CBS, ABC ignored FBI raid of Weldon associates in corruption probe; NBC ignored key difference between Weldon raid and Reid land deal
SUMMARY: Evening news programs on ABC and CBS made no mention that federal agents raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) daughter and her business partner, as well as four additional locations, as part of a reported investigation into whether Weldon improperly assisted their company. NBC's Nightly News did report on the raids, but NBC devoted equal time to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's announcement that he would issue updated disclosure forms to add more details of a land transaction, without noting a key difference: There are no allegations that Reid used his office to benefit from the land deal.
Of the three major network evening news programs, only NBC's Nightly News reported on October 16 that federal agents raided the homes of Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) daughter and her business partner, as well as four additional locations, as part of what The New York Times described as an "intensifying corruption inquiry" into whether Weldon improperly assisted their company, Solutions North America Inc., in the procurement of lobbying and public relations contracts. The October 16 broadcasts of the CBS Evening News and ABC's World News Tonight made no mention of the raids. The Times reported that the investigation into Weldon concerns whether he "misused his official position to help his daughter's company obtain lobbying contracts from foreign clients and helped steer contracts to favored firms."
While the Nightly News did cover the raids of Weldon's daughter and her partner, correspondent Chip Reid devoted equal time to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's (NV) announcement that he would issue updated disclosure forms reflecting more details of a land transaction. An October 11 Associated Press article first reported that story, asserting that Reid made $700,000 "on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years" and that "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." While NBC noted that investigators are trying to determine whether Weldon "used his position as a congressman" to assist the company owned by his daughter and her partner, its report did not note that, in contrast, there are no allegations that Sen. Reid used his office in any way that might have affected the value of his land, as Media Matters for America has noted.
From the October 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Three weeks to go now till the midterm elections, and tonight the FBI has raided the homes of a Pennsylvania congressman's daughter and those of a close friend in the midst of a close fight for re-election. NBC News correspondent Chip Reid, with us from Capitol Hill tonight for this latest wrinkle for the Republican Party. Chip, good evening.
REID: Well, good evening, Brian. FBI and federal law enforcement sources say that they're looking into whether Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Curt Weldon used his position as a congressman to help obtain lucrative lobbying contracts for an old friend and for his daughter. Today the FBI searched six locations in that investigation in Philadelphia and in Florida, including Weldon's daughter's home. Weldon denies any wrongdoing, but this could not possibly have come at a worse time for him, because he is in the toughest fight for re-election he has ever had. Brian.
WILLIAMS: And, Chip, let's talk about Harry Reid of Nevada. The top Democrat in a story that continues to follow him.
REID: Well, Harry Reid had this real estate deal. Eight years ago he bought land for $400,000, then sold it six years later. Made a $700,000 profit. His critics have said he violated Senate rules because he did not fully report it on his Senate financial forms. Last week, he said, hey, he'll fix the forms if he has to. Today he decided to jump ahead before the ethics committee gives them an answer and to amend those forms and give the full story. He still insists that the deal itself is perfectly legal. Brian.
WILLIAMS: All right. Chip Reid with that update from Capitol Hill tonight in Washington. Chip, thanks.
He probably had the debunked Reid story included, and deliberately had it juxtapositioned next to the real and serious Weldon story. Or it could have been the producers or a joint decision. But anyway, the media is still trying to equate less serious Democratic issues with much more serious and major Republican scandals. As as I posted here before, this is the same Brian Williams who used to write fan letters to Richard Nixon when he was a child. I read this somewhere a few years ago.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
By saying he wrote letters to Richard Nixon.
In fact according to the National Archives he wrote letters in 1996 to LBJ.
Stop the partisan attacks on Brian Williams.
[link to newsbusters.org]
on his 1996 letters to LBJ?
Surely the 1996 thing was just a typo?
MMFA is absolutely correct, omission of information is not recommended. Why isn't there any mention that Reid used campaign funds for Christmas bonuses? But now he's returning the money, even though his "lawyers" said it was OK............uh, Hello - he got caught.
Reid is one of the problems with America today.
Partisans are the biggest threat to America.
We need a 3rd party and we need to get rid of Republicans and Democrats who use power for their own personal wealth gain or power.
A third party would be a welcome "step up" from all the partisan bickering and backhanded deals done by both major parties today. They are really not that much different from each other anymore.
In their eyes, it's all about how to get power, how to regain power, how to retain power, and do whatever necessary to keep the other guy away from power.
Kick them all out!
Pass a rule that nobody related to a Congressman or Senator can be a lobbyist or be granted government contracts during the term of office or for 5 years after the term has expired.
Pass another rule that only individuals can give money to an election campaign. Every dollar has to be accounted and anything left over has to be returned.
No more PACs. No more corporate contributions.
Peg congressional pay to be equal to the income wage earner. If a congressman wants to earn more, have himself up as a charitable donation. $25 limit per person.
This has been kind of fun.. I can think of more, but you get the idea. ;-)
First sentence of paragraph four should read.. "Peg congressional pay to be equal to the median income wage earner."
Sorry for the confusion.
Make it $5 per person.
I have advocated a couple of them for years. Also end Congressional pensions and put them in Social Security program and Medicare.
Whaddaya think this country is meant to be, egalitarian?? LOL. Seriously, I agree. Only if they experience "our pain" will they understand what shape America is really in. Say, like having to send their kids to Iraq? Having THEIR pay pegged to min. wage? I don't think we could do much worse that what we have now, if the counterargument is we won't get the talent. First, really bright people go into business, to make a fortune and to avoid the revelations, true or not, of the imaginary (or not) skeletons in their closets. I would rather have an honest person of lesser "intellect" than than a sharp one that is only out for him/herself. But, sadly, civic duty is history. Social consciousness is history. It's all about money and power, not protecting our great country and its citizens.
Corruption in the WH will only stop once we cut off the corporate contributions. I don't know about you but I think individual funding to a campaign will limit the power that corporations have over our government.
will leave a big advantage to republicans. no corporations, fine. and what kind of [even bigger] idiots are we going to get by limiting congressional pay to that of the average wage earner?
That's the major issue with the elected officials seems like not very many of them feel like they are accountable to the electorate.
The party in control right now wears this non-accountability on their sleeves like a badge of honor.
Its too bad that the duopoly of the Dems and Repubs have our system under such control that third parties never seem to maintain any true viability.
That being said it seems to me that this Reid business is much ado about nothing - at least he didn't use his congressional position to facilitate that land deal - unlike some Republicans.
Accountability - when you get caught doing something wrong you own up to it and accept your fate - not this "Oh!! look over there, that guy took a piece of candy from the candy bowl and didn't tell anybody!" Meanwhile you're cleaning out the silverware cabinet...
But I do believe it is on record that Reid used his position to encourage the land swap.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
No do I see how that would work. The land swap was actually a deal he made with a friend of more than 30 years. They had adjoining plots and put them together into a limited partnership which I understand is a sort of tax manuever. Why Reid would need to use his office to encourage a deal with a longtime friend I dont get.
I did some googling about this Harry Reid stuff and (not surprisingly) depending on where you go, the story changes - He gets painted in a negative light on right-wing media sites (as well as the reporter who did the story for the AP has supposedly tried to smear Reid in the past).
It seems like other news sites just repeat the AP article vs giving any further details.
I ended up on the TPMmuckraker to get a better explanation.
here's a link: [link to www.tpmmuckraker.com]
... In the deal, Del Webb and Perma-Bilt purchased environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe area, transferred them to the government and then got in exchange several pieces of valuable Las Vegas land.
Lessman was personally involved, writing a March 1997 letter to Interior lobbying for the deal. "This exchange has been through many trials and tribulations ... we do not need to create any more stumbling blocks," Lessman wrote.
For years, Reid also had been encouraging Interior to make land swaps on behalf of Del Webb, where one of his former aides worked.
In 1994, Reid wrote a letter with other Nevada lawmakers on behalf of Del Webb, and then met personally with a top federal land official in Nevada. That official claimed in media reports he felt pressured by the senator. Reid denied any pressure.
The next year, Reid collected $18,000 in political donations from Del Webb's political action committee and employees. Del Webb's efforts to get federal land dragged on.
In December 1996, Reid wrote a second letter on behalf of Del Webb, urging Interior to answer the company's concerns. The deal came together in summer and fall 1997, with Perma-Bilt joining in.
In January 1998 -- just days before he bought his land -- Reid applauded the Lake Tahoe land transfers, saying they would create the "gateway to paradise."
None of Reid's letters mentioned Perma-Bilt. Reid's office said the senator never met Lessman nor discussed the Lake Tahoe land transfer or his personal land purchase. A real estate attorney handled the 1998 sale at arms-length, aides said.
"This land investment was completely unrelated to federal land swaps that took place in the mid-1990's," Manley said.
[link to www.cnn.com]
Personally I am big on protecting environmentally fragile land. Reid is not as liberal as I am. However unless someone is somehow linking this Del Webb land swap with Reids buying and selling of his land. I dont see how it can possibly be construed as Reid using his office for personal gain. What I have read said specifically he paid market price for the land. Unless more comes out it doesnt look like Reid did anything wrong, much less using his office in the way it appears Hastert did.
It may be perfectly legit but...
1. Reid lobbied on behalf of the property being "swapped".
2. He then soon after buys the land adjacent to the swapped land with his partner.
3. He then "sells" his land to his partner in the LCC deal and didn't report it, which is a violation to Senate Ethics reporting rules.
4. His partner's consultant petitioned to change the zoning from single home dwelling to commercial using Reid's name to garner influence with the zoning board
5. The property is then sold the day after it was rezoned (I do believe,) to clear a 275% profit which in this case was $700,000.
Like I said, it may be legit, but just as in Hastert's deal, and come to think of it, Hillary's insider trading too, it stinks of insider influence and profiteering.
it is a very common thing to do to minimize tax liabilities...i.e. to "transfer" ownership. If he sold it, then why would he continue paying property taxes on it. Secondly, to compare it to the Hastert deal is illogical. He did not use his public office for private profit. You stated that the company's consultant was name-dropping to impress the zoning board. That may be so, but it is a far cry from Hastert's earmark. Moreover, he didn't do it himself, nor did a staffer.
I'm not quibbling or comparing with Hastert's profiteering. That one also sounds lousy to me.
I do believe, (and correct me if I'm wrong,) that Reid's transfer of property to the LLC is technically and legally a sale.
I understand he still paid some taxes on it. However the non reporting of it's legal transfer is an ethics violation.
I think you'll agree with me that Reid made an absorbant amount on this deal and he did use the influence of his office to get the original land swap approved. So it is evident that he used his office for private gain.
Again, I'm not trying to excuse Hastert or shift the blame. I think both deals smell to high heaven. If that is business as usual in Congress and the Senate, then those politicians are even more corrupt than I imagined.
Not uncommon, if there is a note and deed of trust because the seller wants to protect his security and avoid a tax default. Don't know the particulars of this deal, but there is always more than meets the eye, particularly early in the news cycle.
It was a swap for interest in a Limited corp the assets of which were the land. This is a tax manuever. He got no money, the land was still his, whether or not this constitutes an ethics violation is disputed, if so its a technical violation at worst. And not one story I have seen has even HINTED that he used his office to increase the value of his land or for anything else. Now Las Vegas real estate is booming and it was in the late 80's the amount of profit he got is pretty much what land speculation in Las Vegas gets you. No one has denied that he paid market value for the land when he got it nor that he got MORE than market value when he sold it. Still no hint of using his office.
how you can say that when there is written proof by his letters in support of the swap that he helped get the land.
It is not really so hard to see.
I'm not quibbling with the fact that he did it legally. However it looks to me to be about as much as an insider deal as you'll find. I mean after all, why would he be buying this particular land.. is it a coincidence? It strains at credulity and really looks like a payoff if you ask me.
As a side note.. This land deal took place in the mid 90's. I think he bought the land in '97 and sold it in early '98. (please correct me if I'm wrong.)
These politicians are getting rich by using their power and influence to engineer land deals where they buy and sell land at enormous profits. To not admit this is burying one's head in the sand.
In order to buy the land and make a deal I would look at it differently. You say it looks like as much of an insider deal as you can get even though he PAID MARKET VALUE FOR THE LAND, and GOT MARKET VALUE FOR THE LAND. Land swaps happen here in Arizona all the time. Sometimes they are funny, and I am suspisious other times they are legit. To me federal land near Las Vegas being swapped for land near Tahoe seems reasonable on the face of it. The Tahoe land to me seems a better use of federal land. Land near a large city as opposed to scenic land near a beautiful lake in a forrested section of Nevada. Perhaps you are right but so far I still havent seen anything more than inuendo. Show me no public benifit from the original swap. He speculated, buying and selling at market value. It will take more than showing he made money on the deal or that the land used to be federal land to show wrongdoing. He bought it from a private party. It looks more suspect with the information you have provided than what I originally read. It is still not showing using his office for personal gain.
. . . because so many opportunities hit their desks before the general public's. And, I guess that's partially why some "swear" and "promise" to run only twice, and then renege. The money is just too tempting. It's not for the people, it's for themselves and their families. It's out of control. Personally, I would love to see limits on campaign donations -- simply because it is only PEOPLE who vote, and if a bill, or a party or an issue is good for a company, then let the workers and stockholders vote with their pocket books. Corp financing (and unions, too, and I was a 25 yr union man) are polluting the process. But the Supreme Court has upheld many of the tricks because they are "constitutional." We need legislation to close that gigantic loophole, but it will not happen in my lifetime. Only PEOPLE should be able to contribute, and even the, on a level playing field (ie, limits).
We need some REAL politicians, we have been lacking in them for quite some time. We need people who wont pander with thier base and instead will serve the PEOPLE. We need people who care about us, not the special interests.
NO parties. There should be no political parties, period. This groupthink and mob mentality is what's destroying our system. Elect people based on their positions, not their "team". Enough of party officials trying to keep their own people "in line".
Run elections like the playoffs, you need X number signatures to run, one election to cut it to 16, one to cut it to 4, one to select the winner. Nuke the electoral college, because it makes any needed changes (even as simple as a third party) next to impossible. Speaker of the House and Senate Leader (and anything else actually required once there are no parties) can be elected through their respective bodies.
Pigeonholing people into two ideological boxes is beyond stupid. Not all Democrats support abortion rights. Not all Republicans support the war. While adding a third party will just create a new set of stereotypes, a no-party system will allow everyone to view candidates based on what they actually stand for, free of outside pressure, without the preconceived notions. And people wouldn't feel forced to support an idiot that happens to belong to the same party, the way many Repubs are doing right now.
no Vice Presidential candidate. The winner of the Presidential election is President, the second place vote getter is Vice President. It worked for awhile, lets try it again.
That could certainly be part of it, absolutely. The whole problem with that in a party system was that it makes an added incentive to impeach (or assassinate) the President, since the VP is from another party. That's less likely with a Dan Quayle or Dick Cheney next in line.
As I picture it, the top four would choose their own VP's, presumably from candidates who didn't make it to that "round". Even without parties, major ideological differences would create the same problem, especially among radicals who obsess over that issue, anti-abortionists for example.
Sounds good -- the people vote (get rid of the electoral college system!@!) and the majority wins the Pres. The second-most popular gets VP. So, if the Pres. dies or whatever, the country will get the person next most popular. It isn't that the VP has any power, but it IS latent. Having a Nixon-Agnew-Ford, or a Bush-Cheny-Hastert thing again scares the daylights out of me.
And what would make this miraculous new party incorruptable? It seems ultimately more responsible to join the party that more closely represents your views and work from within to improve it. Can you imagine if all those Naderites in 2000 had delivered their vote to Gore? They would have a much more sympathetic ear to their 'Green' concerns in the halls of power, probably no war in Iraq and possibly even no 9-11. And because they showed that they can deliver a significant vote the party would feel the need to address their concerns to keep them on board. A party is made up of the people who belong to it. Just sitting outside beliving yourself to be so clean because you're not a part of the system is just selfish and irresponsible. Childish even.
when the people Tom Delay was supposedly being judged by (the 'Ethics' Commitee, LOL) were shown to have taken big, big bucks from PayDay Delay? Humm? Gosh, they gave it back so it must be OK, right? Of course this is not like Harry was bribing a commitee to find in his favor, or doing anything more then rewarding pworking people who did good work for him during the year, and yeah it looks like it came from the wrong account. Like, OMG, I am so going to be upset over that!
But of course you, like the other neo-cons HATE HATE HATE the working guy...
hahaha..
Nice rant. However, I always said, if Delay is guilty, hang 'em high.
But then again, by your last sentence that little fact wouldn't mean anything to you.
I find it ironic that people like you can write such hateful generalizations toward others about hate.
When you get back to earth, you take a look in the mirror Ziggy. ;-)
Brian Williams said that Rush Limbaugh deserves his "due" as a broadcaster and that he admires him, and he used a quote from Rush Limbaugh in an opening segment on a former Vice-president of the United States of America making a speech about sending young American men and women into harm's way. He did this about an Al Gore speech from September or October of 2002. Rush Limbaugh has even said that Brian Williams is the "go-to" guy for conservatives and Republicans when it comes to the evening news. Williams seemed genuinely annoyed after Katrina, but it seems he fell back in line just like many others who briefly behaved as actual journalists for a little while in late 2005.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
It must have been really hard for him to write letters to LBJ in 1996, considering that LBJ died in 1973. By the way, I said that I read it somewhere, I can't remember where, and if that is not true, then okay. But see my other post about him talking about admiring Limbaugh and quoting Limbaugh out of nowhere next to Al Gore when it is completely irrelevant and about Limbaugh calling him the go-to-guy at the news. I think Media Matters for America might have even done a piece on the last one.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
NJ Guy93 , I meant 1966 when Williams was 6 years old not 1996 it was a typo.
Bottom line is dont smear the guy as being a republican. I think Williams is by far one of the most fair anchors on TV today and it showed with his Katrina Courage.
it's not hard. Try Google, they're a "search engine" that can find relevant information on the "internet". I googled your claim that b-williams sent letters to nixon: all that came up was a mediamatters post by a person called NJGUY93 about global warming and b-williams. This poster claimed that b-williams wrote a letter to nixon. Hmm, maybe you "read that" in your own mind.
Other returns on this search are that b-williams wrote a letter to LBJ in 1966, when he was 7 years old in which he referred to himself as "one of your young democrats" (not verbatim). Another return stated that b-williams "fretted over the 'patriotism police'" and referred to Pres Carter as the best former Pres in the past 200years.
I don't think the guy sounds like a raving right-wing republicon. Don't watch the nightly news, but have seen him on J-Stewart and he is funny and doesn't act like one of the right's reactionary fascists. Perhaps you confused Dick-Nix and lbj over their atrocious records in Nam and recalled the humourous slogans of the peaceniks: "hey, hey L-B-J how many kids did you kill today..."
I said that I had read that comment a few years ago. I think it might have been on an internet message board. I admit I should have checked that one out more since an Internet message board is obviously not the best source for information. Sadly, it is not the worst either. There are worse sources for information than an Internet message board, such as FOX NEWS, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. However, the other things that I said about Brian Williams are absolutely true. I dont know what his politics are, but I am just pointing those things out. If Brian Williams had said that he admired Al Franken, you and others would probably be criticizing him for that. If Brian Williams had used a quote from Al Franken from out of nowhere about a speech by a former Republican Vice-president of the United States regarding his or her opposition to a sitting Democratic President sending young American men and women into harm's way, I'm sure that you and others would be outraged. If Al Franken had said that Brian Williams was the "go-to-guy" for liberals and Democrats for the evening news, you and others would have been outraged. Also, I said that I give credit to Brian Williams and other journalists who briefly shed their fear of being called liberal or unpatriotic or whatever in order to, at least briefly, report accurately on the horrors that Americans witnessed in the days and weeks following Hurricane Katrina.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I was just checking up on what you wrote, and then showed that my findings tended to refute what you wrote.
I too sometimes argue by saying "I read this somewhere", hoping that it is true, and hoping no one catches me if it isn't.
However, if Al Franken endorsed B-Williams as the "go-to guy" in the MSM, I would listen to him b/c Franken's great. Not everyone who criticizes you is a Republicon nut-bar. In fact, that I am not a rightwingnut should have been more than clear in my previous post which ridiculed "Republicon rightwing reactionary fascists". Also, just b/c I made fun of LBJ's record ("hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today") doesn't make me a Nixon supporter, or someone who opposed everything Johnson did. In fact, LBJ brought the US out of the middle ages, and helped the country live up to its founding ideals (or move the country further towards living up to its founding ideals rather)...the whole: "we hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men (ummm....women?) are created equal"...except for gay people because just the thought of same-sex marriage is icky. Some day the US will join modernity and agree with Canada's greatest prime minister (Pierre Trudeau...dated Barbara Streisand when she was sexy...Nixon hated him and put him on the black list with other dangerous subversives like Paul Newman...also there are rumours of a CIA assasination attampt) that "the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".
Evil is in charge in Washington, D.C. Satan rules over the United States as he once did in Pergamum. This ongoing wickedness is stunning in its depravity and such is only exceeded by its scope of selfishness. In America, where its salivating evil and wickedness has already spent over $300 Billion to slaughter and torture Iraqi and Afghani human beings, men, women, and children, disabled Americans can't get prosthetic limbs so as to be able to work and feed their families. Evil devotes money to lurid religious prostitutes, filthy harlots, based upon loyalty to Satan's party of choice--the GOP! See her sitting on a scalet beast, with her cup, having a Grand Old Time? I say, let God's angels commence to slaughtering all the wicked! Hand these over to the ruel ones for America has become a cesspool of corruption and evil and its media turns a wicked eye and its people are becoming exceedingly violent and cruel with one another. America the Wicked, the Home of Evil reigns over all the earth. Sig heil!
Where is Pergamum? That's a new one for me.
Perganum: An ancient Greek city and kingdom of western Asia Minor in modern-day western Turkey. It passed to Rome in the second century B.C. and was noted for its sculpture and its library, which Mark Antony gave to Cleopatra
Thanks for the reference. I was a bit too tired last night to look it up myself.
I know this is off topic, but I wonder why that city was singled out as one that Satan ruled?
Again, I am a bit too lazy to go find the answer myself.
:-)
you'd be fun to hang out with.
That should read no one denies he paid market value for the land nor CLAIMS he got more than market value when he sold it.
it's so wrong for a politician to help advance their own kids' lobbyist careers.....it's not like Reid's kids are lobbyists that lobby their own dad, right?.....what?...they are?.....they do???
nevermind!!!
anotheramerican, unless you have actual proof of impropriety on sen. reid's part, all you have is smoke, with no fire.
as a cpa, who specializes in fed tax law, based on the facts and circumstances, sen. reid did nothing illegal or unethical. the LLC is a legitimate tax vehicle, what we in the biz call a "flow through" entity. his transfer of property to it, solely in exchange for an equity interest, was not a sale, and no recognized gain/loss. again, done all the time, perfectly legitimate.
he wouldn't have owned the property subsequent to the exchange, because the law mandates that all title and interest in it be transferred to the LLC. what he did own was an interest in the LLC. hence, he wouldn't have ever reported a sale of the property, the LLC would have.
what he should have reported is his pro-rata share of the net income/loss of the LLC, on his 1040. there is no evidence that his return was prepared and filed in anything other than a proper and timely fashion.
he didn't sell his land to his partner, as you assert, it was transferred to another legal entity, for no gain or loss. no reporting required.
that his partner's consultant used sen. reid's name in the rezoning petition is also meaningless, unless you can show that reid knew about it and approved. so far, nothing. of course, people do this all the time too, usually to someone's embarrassment.
that the property was sold the day after rezoning was approved is also no big surprise. most likely, the contract was in place, with that as a contigency clause. again, happens all the time. unless you have evidence of undue influence on sen. reid's part, or money changing hands, this is even less smoke.
reid didn't clear a 700k profit, the LLC did. he had to report it on his tax return, and pay taxes on it, but i don't know that he even got the proceeds. there is no formal requirement that the LLC actually distribute the proceeds to the shareholders.
further, if the property was sold for 1.1 million, he didn't even get 100% of the profit, he had to share that with his partner. again, pro-rata allocation.
weldon's case is far different, it strictly involves what would clearly be not only unethical, but illegal. of course he didn't report it, that would be silly.
that said, i'll wait for the resolution of the investigation, before reaching a conclusion.