ABC reported on Sen. Reid's "new ethics controversy" but continued to ignore FBI inquiry into Rep. Weldon
The October 17 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson featured a brief report on Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) "new ethics controversy" -- allegations that he, as the Los Angeles Times put it, "has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for support staff" at his Washington, D.C., home. Anchor Charles Gibson also noted that Reid said he would "file a new financial disclosure statement on a controversial land deal that earned him $700,000 in profit." ABC has yet to report, however, on the FBI's October 16 raids of Rep. Curt Weldon's (R-PA) daughter's home and other locations, as part of what The New York Times described as an "intensifying corruption inquiry" into whether Weldon "misused his official position to help his daughter's company obtain lobbying contracts from foreign clients and helped steer contracts to favored firms."
From the October 17 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: The Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, is dealing with a new ethics controversy. He says he's going to repay his campaign for $3,300 in campaign funds he used to give his apartment building staff Christmas bonuses. Federal law bars the use of campaign funds for personal expenses. Yesterday, Reid said, he will file a new financial disclosure statement on a controversial land deal that earned him $700,000 in profit.
Maybe because Harry Reid is the Minority Leader . Weldon is a Rep and has been smeared allready by MMFA.
Get off it Dave. There is no smear of Weldon by MMFA or anyone. This issue has not been covered by the MSM.
Im not going to get even into the smear you did of me on the other thread.
I'll give you a clue...maybe A(apparently) B(roadcasting) C(rap) and other MSM outlets are trying to 'smear' Reid because they pander to the right wing corruptofascist regime...
The fact that MMFA is trying to compare a corrupt Senator and a Congressman is a SMEAR.
"The fact that MMFA is trying to compare a corrupt Senator and a Congressman is a SMEAR."
Huh? Neither hasn't been convicted of anything here. Weldon is under investigation for corruption. How is it the comparison of an allegedly corrupt Senator to an allegedly corrupt Representative a "smear" on the Representative?
Is it the difference of political offices you believe makes some sort of vital distinction? Or just that one is a Democrat and one is a Republican? What the bloody hell are you trying to say?
I hate to even risk being the least bit perceived of joining the group of commenters that does this consistently, but I'm afraid I have to question MMFA on devoting any electrons to this story. Considering the stated purpose of this site, to expose conservative misinformation, I just can't see where reporting this ABC item is justified. In fact, MMFA has forced me to come to the defense of ABC.
The fact is that Harry Reid tacitly admitted his guilt by agreeing to repay $3300. In other words, he confessed that he broke the law. That's a story. There shouldn't be any attempt to defend Harry Reid by trying to find an absence of "comps" on the other side.
If MMFA thinks that ABC is practicing bad journalism by ignoring the Weldon incident, then let that stand on it's own. But corruption is corruption, no matter which side of the aisle it inhabits. I support my own ideology, not a political group, and in doing so, I'm for the eradication of corruption in Washington. Not only Republican corruption, ANY corruption. Any patriotic American not blinded by political partisanship would feel the same. If ABC had misinformed or lied about the facts of the Harry Reid story, then MMFA would have a reason to refer to the incident. As it stands now, this was a waste of time, and frankly, it denigrates MMFA and casts doubt on it's stated purpose. Not a good thing in this day and age of needing every asset available to "throw the bums out" and fight blind conservatism.
A request: MMFA, stick to the "conservative misinformation" please?
...but, the piece is still valid. Especially in light of the fact that any of the MSM stations could run a 12-part miniseries detailing ALL of the misdeeds and corruption that has occurred at the hands of the so-called 'conservatives' currently in power. Yet, we hear none of it... what's worse, we hear pleas to 'go easy' on poor Bush. Come on. MMFA is vying for a fair shake. Of course Reid is in trouble. But, should his woes be showcased ahead of say any of the other GOP members? I don't think so. His story should be a sidenote by these clowns saying, "And, oh yeah... the Dems ain't so innocent either...Harry Reid, blah, blah, blah..." Not the other way around.
As I see it, we're going to have to throw them all out, one by one if necessary. If Harry Reid is the first because ABC concentrates on him, so be it. (He can't be, of course, thanks to Cunningham, DeLay, Ney, etc.). We can get to Weldon next.
Some see it as striving for "fairness" - It's not fair to pick on one political party, or focus on the misdeeds of one political candidate without balancing it with another on the opposing side. Well....maybe. I happen to think that's a secondary objective, and wasting time and ink on it subverts the primary objective of ridding the government of ALL corruption.
Look at it this way - giving ABC advice on which items to report isn't a whole lot different than me suggesting that MMFA stick to it's stated purpose. I guess I've made up my mind on which I'd prefer to see first.
...and that's fine. But, again...considering how immensely stilted it seems (to me) ... the MSM should concentrate on showing things as they truly are -- that is, the Dems may not be great... but the GOP (after 6 years of ridiculous gaffs, misteps, and blatant crime) stink on ice! That would lend an aire of 'reality' to the proceedings... especially for a person who may ONLY get their news from ABC.
And, don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of the career Dems either. I support them at the moment because I truly believe without some semblance of balance restored the game is over. We're dangerously close now.
The coverage of Reid's "misdeeds" has been excessive. The motivation would seem to be exactly the rediculous "fairness" you mention. There's been so many Republican scandals in the last few months, many news outlets are reaching for Democratic controversies in the supposed interest of balance.
William Jefferson was worthy of expanded coverage; just as the Foley scandal is worthy of the questions regarding a cover-up. The Reid items were worth a mention; not much more.
Although it's accurate to say that ABC television has yet to report on Curt Weldon's latest corruption charges, ABC News has a report on it on the "Blotter" website, dated Oct. 16, 2006. Check it out for yourself. [link to blogs.abcnews.com]
I have been defending him on this land deal which looks shadier than first reported. This is outright corrupt. He KNOWS better than to use his campaign money for this. Weldon is going to sink, and its shameful that the news ignores his story but I am accepting no excuses for Reid on this one.
Could you expand on that? I'm aware of a couple suggestions, but nothing substantial. I.e.,
1) The transfer of the property to the LLC wasn't reported in order for the LLC to avoid corporate income tax. That doesn't make sense, however, if the transfer was an equity investment.
2) Reid benefited from re-zoning of the property. Ok. Good for him. I'm not aware of any evidence he used his position to influence the re-zoning.
What does strike me as odd is that the transfer was done with a handshake. Of course, for Reid, there would seem to have been no real risk in that. The only question with respect to Reid I would ask is if the LLC generated other income for which Reid failed to report his share.
The only other "shady" aspect of this is that the LLC was apparently involved in the lobbying of the re-zoning. (Is this true?) If so, they effectively hid their interest in the re-zoning, avoiding some predictable counter-arguments. Is this slimely? Perhaps. However, I don't believe it is illegal.
but try
[link to mediamatters.org] which takes you back to a quote by Another american (yeah, I know) and a cite to the New York Post (yeah, I know again, shades of clinton/monica/drudge) ... as I suggested to AA, I don't think much of his sources but if they are wrong CNN as well as MMFA need to be addressing it and if they are right, well they need to be addressing it ...
I repeate: for Congresspeople in glass houses ... rock throwing is a big political mistake. Let the media do it, even if they do it badly. Don't invoke the wrath of gonzales.
directly to his link at [link to www.nypost.com]
Thats it. Not the best sources but I am not willing to call the NYPost out and out liars, they distort, and are partisan but like you say. This should be addressed.
Thats it. Not the best sources but I am not willing to call the NYPost out and out liars, they distort, and are partisan but like you say.
That may have ran in the New York Post, but it's actually a rewrite of material from Captain's Quarters, a right-wing blog notorious for outrageous misinformation. The author is blogger "Captain Ed." He certainly makes the whole matter sound rather stinky, but he made the initial reporting on this Reid matter, which didn't, in fact, hint at any real impropriety, sound the same way. Probably best to withhold judgment until further facts are on the table.
Is completly without credibility. I didnt realize that was the ORIGIN of this information. I am certainly willing to withold judgement. So far from what I have read unless he was involved in THAT part of making this land available I see no wrongdoing. The buying and selling of the land intself really seems aboveboard.
This is along the lines of material I've read previously. Going back to my earlier post, I was just curious if Solon meant unethical shady or illegal shady. I wouldn't let Reid kiss my baby, but I still don't see anything rising to the level of bribery, influence peddling, etc. In fact, Reid's interest in the land was known at the time. That his relationship with Brown wasn't known is grasping at straws.
And I say LOOKS, because he did seem to be involved in the original swap of federal land from Tahoe to Las Vegas where he bought it. While not outright corruption its shady.
...So, does anyone think this will garner support for Foley's 'indiscretions' (i.e. soliciting sexual favors from minors)?
[link to www.nytimes.com]
I'm sure the FOX crew are working on it right now... sort of catches them in a bind though... uh, but he's a priest...uh, religion?? oh...
Disgusting , the GOP and FAUX will try and find excuses till election day.
They have even smeared a dead man in Gary Studds.
Totally disgusting .