Cuz the facts are correct.

Are you saying they are not [correct]?

I believe Reynolds did the same. Do you know he did not?

The focus of the AP's report is on the fact that Reid mis-reported the transactions in his Senate financial disclosure forms

Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations.

It looks like Brown did all the work and cut his friend Reid in on the deal. The AP report contains no evidence that there was anything crooked about the transactions themselves, although they apparently were never documented. Basically, the partners bought land that was zoned for residential use, and persuaded local authorities to change the zoning to commercial, then sold out to developers who put up a shopping center. Brown obtained the re-zoning in part by emphasizing Reid's participation in the deal.

The AP left out a big part of this story on Harry Reid. The "developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported" is probably Harvey Whittemore, a Nevada lobbyist with financial ties to Reid's sons and his campaigns. I wrote about this last August on my blog and in a column for the New York Post. Reid intervened on a number of occasions for Whittemore so that he could get his hands on federal land for a massive development project. The only thing that we couldn't see was whether Reid personally gained from this transaction, because at the time, all we had was Whittemore's employment of Reid's kids and his campaign contributions. This new story closes the loop. Now we see that Reid personally profited from his interventions on Whittemore's behalf, at least indirectly, and that he took pains to cover it up. It's complicated, but it stinks. I've started breaking it down on this post.

Reid made a $700,000 profit on the sale, not $1.1 million. Also, the story, by the AP's John Solomon, makes it sound as if Reid got money for land he didn't own. But that's not the case. It's not the first time that Solomon has published a misleading story about Reid. This is the third such story by Solomon over the past six months. ... On two earlier occasions, Solomon has over-inflated his stories on Reid. There's an old saying in journalism that three examples make a trend. I think we have a trend here. Solomon's apparent weakness for detail is one issue. But most curious is the fact that we live in the muckiest times in recent memory, and yet Solomon, at the helm of the most powerful news agency in the country, persists in roaming the wide ocean of Congressional corruption in a Captain Ahab-like hunt for Reid's ethical missteps.

This stinks just as much as the Delay/Abramoff stuff, as much as the Foley stuff

I just find it amusing when stench is graded along partisan lines

but his view was to make money later on, or he wouldn't have done it.

Sailor - He was supposed to report it. He didn't.

Quit making spectacle of yourself defending the undefendable

Kent Cooper, a former Federal Election Commission official who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules. "This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress." "It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee." Other parts of the deal _ such as the informal handling of property taxes _ raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

A new poll of likely voters finds that President Bush and his party no longer have the advantage on issues of foreign policy and national security, which they used to dominate. The poll [was] conducted for NPR by a Republican and a Democratic pollster... Republican pollster Glen Bolger says that, from his perspective, the results are a "bunch of ugly numbers."

Foreign policy matters are expected to play a significant role in the U.S. midterm elections on November 7. Political experts anticipate a gain by Democrats in the House of Representatives, with Democrats possibly regaining control of the House for the first time in twelve years. They cite dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq and overall U.S. policy in prosecuting the "war on terror... A poll taken by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in early September shows more than twice as many Americans are preoccupied with foreign or security issues than they are with economic ones, and a number of polls show about 60 percent of the public dissatisfied with various aspects of the war in Iraq. Polls show low approval ratings for both parties in Congress but with President Bush's especially high negatives on the Iraq war...

Democrats have signaled that if they reached a majority in one or both chambers, and thus gain chairmanship of defense and other committees, they would mount a campaign looking at oversight of executive branch activities in the past few years. In particular, they say they would examine the administration's use of prewar intelligence and issues such as the Coalition Provisional Authority's handling of funding and reconstruction in Iraq. "No question we're going to get much more aggressive investigations and face-offs with the president...

Filers now must indicate outside compensation, holdings, transactions, liabilities, positions held and gifts received on their Financial Disclosure Reports (the ''Reports''). emphasis mine

"No question we're going to get much more aggressive investigations and face-offs with the president...

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
--Bertrand Russell