Democrats......do as I say, not as I do.


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.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

Kent Cooper, a formerFederal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."




Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 14, 2006
So good luck Republicans you will fail again.
Just as the democrats always fail to get Bush?
on Oct 15, 2006

S1Genocide:  How could he have disclosed ALL his dealings if on one hand he sold his interest in the land (which he did disclose) but then either retained partial interest in the event of the land being sold (which he didn't disclose), or he was simply given over a million dollars for no apparent reason.  He either retained interest or he didn't.  Which was it?

and btw, since when is it legal or ethical for a congressman to use his influence to get zoning laws changed or ecology regulations lifted?  Doesn't it seem kind of odd to you that he recieved the profits from a sale when the ONLY reason the land value went up was after he got those details changed?

Doesn't it seem wierd to you that, after he sold his stake in the land back to his partners for NO profit at all, he then was somehow entitled to ALL the profit of the sale, years after he divested himself of it?

 

Of course not, because he has a D after his name, therefore he can do no wrong in your myopic little eyes.  tell me, are you authorized a "handicap tag" for your car?   Or are you even too blind to drive?

 

3 Pages1 2 3