprise.  I'm gonna love seeing it turned back around on the Democrats when the same people they are seeing flocking to them in the opinion polls go running away from them because of their sleaze.

Dingy Harry is not an honorable man.  He already screwed his constituents, so he has no qualms about doing it to the rest of the nation.

Reid must resign!

I'm still waiting for the news cycles to really catch up on who *really* sat on the Foley scandal and then leaked it out as an October surprise. I'm gonna love seeing it turned back around on the Democrats when the same people they are seeing flocking to them in the opinion polls go running away from them because of their sleaze

this account has a definite feel of authenticity. if it isn't the whole story, i'm guessing it's really close.


harpers/silverstein

more to the point of this article, i'm not sure whether we can believe even a single word uttered by ap or its msm comrades (such as the washington post which seems to have devoted a lotta space and effort to covering the story).

for sake of discussion, let's stipulate this might be that one-in-a-hundred exception to the post's usual pack of lies, i tend to agree with this guy.

"Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale and that his omission fits a larger culture in Congress where lawmakers aren't following or enforcing their own rules.

"It's like everything else we've seen in last two years. If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said."

ap exclusive/washington post

it's just more deplorable fall-out from that culture of corruption spread by delay, ney, abramoff, norquist, etc. the same culture of corruption you've keep pretending you can't see.

(altho i don't know for sure, i'm guessing brand really is/was a democrat; for all its faults, msm sources aren't the ones who keep misidentifying party affiliation but those paragons of truth and fairness: fox news and newsmax.com)

Dingy Harry is not an honorable man. He already screwed his constituents, so he has no qualms about doing it to the rest of the nation.

I'm one of his constituents so your full of it. And we will vote him back in. Thank god he has 6 year term and there is nothing you right wingers can do to remove him.

September 2, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the legalization
of marijuana use. I appreciate hearing from you.

Federal law currently prohibits the cultivation and possession of
marijuana for any use, including medical reasons. The Supreme Court ruled
earlier this year that these federal prohibitions supersede state laws
that authorize the medical use of marijuana, including Nevada's.
Accordingly, patients who use marijuana for medical purposes can be
prosecuted under federal anti-drug laws, regardless of state laws that
allow the practice.

There is no legislation pending before Congress that would broadly
legalize marijuana for recreational use. However, Representative Barney
Frank (D-MA) has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives, the
States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (H.R. 2087), that would directly
allow individual states to regulate the medical use of marijuana. H.R.
2087 is under review in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Additionally, the House considered related legislation (H. Amdt. 272 to
H.R. 2862) on June 15, 2005 to prohibit federal funds to be used to
prevent 9 states, including Nevada, from implementing their state laws
authorizing the use of medical marijuana. This amendment failed by a vote
of 161-264.

I noted your support for the broad legalization of marijuana. Should
pertinent legislation be considered in the full Senate, please be assured
that I will keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

October 17, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of John Roberts to
the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.

One of the most important constitutional obligations I have as a senator
is to scrutinize the President's nominees to the federal judiciary. The
stakes for the American people could not be higher.

I believe the Senate should only vote to confirm a nominee to a lifetime
seat on the Supreme Court if we are absolutely positive that the nominee
will protect constitutional rights and freedoms of all Americans. The
question of whether John Roberts should be confirmed was very close for
me. I resolved my doubts in favor of Nevadans, whose rights would be in
jeopardy if he turned out to be the wrong person for the job.

While I like Judge Roberts and respect his legal skills, I was concerned
by memos he prepared as a young lawyer in the Reagan Administration which
raise questions about the nominee's approach to civil rights. These memos
lead me to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil
rights struggle. Judge Roberts wrote about discrimination as an abstract
concept, not as a flesh and blood reality for countless of his fellow
citizens. The memos raised a real question for me whether their author
would breathe life into the Equal Protection Clause and the landmark civil
rights statutes that often come before the Supreme Court.

I was disappointed that Judge Roberts failed to repudiate these memos in
his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In this and other respects,
the nominee failed to answer questions in a full and forthright manner.


I was also concerned by the refusal of the Bush Administration to release
certain documents which Judge Roberts prepared as Deputy Solicitor General
in President George H.W. Bush's Administration. The Senate has a right to
all relevant materials in considering the nomination of a man who will
serve as Chief Justice for many years.

I reluctantly concluded that this nominee had not satisfied the high
burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the
current record. When his nomination was considered by the Senate, I voted
no. Nonetheless, the full Senate voted to confirm Judge Roberts by a vote
of 78 - 22 on September 29, 2005. Judge Roberts was sworn in as Chief
Justice the same day.

October 21, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Iraq pre-war intelligence. I
appreciate hearing from you.

On May 2, 2005, a British newspaper published a secret July 2002 memo
relating to pre-war intelligence. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has
circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter signed by over 88 members of the
House of Representatives. Rep. Conyers is encouraging an investigation
into the accuracy of the memo, and intelligence gathering before the Iraq
war. I am closely monitoring this situation, and should intelligence
reform legislation come before consideration of the full Senate, you may
be certain that I will keep your concerns in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

October 28, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding the estate
tax. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, the estate tax is imposed on estates in excess of $1.5
million per individual and $3 million per couple. Over the next few
years, the exemption levels will increase to $3.5 million per individual
and $7 million per couple as a result of the Economic Growth and Tax
Reconciliation Act of 2001. In 2010, there will be no estate tax. After
2010, however, the estate tax will be reinstated at the exemption levels
and tax rates that were in place prior to 2001.

The President has proposed permanently extending repeal of the estate tax
beyond 2010. Permanent repeal of the estate tax will increase the federal
deficit by $1 trillion over the first ten years that it is fully
effective. At a time when the federal government is running record
deficits, this loss of funding would undermine efforts to address the
needs of every American. In addition, we must ensure that we fully fund
the recovery of the Gulf Coast and care for victims of Hurricane Katrina
before we consider tax cuts of this magnitude.

I support reforming the estate tax by establishing a consistent set of
rules on which families can rely. I recognize that the current state of
the law is untenable and makes estate planning difficult, if not
impossible. Senators are currently negotiating on a bipartisan compromise
measure to keep the higher exemption rates established by the 2001 tax
cuts, while providing relief to the overwhelming majority of small
businesses and family farms. Please be assured that I will keep your
thoughts in mind as these negotiations continue.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

October 30, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for impeaching
President Bush and other administration officials. I appreciate hearing
from you.

As you may know, the impeachment process provides a mechanism for the
removal of the President, Vice President and other federal civil officers
found to have engaged in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors." The Constitution places the responsibility and authority of
determining whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the
hands of the House of Representatives. The House has not drafted any
articles of impeachment against President Bush and I am not aware of any
intention for it to do so.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

November 9, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for eliminating the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. I appreciate hearing your
thoughts on this subject.

As you may know, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is run by
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Since its inception
in 1998, ONDCP has spent more than $1 billion dollars on multi-media
advertising and public communications. As you note, the results of this
advertising are questionable. Legislation (H.R. 2829) has been introduced
to reauthorize the ONDCP. It is currently being considered by the House
Subcommittee on Health.

In the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations bill for the Transportation,
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development Departments, the Senate
recommended $95 million for the Media Campaign, a decrease from last
year's funding level of $120 million. A joint House-Senate conference
committee is currently working out differences between the versions of
this bill, so this amount is subject to change.

Please be assured that I am committed both to reducing drug use among
America's youth and to ensuring that tax dollars are spent in effective
and efficient ways. Should I have the opportunity to consider the ONDCP
reauthorization, or other measures relating to the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, I will keep your views in mind.



Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

November 10, 2005
Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me about the need for election reform. I agree
with you, and I appreciate hearing from you.

A fundamental premise of democracy is that every vote is counted. The
2000 and 2004 presidential elections revealed that it is more important
than ever to ensure that elections are issued in a fair and standardized
manner.

I believe that one important step in this process is to ensure that there
is a verified paper voter record in order to maintain voter confidence.
For this reason, I cosponsored the Voting Integrity and Verification Act
(S. 330) introduced by Senator John Ensign on February 9, 2005. This bill
would clarify Congressional intent with respect to the permanent paper
record and voter verification provisions of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) of 2002. Each voting machine used for federal elections will be
required to produce a voter verified permanent paper record.

In addition, I cosponsored the Democracy Begins at Home Act (S. 17)
introduced by Senator Chris Dodd on January 24, 2005. This legislation
would require states to have an early voting period of up to fifteen days
prior to a federal election to enable more voters to have access to the
polls. S. 17 would also establish a commission to investigate making
election day into a national federal holiday.

I noted your support for H.R. 550, the Voter Confidence and Increased
Accountability Act introduced by Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ). H.R.
550 would amend the Help America Vote Act to require a verified paper
record of voting. This legislation also allows the Elections Assistance
Commission to conduct random hand counts of voter verified paper trails at
polling places. Currently, H.R. 550 has been referred to the House
Administration Committee. Should I have the opportunity to consider this
legislation in the Senate, you may be certain that I will keep your strong
support in mind.

In the 2004 election, Nevada was the only state in the union to have the
electronic voting system in place statewide. Additionally, there was also
high voter turnout in Nevada as a result of its early voting initiative.
I am pleased with the success Nevada experienced during this election, and
I am hopeful that in the future, all states will be able to implement
similar procedures to increase the efficiency and accuracy of voting
nationwide.

Please be assured that election reform is a priority for me in the 109th
Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find fair and
effective ways to encourage voter participation, and ensure that every
vote is counted.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

November 15, 2005
Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the federal
government's budget priorities. I appreciated hearing from you.

Earlier this year, Congress approved a budget resolution calling for cuts
of at least $35 billion over five years to mandatory spending, while
providing $70 billion in tax breaks. Many of these spending cuts are
likely to adversely affect Americans with the greatest needs, while many
of the tax breaks would benefit special interests and the elite few. In
my view, these are the wrong priorities for our nation and America can do
better. That is why I strongly opposed the budget resolution and will
continue to oppose the priorities that it established.

It is clear that Congress faces difficult choices in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Early estimates indicate that federal
spending to aid disaster victims could top $200 billion, leading some
members of Congress to discuss proposals to pay for disaster relief.
Although eliminating wasteful spending should be a priority, I believe
that we should not finance the vital and necessary hurricane relief and
reconstruction efforts by cutting important programs on which hurricane
survivors and other vulnerable Americans rely.

As we move forward in the relief and rebuilding process, please be
assured that I will work to find effective solutions that are both
compassionate towards disaster victims and fiscally responsible.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID
United States Senator

November 15, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bush Administration's use of
pre-war intelligence and my decision to move the Senate into closed
session to discuss this vital national security matter. I appreciate
hearing from you.

The recent indictment of Vice President Cheney's
Chief-of-Staff Scooter Libby has provided a window into the operations of
the Bush Administration. The investigation lends further credence to the
charge that the White House misstated and manipulated intelligence in
order to sell the war in Iraq, and then sought to destroy anyone who
challenged them.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most
significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.
Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force against
Iraq on the basis of information provided by the Bush Administration and
the intelligence community. It is now very clear that the
Administration's claims, especially its assertions about Saddam Hussein's
nuclear weapons capabilities and his purported links to Al Qaeda, were
flawed and inaccurate.

When these failures came to light more than two years ago, I joined nearly
forty members of the Senate in sending a letter to President Bush that
posed a series of specific questions on the Administration's handling of
pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Unfortunately, our efforts to get answers
to these questions fell on deaf ears. Similar requests were made to the
Senate Intelligence Committee. Although Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), the
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, publicly agreed to investigate the
Administration's use and abuse of intelligence nearly two years ago, he
refused to permit the committee to carry out this promise.


Inaction on this important national security matter is simply
unacceptable. With more than 150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq mired
in an intractable war, our troops and the American people deserve to know
whether this Administration manipulated the intelligence on Iraq in an
effort to convince the Congress and the American people to support its
call to war. When it became clear that neither the Bush Administration
nor Congress would provide these answers, I decided to use the Senate's
rules to force a closed session. I am happy to report that after two
hours of private deliberation, Senator Roberts and Senator Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV), the Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, formed a plan to
move forward with the investigation. A bipartisan group of six senators
will report their progress on November 14, 2005.

At the end of the day, I believe Congress has an obligation to oversee the
actions of the executive branch, particularly those as consequential as
the decision to go to war. I am hopeful that this agreement will produce
the kind of oversight and answers our troops and the American people
deserve.

I will always put the interest of Nevadans above politics as I continue to
fight for accountability from the Administration. I know that together,
we can do better.


S1Genocide 327 days ago, in response to Message #1
November 18, 2005

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito
to the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.

The President nominated Judge Alito on October 31, 2005, following the
withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination. I was impressed with Ms. Miers,
who had served as the managing partner of a major national law firm and as
the first female president of the Texas Bar Association. I was
disappointed that she was not afforded an opportunity to present her
qualifications at a Judiciary Committee hearing. Apparently, Ms. Miers
did not satisfy those groups who want the President to pack the Supreme
Court with rigid ideologues.

I am concerned about Judge Alito's nomination for many reasons. Unlike
previous nominations, this one was not the product of consultation with
members of the Senate. Senator Leahy (D-VT) and I had written to
President Bush urging him to work with us to find a consensus nominee.
The President has rejected that approach.

This appointment also ignores the value of diverse backgrounds and
perspectives on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen a man to
replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of only two women on the
Court. For the third time, he has declined to make history by nominating
the first Hispanic to the Court.
Justice O'Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting
individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court. The stakes in
selecting her replacement are high.
Please be assured that I have noted your views on this subject. As I have
throughout my career, I will carefully review all testimony and pertinent
information. Only then will I make a decision about Judge Alito's
nomination. I will do so with utmost care, keeping the views of my
constituents in mind.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Dear Mr. Rossi:

Thank you for contacting me regarding torture and the treatment of
detainees. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, I voted for Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to
both the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) and the
2006 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1042). Specifically, the
amendment prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment
to persons under the custody or control of the U.S. government, and would
establish standards for the interrogation of persons under the detention
of the Department of Defense. The Senate overwhelmingly supported the
McCain amendment during consideration of each bill.

The Bush Administration, however, has launched an effort-led by Vice
President Dick Cheney-to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from these
standards. Furthermore, the White House has threatened a veto if this
provision remains. I am hopeful that the President will change his mind
on this matter, and allow this amendment to become law.

I do not believe that torture is appropriate. We must abide by the
international standards for the humane treatment of detainees, including
the Anti-Torture Convention, of which the United States is a signatory.
Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For
more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States
Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues
that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future

I hope you enjoy us kicking out Sen John Ensign (R) The real curropt mother and Jon C Porter (R) out of power in Nov. for voting with Bush 90% of the time.

I'm one of his constituents so your full of it. And we will vote him back in. Thank god he has 6 year term and there is nothing you right wingers can do to remove him.

I guess that makes you the stupid one then. Nice debating style. Insult first and then dont debate.

I guess that makes you the stupid one then. Nice debating style. Insult first and then dont debate.

Yeah and If you knew the real story on CNN. You would know Harry Reid is letting the Ethics committee investigate him and giving all his records. He always allows people to investigate him when he thinks he made a mistake. AND I posted my correspondence showing he listens to constituents. Unless your from Nevada you need to shutup! Your the one who said he doesnt listen to his constituents are you from Nevada? Have you ever written Him? I think NOT! He always Listens to his constituents both the left wingers and right wingers. Same with Jon C porter (R) but because porter votes with Bush 90% of the time and John Ensign for forcing Yucca mountain on Nevada after every state legislator said no to Yucca Mountain and after Texas and Arizona both asked for the nuke vault for the job growth were kicking them out of office.

Unless your from Nevada you need to shutup! Your the one who said he doesnt listen to his constituents are you from Nevada? Have you ever written Him? I think NOT! He always Listens to his constituents both the left wingers and right wingers. Same with Jon C porter (R) but because porter votes with Bush 90% of the time and John Ensign for forcing Yucca mountain on Nevada after every state legislator said no to Yucca Mountain and after Texas and Arizona both asked for the nuke vault for the job growth were kicking them out of office.

I'm a one of his constituents too and I even voted for him.

But I'll never vote for the guy again. Genocide, you may want to think that he will be reelected, just give up the dream. Many people in this State voted for him because he was telling use during his campaign that he would be "Independent like Nevada", hoping that he would stop all the bitter party politics going on at that time. It was a claim that was very believable then. He was considered a Moderate at the time, he was generally a peace maker too, his views on the reform of social security, immigration and pro-life are now used almost word for word as talking point for the Republicans stance. But after he became Minority Leader, he suddenly changed his view 180 degrees and has started to march lockstep with the Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. Which is a shame, because I really did like him before that. If you don't believe me, you can ask some of the other JU people around here, and they can tell you that I defended the guy in the past before the last election. It's my personnel belief that aliens kidnapped him. He will lose his seat to the outgoing Governor Kenny Guinn this next election. If you don't believe me, then you’re living in a dream world, or spending to long in Las Vegas. If you want to bet, let say a dinner in the restaurant of the winner’s choice.

I have also e-mail him too, and received the same form letters, no matter what I wrote.

As for Yucca Mountain and Sen. Ensign, he has never voted for it. So please don't be misrepresenting his views.WWW Link

Sorry Islanddog for changing subject, my next post will be on subject.

The whole thing about money going between a Corporation and Reid is going to get knocked down quickly. The Republicans have not served the real red meat yet. I think they are waiting for a week before the election to nail Reid. They will not release the good stuff to early, like the Democrats did for Folley.

The real story is that Reid's son Rory was the Clark County Commission Chairman. The very same Commission that overruled the County Planning Commission that refused the original rezoning request of Reid’s land.

Also lets not forget the Law office of "Lionel Sawyer & Collins", who happen to employ four of Reid's sons, legally represents the joint Reid’s Corporation that requested the rezoning too.

If you want to read a couple more things about what has been happening while Reid was head of the Wildlife Committee that sold off the Government land in the first place, just read this LA Times article:WWW Link

The real story is that Reid's son Rory was the Clark County Commission Chairman

One Note:
I can not confirm that he was the Chairman in 2003, but all articles have him as Chairman in 2005.

We already knew Harry as a liar and a thief, so now we see that he's not above taking bribes and kickbacks. What a total scumbag.

It does make me wonder though.... did he pay tithing on his illegal kickback?