What's the matter with Harry?

[BT]

Sen. Reid should look in mirror first


Published on: 10/13/06
 
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would be well advised to stop thundering about corruption in the Republican ranks or crying "cover-up" over the GOP's failure to promptly and appropriately deal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and his sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages. Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others.

Currently, he's trying to explain a land deal in Nevada on which he made a pile of money and which may not have been properly disclosed. When the property was sold in 2004, it belonged to a company formed with a long-time friend and included a parcel that once had been owed by Reid. Despite having transferred his parcel to the company, the Nevada Democrat continued to report in Senate documents that he still owned it personally. That's a breach of Senate disclosure rules, according to the Associated Press, which first reported the transaction details.

Reid is now considering whether he should amend his disclosure statement.

Two months ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that Reid had smoothed the way for a campaign contributor and friend to develop a huge tract of land northeast of Las Vegas. Reid tried twice — before he was successful — to get a utility right-of-way moved from the proposed development site onto public land.

The first effort stalled because of objections from the Bureau of Land Management and others that the developer wasn't going to pay anything for a deal that would greatly increase the value of his development site. Eventually, it was determined the developer should pay the federal government more than $10 million.

Then there are the free boxing tickets Reid took from the Nevada Athletic Commission. The panel was hoping to block formation of a national boxing commission; Reid favored one.

Only after the Associated Press reported this summer that Reid got the expensive tickets did the senator decide he would no longer accept such gifts.

Unfortunately, Reid's ethics meter only seems to work when it's too late.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/10/12/1013edreid.html

[sirs]

I don't expect we'll have any of our liberal democrat friends demanding his resignation anytime soon, will we?  I mean, it's not like they advocate higher standards, now do they.  Gotta keep that blatant double standard in order

[domer]

Reid broke no law, unlike Foley's intrusive rumblings about the anatomy of pages, nor like Ney, DeLay and Cunningham, all charged or convicted of corruption or other law-breaking, nor at all like the seedy Republican pustule the Abramoff scandal revealed. I mean, come on, Reid did nothing substantively wrong. Rather, he made a mistake on a Senate disclosure form, which itself did not becloud the character of the transaction he was reporting. This is nothing more than making an honest mistake on one's tax return. Do you really want to make that the standard of propriety in public life?

[Amianthus]

Reid broke no law, unlike Foley's intrusive rumblings about the anatomy of pages,

Which law did Foley break?

[sirs]

Reid broke no law, unlike Foley's intrusive rumblings about the anatomy of pages,

Which law did Foley break?

Good question

Domer?

[BT]

Domer,

You are correct that not crossing th et's on finanial disclosure forms should not be the kiss of death for a poltician.

However the democrats have positioned themselves as the party of moral superiority and as such should hold themselves to the same high standards they hold other less worthy persons like Newt Gingrich, who was brought up on ethics charges for the same offense.

Reid also is hip deep in the Abramoff affair concerning the Mariana Islands. This issue, as Mikey pointed out, had the unintended consequence of  children being allowed to act as sex workers in bars frequented by military personnel. Mikey was aiming his shotgun at Dennis Hastert. Perhaps Reid will also be hit with some of the buckshot spray.

Somehow it just doesn't seem right to claim no foul when persons of your own political persuasion are noted as being tarnished yet scream heinous crime when the opposition is indicted for the same offense.

[Mucho]

Domer,

You are correct that not crossing th et's on finanial disclosure forms should not be the kiss of death for a poltician.

However the democrats have positioned themselves as the party of moral superiority and as such should hold themselves to the same high standards they hold other less worthy persons like Newt Gingrich, who was brought up on ethics charges for the same offense.

Reid also is hip deep in the Abramoff affair concerning the Mariana Islands. This issue, as Mikey pointed out, had the unintended consequence of  children being allowed to act as sex workers in bars frequented by military personnel. Mikey was aiming his shotgun at Dennis Hastert. Perhaps Reid will also be hit with some of the buckshot spray.

Somehow it just doesn't seem right to claim no foul when persons of your own political persuasion are noted as being tarnished yet scream heinous crime when the opposition is indicted for the same offense.

There is nothing wrong with Harry except what dwells in the deluded minds of hypocritic fools:

http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264714&

He is willing to do far MORE than required instead of covering up shirking and lying like Repubs do.

[Amianthus]

He is willing to do far MORE than required instead of covering up shirking and lying like Repubs do.

Except, of course, when he's caught breaking the law.

[sirs]

Except, of course, when he's caught breaking the law.

D'OH

[Mucho]

Except, of course, when he's caught breaking the law.

D'OH

Once again  Tweedledum & tweedledummer prove they either can't read or think . Both of those phoney issues were addressed in his letter that I posted. The land deal was never against the law . The small campaign issue of $3300 is being handled:
>Finally, I have acted today to respond to another issue some plan to raise. I have sent a personal check in the amount of $3,300 to my political campaign to fully reimburse the campaign for donations it made over several years to the employee holiday fund in my apartment building. 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. The donations came from my campaign – no taxpayer dollars were ever involved.


>“When the campaign first donated to the holiday fund, its experienced lawyer William Oldaker advised us that such donations were permissible. The campaign's current lawyer, Marc Elias, says the same thing. Nonetheless, 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.”<
I bet you guys say D'oh a lot.

[BT]

If paying personal expenses out of campaign funds were legal, and his legal advisors said it was, why did he reimburse the campaign?

Makes no sense to me.

[Plane]

  This is another example of makeing a mountain of a molehill.


    Which is a good way for a person to make his liveing if he works in Washington D.C.

[Amianthus]

The small campaign issue of $3300 is being handled:

If you steal $3,000 worth of stuff from a store, then give them a check for $3,000 when you're caught, you're still guilty of theft and will go to jail.

[R.R.]

"There is nothing wrong with Harry"

Well, except all that money he made on dubious land deals with shady investors.

[Mucho]

"There is nothing wrong with Harry"

Well, except all that money he made on dubious land deals with shady investors.

I actually do not give a rats ass about Harry. Bu what he did is peanuts compared to thee total corruption, graft and perversion that you guys are engaged in. Comparing Harry to the current Repub scum is rather like comparing a lie about a blow job to lying US into war. Oh- you already did that.