Why has CNN devoted 50 times as much coverage to Harry Reid's land deal as Dennis Hastert's?
From October 12-17, CNN aired 3,361 words about allegations that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) improperly reported a land deal in which he made $700,000.
Seventeen different CNN transcripts in the Nexis database include mention of the Reid land deal -- and that doesn't even count October 18, when CNN has aired at least one more lengthy segment on the deal.
By comparison, CNN has aired only 65 words about a land deal in which House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made nearly $2 million, a story which was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on June 15. By contrast, the Reid land deal first broke a week ago, when the Associated Press reported on October 11 that Reid had made $700,000 "on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years."
Hastert's property appreciated in value after he earmarked taxpayer funding for a highway near the property -- but only two CNN transcripts contain any mention of Hastert's land deal, for a total word count that is one-fiftieth the number of words CNN has devoted to the Reid story. And 65 words is an extremely generous count -- it includes a vague reference made in passing by Democratic strategist and pundit James Carville.
CNN has never -- not once -- told viewers the central allegation of the Hastert controversy: that Hastert profited after winning federal funding for a highway that increased the value of his property. As Media Matters for America has noted, that is a crucial difference between the Reid and Hastert controversies: Unlike Hastert, Reid is not alleged to have taken official government action that led to his profit. Yet CNN has devoted extensive coverage to the Reid deal, while virtually ignoring the far more serious allegations against Hastert.
|
Hastert |
Reid |
|
|
Highest-ranking member of the body in which he serves? |
Yes |
No |
|
Member of party that controls every branch of federal government? |
Yes |
No |
|
Profit on land deal |
$2,000,000 |
$700,000 |
|
Evidence he took official action that increased the value of his investment? |
Yes |
No |
|
CNN transcripts mentioning controversy |
2 |
17 (and counting) |
|
Words CNN has broadcast about the controversy |
65 |
3,361 (and counting) |
Lying thieves.
Throw every incumbent out and we will be able to clean up Govt.
>>>"Reid and Hasert are both Scum ... Lying thieves"<<<
On a previous thread, just today, you scolded another poster by telling them, "You smear just as much as Hannity and Morgan do."
Echoing what you said in that instance, "too bad you don't take your own advice."
Whats they hypocracy?
Reid and Hasert are lying thieves.
You are the hypocrite if you believe differently.
>>"Whats they hypocracy?"<<
You accused another person on this board of "smearing", then you proceeded to smear Hastert and Reid by calling them "scum" and "thieves".
Of course you're entitled to opinions like that, but then who are you to criticize others?
The Reid deal was entirely legitimate, the Hastert deal was not.
Look closely at both deals and you will find that what Reid did was entirely legal and entirely ethical,
while Hastert pushed thru legislation that made him millions on land he bought prior to the legislation.
Evidence he took official action that increased the value of his investment? Hastert, yes. Reid, no.
Any questions?
don't the democrats want warrants for surveillance? haven't the republicans tried to use that fact against them? more of your generalized "they're all the same" b.s.
Which side their bread is buttered on. How many of their top executives bought new summer cottages or yachts with their tax cuts?
Why, CNN is just a little player, Nerzog. They even ran their own expose (wonder how you do an accent mark in a post ;) ) of the big five with "global reach" - Disney, News Corporation, Pepsico, Sony, and Viacom at [link to www.cnn.com]
Columbia Journalism Review, on the other hand, says Time Warner is "the largest media company in the world." [link to www.cjr.org]
Who ya gonna believe? You don't really think Time Warner wants to keep Republicans in office just so they can reap (letters noticeably also spell rape) the benefits of deregulation and re-monopolization of the world, do you? You aren't some kind of Tennessee cynic, are you? Aren't you going to join that 70 percent in East Tennessee that still think Bush is God while 70% of the rest of the country thinks he is a crooked moron?
The media is liberal and hates Republicans. Come on, Media Matters, you should know better than that.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
This is something that should be looked at. Hastert made three times as much as Reid and he used his office in order to make the much larger profit. I think the media is still so deathly afraid of being attacked by individuals like Bozell and Hannity and them sending the message to their troglodyte followers to be annoyed at the media that they try to grasp for straws and this is one straw that they seem to be holding onto even though they shouldn't.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
That's sixty-five words too many, CNN! You should know better! You're the Clinton News Network, and you should be reporting lies about Republicans.
Err, what's that? Oh, umm . . .
Nothing to see here! Move along!
And I still hear idiots claiming that it's a "liberal media" . . .
...if you compared the Reid scandal to the Foley scandal?
From Brent Bozell: CNN stood out as especially pathetic. On CNN's "American Morning" the day after the Reid story broke (and nearly two weeks after Foley resigned), they aired 18 minutes of Foley stories and 35 seconds on Harry Reid. On "The Situation Room," Wolf Blitzer quarantined the Reid story to little dribs and drabs heavy on Reid protesting his innocence. Meanwhile, CNN was devoting minutes to more substantial stories, like Arnold Schwarzenegger joking on "The Tonight Show" that connecting him to Bush was like connecting him to an Oscar. Toxic Bush -- now that's Blitzer-tickling news.
[link to townhall.com]
It deserves more coverage, both for what it was and how it was covered up by the Republican leadership.
And hundreds more died in Iraq this month....where's the coverage?
I still remember when the troglodytes used to say that back in the 90's.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
of every single transaction I have had with LLCs. I have been a commercial real estate attorney for 15 years.
It is absolutely unbelievable that the AP would not contact a real estate attorney about these "strange" deals.
There is nothing unusual at all. Sounds like Whitewater all over again. Is this the sign of things to come when the Dems take back Congress? Idiotic investigations of land deals that are perfectly legal??
I don't think the scandal is that the LLC is illegal.
It looks to me that their appears to be a cover up by Reid to hide his connection to the land deal. It is apparant that he used his influence to help a developer, then helped engineer a landswap. In the mean time Reid gained campaign contributions from this devloper. Once the land was swapped Reid bought the land from the developer he helped. Hid his involvement by transferring ownership to an LLC that did not have his name associated with it. Then profited $700,000 from the sale of the land.
There is a whole string of unethical behavior. While the LLC may be legal, it is unarguable that Reid used his position to profit personally.
He was supposed to, and he didn't.
If you'd looked at the reports he filed with the Senate, you'd mistakenly think he still owned it outright -- not through the LLC.
That's not very effective hiding.
But it ISN'T apparent. It's apparent that he made a shady(?) land deal, but he didn't use the power and authority of his office to do it. He could have made the exact same deal if he hadn't been a politician.
Hastert, however, used his office, and the authority given to him by the people, to commit his crime.
They pissed off whenever a Democrat turns a profit.
Snarky comments aside, if you think what Reid did in this land deal is ethical then you must think the same for Hastert?
they're not the same. reid didn't specify the government was to spend 207,000,000 dollars to build a highway right by his property.
Hasert used his office and taxpayer money to increase the value of his property.
Are you claiming that Reid did the same? Apparently you are, since you're asking why they are not equal. So, how did Reid use his powers of office to enrich himself in this deal.
Reid, though he transferred ownership to the LLC, reported the property AS HIS, reported the proceeds of the sale AS HIS.
He didn't hide his ownership, he didn't hide his profits when sold.
So, what, exactly, are you alleging that Reid was trying to hide with the LLC transaction?
He was saying that Chris Matthews was liberal and the usual garbage. Now he says that about Wolf Blitzer. Give me a break. Blitzer let Condoleezza Rice get away with a bunch of stuff when he interviewed her last week. Media Matters did a great piece on that. There really is nothing to cover with the Reid land deal because there really is nothing there. There's no "there" there, to use a famous phrase. Bozell knows this, he is just being a misleading ass as usual.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I understand that he may have not reported the investment on his forms, yet I don't hear anyone suggesting, or showing any connection to his sway as a Senator?
It's as though Democratic Leadership is not allowed to make a good investment. If a Republican made a lot of money and did not have it on a form, they would correct it, and brag about how they make such good investments without using their office for their benefit.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
If you haven't seen anything showing Reid using his influence and position for financial gain, apparently you don't read.
From the AP: 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.
...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.
----------
Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members -- and in exchange, Reid did a number of favors that allowed Whittemore to realize large profits at the expense of environmental regulations that Reid helped Whittemore bulldoze.
What did Reid get in exchange for all of this support? According to the Times, Whittemore contributed $45,000 to Reid and his PACs since 2000. He also gave the DSCC $20,000 in 2000, when it pushed Reid as a leader for the party in the Senate. Reid's son Josh got $5,000 for his unsuccessful campaign for a city council seat; his other sone Rory got $5,000 for his successful effort to win a spot on the Clark County Board of Commissioners.
This appears to be of a piece with the Whittemore connection. In fact, it seems as though Whittemore's project was part of the transactions the AP discovered. "One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported" -- that's the same project as Coyote Springs. A major portion of that story had to do with Reid trying to grease the skids for the land swap so that Whittemore could get around the federal right-of-way.
[link to www.captainsquartersblog.com]
you certainly provide evidence that reid is up to the same tomfoolery of every politician, which is incontrovertibly despicable. nevertheless, as i pointed out yesterday, your narrative does not show any impropriety regarding this land deal. in fact, yesterday, you claimed that reid "sold" his property to a limited liability company and did not disclose this. as i stated yesterday, he "transferred" ownership to this llc. moreover, as our astute commercial real estate attorney informs us, in an earlier post, this deal is completely legitimate and is akin to any 'normal' deal he has seen in his 15 years of experience.
Thanks for showing us some of reid's dirt, but stop trying to assert , based on no evidence, that reid's land deal is scandalous.
by never telling the government that he sold it to an LLC.
That's like cleverly hiding your stash from the po po by putting it on your dashboard.
I have never argued the LLC wasn't legal.
However it is incontrovertable that Reid broke Senate ethics rules in not disclosing this land sale. (I know you characterize it as a transfer, but I do believe it is still a sale.)
The whole deal smells to high heaven. I've listed the reasons earlier. Reid got caught using his position to line his pocket. Kick the bum out.
You've got to stop saying that! He DIDN'T use his office, or his authority, to do this deal. He lined his pocket the way that most business people do, and he could have done the exact same deal if he weren't a politician.
anotheramerican / Wednesday October 18, 2006 03:39:53 PM EST
Whitmore and Reid have been friends and business associates for 35years, I come from Las Vegas and lived there from '77 to '97 and have seen those attempts to paint Harry a crook, and it never stuck. If Harry Reid was a dirty politician he would be outed and gone years ago.
Face it, Senator Harry Reid is the gangster bashing, corporation fighting, honest man he has allways been from when he was Chairman of the Gaming Commission, to Attorney General, to Governor of Nevada.
Turning property interests into a company investment of a LLC is done thousands of times every day in Nevada to minimize taxes, it's a perfectly legal loop hole that is a cottage industry in Nevada, and would make every politician in Nevada a crook including Senator John Ensign, the idiot.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady Dan Grady
you clearly don't udnerstand real estate, or accounting.
reid didn't "sell" the land. it was being held by an LLC and he was compensated for it's value upon that transfer. that was 400,000 in 2001.
in the meantime, the property was not reid's liability as far as asset values, property taxes, etc. the omision on his reporting to congress was a mistake and it has been corrected.
then, the company sold the land for 1.1 mil. that reflects a fairly predictable increase in it's value. it must have been part of the exchange that he would share in those profits, though i have yet to see the details of how much $$ actually went into reid's bank account. he very well could have offerred the LLC the opportunity to use the land as an asset for collateral on a loan or something.
what he did was perfectly legal, smart financial accounting and asset management. there is no scandal or ethical abuse.
his mistake on reporting the land in his routine filings was a clerical error. there was nothing deliberate or malicious about it - HE HAD NOTHING to gain by lying about it.
Reid profited $1.1M on a sale of land he hadn't owned in years?
Let's break that down - Reid paid $400K, the land sold for $1.1M. That's $700K profit. Get your facts straight.
Reid didn't own the property? True. The LLC owned the property. Reid owned a share of the LLC equal to the value of the property. The LLC's value was derived strictly from the property it held.
So... Reid owned a share of the company that owned the property equal to the value of the land. When the land was sold, Reid didn't get the proceeds from the sale, the LLC did, and Reid happened to own that share of the LLC.
Let's be factual here. The long and short of it was that Reid ,DID own the property, through an ownership vehicle that was the LLC.
If you want to split hairs and say that the LLC owned it, that's great. The LLC also profited from the sale of the land, not Reid.
What Reid did was profited from his ownership stake in the LLC.
Far from trying to conceal with his reporting, Reid actually clarified the relationship by just stating that he was the owner of the land, and that he reaped the profits of the sale (which he did report) since that, in fact is what happened.
I had to laugh when I looked at the chart comparing Reid to Hastert.
MMFA wrote: Highest-ranking member of the body in which he serves?
I guess MMFA wants us to think Reid is a back-bencher? Well, except for a few uninformed around here, everyone knows Reid is Senate Minority Leader... So he's the highest ranking member of the Democrats in the Senate.
The highest ranking Republican would be the Vice President who I do believe, (and correct me if I'm wrong), is President of the Senate. Reid's counterpart, is Dr. Frist, the Senate Majority Leader.
A similarly valid comparison would be for MMFA could ask, Who represents more people? Duh.. that would be Reid. (Do you see the ridiculousness?)
MMFA wrote: Member of party that controls every branch of federal government?
I find that almost as funny. Is MMFA that ignorant about our government? I would guess there are 9 Supreme Court Justices might disagree that they are controlled by the Republicans!
(Of course I am sure some of you will try to tell me different. Save your breath. I know the process.)
Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.
Works. There is NO comparison between the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader in the Senate. The Speaker is third in line of succession according to the 22nd amendment and has considerable power. How far down that list before you get to the Minority leader? I think the Secretary of Agriculture comes before him. The Minority Leader in the Senate while a powerful pol is not even CLOSE in comparison. That is simple FACT.
You and your friends are arguing about something with which I never disagreed.
I know the order of succession. That is immaterial to this discussion. MMFA didn't compare who is first (or third) in line to succeed the Prez if he should no longer be up to the job?
The comparison I cited by MMFA is laughable. Hastert being Speaker of the House and Reid being Senate Minority Leader has nothing to do with either scandal except both Hastert and Reid are leaders of their party in their respective chambers.
Both have profited unethically. Please don't hitch your horse to something so silly as trying to defend MMFA on this. I feel you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
You can have the last word. I made my point.
I guess MMFA wants us to think Reid is a back-bencher? Well, except for a few uninformed around here, everyone knows Reid is Senate Minority Leader... So he's the highest ranking member of the Democrats in the Senate. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That is what I was commenting on Sparky
The relative influence of the two men is not what the article is about. MMFA is alleging that CNN is showing bias because they haven't run as many lines on Hastert as Reid.
I will argue this has more to do with the fact the Hastert allegations have come to light more recently than the Reid allegations, which have been smouldering for some time.
I will also claim CNN is , by itself, relatively unimportant. Their market share is about half a million distinct viewers a day. [link to www.stateofthenewsmedia.org] Far less than FOX and very much less than the combined broadcast news.
Much more important is the overall media exposure these cases have garnered, and in that, Foley got an order of magnityude more negative attention than either Reid or Hastert, and , contrary to the false impression MMFA might like to create, Reid has received only about 1/3 more negative attention from the aggregate media including cable, broadcast, print and the web, not the 50 times number CNN is accused of.
Reid is not. Neither is Cheney.
An objection over nothing. Nothing new from AA.
It seems that you are one of the few uninformed. Harry Reid is not the highest ranking member of the body in which he serves. He is the highest ranking member of his party in the United States Senate. Dick Cheney is the highest ranking member of the body in which Harry Reid serves, since as Vice-president he is President of the United States Senate. Dennis Hastert is the Speaker of the House, there is no one higher in the U.S. House than the Speaker. The majority of judges in the judicial branch were appointed by Republicans, same as the Supreme Court, where 7 out of the 9 justices currently serving were nominated by Republican presidents. Funny how conservatives and Republicans love to talk about the overbearing judiciary but seem to conveniently leave that fact out.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I don't know why your are calling me uninformed when you are just repeating what I wrote above.
Go back and reread my post, "MMFA can be pretty silly" and tell me where I said anything about Cheney, Hastert, or Reid that conflicts with your statements regarding these politicians' respective positions.
Thank you.
CNN spent 50x as long as the Hastert deal and STILL haven't managed to accurately inform the public.
The more you watch, the stupider you get.
the Hastert malfeasance has been exhaustively discussed by CNN and the Reid deal inaccurately discussed by CNN?
Is that your assertion?
If not, just what do you think about the coverage of the Hastert deal?
I was quite dismayed seeing the lead-in to the Congressional corruption story just on "The Most" (between 3:30pm and 3:50pm today). While you were quick to lead with the discussion about Sen. Reid's land deal, at no time did you reveal that Sen. Hastert is charged with having profitted from action he took on the Senate floor. His profit was projected to be almost 3 times the profit Sen. Reid was to have made.
CNN apparently refuses to tell its viewers that Sen. Hastert profited after winning federal funding for a highway that increased the value of his property. A crucial difference between the Reid and Hastert controversies is that unlike Hastert, Reid is not alleged to have taken official government action that led to his profit.
Why, therefore has CNN has devoted extensive coverage to the Reid deal, while virtually ignoring the far more serious allegations against Hastert? When do we get information about Hastert's deal from CNN?
"The Most" is MSNBC. Allison Stewart, the woman who used to fill in for Keith, right? A shame if she's pulling this same crap.
From [link to www.captainsquartersblog.com]
Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members -- and in exchange, Reid did a number of favors that allowed Whittemore to realize large profits at the expense of environmental regulations that Reid helped Whittemore bulldoze. I wrote at the time:
The story of Coyote Springs sounds like a Horatio Alger story. The land Whittemore bought in 1998 from a defense contractor who intended on using it for target practice had a number of restrictions on its use. A quarter of it was subject to a federal power-line right of way. Another quarter had federal protection for the desert tortoise, an endangered species that also is Nevada's official state reptile. The land had a fragile series of streams and washes that required special permission on which to build without ruining the desert's ecosystem.
None of these obstacles proved too difficult for Whittemore, at least not while he had his friend Harry Reid running interference in Congress. Interior refused to relocate the tortoises for over five years, until the Bureau of Land Management agreed to swap the land for another parcel abutting a federal preserve elsewhere. No one ever did an analysis to determine whether the deal was fair to either party, nor did the BLM go to Congress for approval on the changes to a project that Congress had explicitly legislated.
In 2002, Reid worked on the power corridor. He inserted obscure provisions into a land management bill that relocated the power corridor, freeing Whittemore to build on the 10,500 acres that Congress had previously held -- which means that someone else now had to lose property value for Whittemore's benefit, and for no cost whatsoever. That bald move caused raised eyebrows at the BLM and the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Reid backed away -- for the moment. Less than two years later, Reid tried again to give Whittemore the land for a song ($160,000), but Congress balked again. He finally settled for freeing the land for development and allowing Whittemore to buy it at a fair market rate, and forcing the government to relocate the power corridor.
In 2005, Reid and fellow Nevada Senator John Ensign conducted a series of interventions with the EPA to eliminate the final obstacle -- the environmental impact on the fragile ecosystem in Coyote Springs Valley. When the agency blocked Whittemore's efforts, Reid and Ensign held several meetings with EPA officials to pressure them into submission. Whittemore used another Reid son, Lief, to lobby his father's office for assistance. In the end, the pressure paid off, as the EPA backed down from its opposition after winning a few concessions on the development plan.
What did Reid get in exchange for all of this support? According to the Times, Whittemore contributed $45,000 to Reid and his PACs since 2000. He also gave the DSCC $20,000 in 2000, when it pushed Reid as a leader for the party in the Senate. Reid's son Josh got $5,000 for his unsuccessful campaign for a city council seat; his other sone Rory got $5,000 for his successful effort to win a spot on the Clark County Board of Commissioners.
This appears to be of a piece with the Whittemore connection. In fact, it seems as though Whittemore's project was part of the transactions the AP discovered. "One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported" -- that's the same project as Coyote Springs. A major portion of that story had to do with Reid trying to grease the skids for the land swap so that Whittemore could get around the federal right-of-way.
Hitsite without a smidgeon of credibility. Please what is next Newsmax? Worldnutdaily?
You are exactly right to point out the disparity in coverage but the Hastert land deal stinks even more than your description implies. Norm Ornstein and I wrote a piece on Hastert's land deal for the New Republic last week.
His profit was actually $2.5 billion. On the portion of the land he bought at the time he purchased his new house he made a $2.14 million profit on a $359,000 investment that he held for just 40 months--that is nearly a 600% return with an average annual rate of return of 179%.
The second investment involved $258,000 of Hastert's money which he held for 22 months and collected a profit of $366,000--a 142% return with an annual rate of 77%. Blended the two investments got a whopping 136% rate of return.
Poor Harry Reid's $400,000 produced only $700,000 in profit despite the fact that he held it for six years. That is an annual return of only about 29%--probably about the same as any one who owned land in Las Vegas during that period.
Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be involved in politics.
Scott Lilly Senior Fellow Center for American Progress
After all, $2.5 Billion would be so obscene that it might even make (some) Republicans question Hastert's honesty.
Thanks for the insight, and please keep coming back.
October 16, 2006 -- SENATE Minority Leader Harry Reid's ethics woes continue to mount. An Associated Press expose shows that Reid pushed through changes in federal law that helped the senator get rich - via complex land deals with a lobbyist who's also tied up in a federal bribery case.
Reid has now told the Senate Ethics Committee that he'll amend his past disclosure statements to for the first time cover the business relationships that AP has exposed. But he calls the amendment "technical" - which suggests it won't explain why his original "disclosures" misled the public on the nature of a partnership that made him a $700,000 windfall.
It isn't the first time Harry Reid's ties to real-estate developers have caused people to question the senator's ethics.
Back in August, the Los Angeles Times exposed Reid's questionable involvement and compensation in another Nevada real-estate deal. Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist and real-estate investor, had plied Reid with campaign contributions and employed Reid's family members. The senator, in turn, helped Whittemore bulldoze through a host of environmental regulations in developing a huge parcel outside Las Vegas, to profit in the tens of millions.
What Reid failed to disclose was his 2001 transfer of ownership of two parcels of land to Patrick Lane LLC - an entity in which he was partnered with one Jay Brown.
AP notes that Brown is a lobbyist, with reported links to organized crime. And he figures prominently in a federal criminal case - which concerns the bribery of members of the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission by developers seeking changes to permit retail development on land they owned, vastly increasing its value.
As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.
Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with "protecting the environment.")
Normally, the government would have to sell this land at auction, as land swaps had lost the federal government millions in southern Nevada. But Reid insisted on suspending that rule in his Clark County act. The developers that hired his sons as lobbyists prospered with the lower-cost acquisitions of prime real estate through the uneven swaps. Also in the money were those - like Harry Reid himself - who'd already invested money in Clark County real estate.
The L.A. Times revealed the Reid family's extensive connections with Clark County developers in June 2003, as well as Reid's extensive legislative interest in the land, but the Brown-Reid investment had not yet come to light - thanks to Reid's failure to disclose.
Had the investment been known, voters could have made the connection. The Senate Ethics Committee might have taken an interest as well - except that Harry Reid himself sat as the top Democrat on that panel.
Disclosures now are pointless. The ethics panel needs to order a full investigation not just into the $700,000 profit, but all of Reid's business partners and any legislation or intervention with federal regulators Reid pushed on their behalf.
[link to www.nypost.com]
is about as reliable as the Drudge Report. Oh, yeah, they teamed up before, didn't they? Clinton?
On the other hand, if their reporting is accurate and not another of their slimecasts, I would expect CNN to be discussing the same information about the Coyote land deals, either to authenticate or repudiate the allegations.
None of that excuses the short shrift given by CNN to Hastert's dealings.
Speaking as a knee jerk left winger, I remain unhappy with the handling of the corruption issues by my party's leadership. Congress is the ultimate glass house; anybody that throws a stone in there is begging for trouble. Let the Republican record shout for itself...but I'm afraid "it's too late, she's come undone."
Even w/ documented proof by way of research, rightwingers can't seem to grasp words in front of their eyes. Media Matters is 100% correct, Hastert's land deal was set up by his influence in congress, by way of regulations controlled by republicans. The Chicago Times also documents most of the facts, rightwingers sto p the trip down the de-nile, CNN has not reported half what the Times has in chicago.
in critical thinking - otherwise you couldn't write something like this:
"It looks to me that their appears to be a cover up by Reid to hide his connection to the land deal. It is apparant that he used his influence to help a developer, then helped engineer a landswap."
You have absolutely no basis for thinking that. It's not just Senators that use LLC's, and their function is not to "hide connections." The connection was right out there. He told the ethics committee that he bought the land, then that he sold the land. He gave them plats. He gave the full details of the transactions.
Of course, Republican law starts from presuming Democrats guilty. If you can't see any basis for saying that, make stuff up.
On the other hand, the Hastert story was meticulously researched.
[link to www.sunlightfoundation.com]
You'll note there's reason to think that maybe -- just maybe -- Hastert actually changed legislation, and in the process made himself $2 million.
If you can point to any influence that Reid exerted to increase the money he made in a booming Las Vegas real estate market, please come forward. Otherwise, you got nothin'.
What's all this racket? The BS alarm is ringing again!
google:
"Dennis Hastert land scandal" Results 1 - 10 of about 646,000 for dennis hastert land scandal. (0.12 seconds)
"Mark Foley sex scandal" Results 1 - 10 of about 8,830,000 for Mark Foley Sex scandal. (0.36 seconds)
"Harry Reid land scandal" Results 1 - 10 of about 895,000 for Harry Reid land scandal. (0.13 seconds)
At fist glance, a better question is: Why did the media devote an order of magnitude more attention to the Foley story, which contains not one scrap of illegality, than to either the Reid or Hastert stories, whose actual content is as yet unresolved.
In the matter of fairness, it seems the coverage of Hastert and Reid is near equal, allowing for the relative freshness of the Hastert story. Indeed, considering how fresh the Hastert story actually is compared to the Reid story, there is a good chance their hit rates will be near equal 12 months from now.
Once more, MMFA has demonstrated its cluelessness.
The fact that what Foley did was not illegal makes it okay?
It was morally reprehensible.
He knows those kinds of laws very well, so it looks like he skirted the law by only grooming pages and ex-pages under the age of 18, and then when they turned 18, he had sex with them.
The fact that it's not against the law makes it okay with you?
The fact that Hastert broke the law and made some money by using his position in Congress upsets you more than a sexual predator preying on kids?
Call me weird, but a pervert going after the very kids he is supposed to be mentoring upsets me more.
another american after indept explanation of harry reids unethical land deal you said "kick the bum out " but no mention or similar butt kicking for dennis i really did come down in the last shower hastert could this be double standard ???
Hey, if Hastert is as slimy as Reid, I say kick that bum out too!
ps. I've never argued anywhere in defense of Hastert. My original point was the silliness of the chart MMFA shows trying to downplay Reid's scandal by: 1. Comparing Hastert's Congressional position to Reid's. 2. Saying the Republicans control the Supreme Court.
The rest of the time, I am simply trying to show to all the kool-aid sippers here who think Reid is one who only made 'technical' reporting errors.
Yeah. Right.
The contention here seems to be, "Why are you (CNN) not picking on Rep. Hastert the same way your are picking on Sen. Reid?" Well the Hastert story has been out for months. Since the traditional media outlets never pass up a chance to beat a juicy story into the ground (Bonet Ramsey, Simpson, Foley, Limbaugh, Jackson (Janet & Michael), et al) then one should assume that if there was a story there (Rep. Hastert) they would have jumped on it. And since traditional media outlets run in tandem with their stories, if CNN is "ignoring" the Rep. Hastert story then CBS, NBC, & ABC must also be "ignoring" the story as well. They couldn't ALL be wrong, could they?
Balance requires that if 50 Reps are corrupt and one Dem is corrupt you come down 50 times harder on the Dem than you do on the Reps.