So, Harry, what's the real deal?
Many believe that Harry has a vested interested in the execution of the raid of the Bundy Ranch. There is much speculation as to what is really going on and whose palm is being greased. Well here is a nugget from USA published in 2006. Apparently, Harry has a naughty history.
From USA Today 10/11/2006 "Reid's business dealings show:
•The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought
undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for
about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel
jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was
benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller
never talked to Reid.
•In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price
to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't
disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he
had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress
that he personally owned the land.
•After getting local officials to rezone the
property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to
other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly
tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a
personal land sale.
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer
ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company
without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly
three years later.
Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.
The senator's aides said no money changed hands
in 2001 and that Reid instead got an ownership stake in Brown's company
equal to the value of his land. Reid continued to pay taxes on the land
and didn't disclose the deal because he considered it a "technical
transfer," they said.
They also said they have no documents proving
Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding
between friends.
The 1998 purchase "was a normal business
transaction at market prices," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "There
were several legal steps associated with the investment during those
years that did not alter Senator Reid's actual ownership interest in the
land."
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.
Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure
reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election
Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to
Brown's company violated Senate rules."
No comments:
Post a Comment