The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

01 August 2005

Comparing Air America's Statements

The Everchanging Story

Air America Digs Deeper Hole, What's Next


What happens when Air America's recent statements are placed side-by-side?

Answer: the inconsistencies speak for themselves.

Here's the first:

"On MAY 24, 2004 the newly formed PIQUANT LLC acquired the principal assets of AIR AMERICA RADIO from the prior ownership entities. PIQUANT has owned and operated AIR AMERICA RADIO since that time. The company that had run AIR AMERICA RADIO till then no longer had anything to do with the network.

"PIQUANT had no involvement whatsoever with funds from GLORIA WISE BOYS &GIRLS CLUB. PIQUANT neither received nor expended any of the sums that are the subject of the City's investigation of the CLUB.

"PIQUANT is not being investigated by the City, which is investigating a transaction that took place before PIQUANT existed."


Part of the second (emphasis mine):


The current owners of Air America Radio have no obligation to Progress Media'‚s business activities. We are very disturbed that Air America Radio's good name could be associated with a reduction in services for young people, which is why we agreed months ago to fully compensate the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club as a result of this transaction.


And third, via Brit Hume of FOX News (as originally reported by John Mainelli of the New York Post):


An Air America spokesman says, "We're committed to paying this money and the terms are being worked out... We are awaiting direction from the investigation into how to proceed."


This was going to be a long analysis of where the statements fail to match up, but when I thought about it, it became clear that little needs to be said.

We're consistently being misled by Air America, first in their attempt to make us believe they had no role, responsibility or involvement, because of an ownership change (even if many of the same folks stuck around).

Second, that months ago, they'd agreed to repay the money. I might "agree" to give somebody a million dollars, it doesn't mean it has happened, but I can craft a statement that makes it appear that way.

What was left out of the second statement? That they HADN'T actually returned a dime, despite language strongly suggesting otherwise.

If not for the attention brought by this site and hundreds of others, would they EVER repay one red cent?

Will they
ever send it back, unless somehow compelled?

It took the third quote to find the real truth, that we'd been tricked.

I had liberals screaming for an apology after the second one, now they must by crying in their organic microbrews after hearing the rest of the story.

What will the fourth statement say this week? You didn't know I could read minds and predict the future, did you?

It will be this new defense, or one very similar: that Air America's been trying to repay the money, but couldn't get Gloria Wise to agree to the terms, otherwise, the check would already be in the mail.

That shifts the blame away from Air America, or so they'll hope.

Watch for it.

Update: substantial new information at Michelle Malkin's site.

Al Franken Scandal graphic by Darleen Click.

Are you reading the latest post on Air America's troubles? Click here for the main page.

Next: a look at today's media coverage, including the New York Sun article.

Thanks for your continued advertiser support. Your Amazon orders (that originate with clicks in the boxes to the right) help the Radio Equalizer defray expenses for an upcoming major site upgrade. It's much appreciated!

47 Comments:

  • By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 01 August, 2005 06:14  

  • What's your point? The original ownership screwed up, and even though they don't have to, they decided they should compensate the club. (A goodwill gesture.) They didn't say they actually paid any money at that point. They *agreed* to do it. Now they are working out the details pending the investigation.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 07:01  

  • What's your point?

    His point is self-promotion. Brian digs deep into a story, finds a loose link to Air America, and manufactures a scandal where none exists. He bolsters himself and his nonstory with two other right wing bloggers to pretend it has some credence. The moonie cult then writes an editorial pretending that Maloney broke a big story.

    Then the left wing bloggers start showing what a piece of crap this nonstory is, and Brian claims it as proof that he's got a big scoop.

    Even though AAR has been doing the right and ethical thing, long before Maloney breaks this nonstory, he'll claim that he saved those poor little children who were ripped off not by Air America, but by corruption on the board of Gloria Wise.

    I doubt, however, that Maloney ever mentioned a word about Newt Gingrich's Abraham Lincoln Foundation, which not only misappropriated money meant for needy kids to Republican politicians, but never paid a cent back to the organizations this foundation was meant to aid.

    Classic blowback, bravado, and shameless self-promotion.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 01 August, 2005 08:00  

  • http://www.nysun.com/article/17846

    Funds of a Bronx Youth Group Allegedly Lent to Air America

    BY DAVID LOMBINO - Special to the Sun
    August 1, 2005


    The top executive at a Bronx youth organization said yesterday that the former director of Air America Radio received more than $800,000 in loans for himself and the radio network from the nonprofit organization while serving as its development director.

    Read the whole thing. Perhaps some of the bloggers crying hoax would like a large helping of crow.

    By Anonymous Jim Feeney, at 01 August, 2005 09:05  

  • I had liberals screaming for me to apologize after the second one, now they must by crying in their organic microbrews, after hearing the rest of the story.

    Holy spin Batman!

    Wow! You've really got yourself worked up into a lather!

    The rest of the story? What has changed exactly? First they stated that they had no legal liability in the issue. Then they said that they had committed to making compensation while still not admitting any liability. Now they have said that they are working out the dtails, in coordination with the investigation that is ongoing, of how best to accomplish the repayment.

    So what is your problem with all this?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 09:15  

  • This coming from the guy who dug through the garbage looking for Rush's cigar butt to sell

    Brian your getting all sweaty again...

    you are a level three liar
    and a registered truth molester

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 09:19  

  • I have to admire you Lefties standing firm supporting the AAR debacle with the deflect and ignore strategy. It sure must suck to be you.

    ROFLMFAO

    By Blogger Scott, at 01 August, 2005 09:26  

  • It sure must suck to be you.

    No. It's quite nice to be me.

    It must suck to have to resort to ad hominem attacks because there's no real scandal for you to attack.

    BTW, the New York Sun piece that is linked in these comments is about the most even handed piece of reporting on the issue that I've yet to read. You could take a good example from it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 09:33  

  • Read the whole thing. Perhaps some of the bloggers crying hoax would like a large helping of crow.

    Who was crying "hoax"?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 09:34  

  • So are you just going to keep reposting the same speculation over and over and over again or are you going to actually tell us something new?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 10:02  

  • Lard-ass Al Frankin steals money from kids and the elderly and now lies and spins and covers-up. I'm sure this won't impact his senatorial "prospects" in 2008? LMAO! Frankin is a scumbag.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 10:06  

  • More baseless personal attacks.

    S.O.P.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 10:20  

  • Don't worry about the attacks coming from the Krazy Kos Kidz and others. Here's a post from a Kos reader about Dean's latest lies about Bush and the Supreme Court:

    "I'm 100% behind it. Why? Because it resonates, and I'm perfectly willing to go for a false statement that illustrates a truth.

    The GOP is the party of Big Business. Big Business (business in general) is who benefitted from the Kelo case.

    So, frankly, I say it's a great line of attack. Screw accuracy -- remind people that now big business can take their homes away to make a shopping mall, and that's A-okay by the GOP."

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/26/165119/316

    These are folks that lie when it advances their cause, and they brag about it when they think no one is watching. So don't sweat their attacks - these folks have zero credibility. Keep hammering them with the truth.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 10:36  

  • Wow....apparently the Kos Klux Klan doesn't think that stealing more than $800,000.00 from the mouths of poor children and the elderly infirm and the resultant coverup qualifies as a scandal.

    They've surely raised the bar on the definition of corruption haven't they?

    By Anonymous Crapdog, at 01 August, 2005 10:40  

  • ...and the resultant coverup qualifies as a scandal.

    Coverup?

    Can you explain?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 10:44  

  • Wow! It amazes me how many people posting here feels that there should be no accountability toward a company who took money from a charity and have taken months to even address the problem. And no money to date has yet been paid back. How long do they need to consider it? I guess the Democrat party who is silent on this issue and those in this post who are defending the non-payment from AAR are no longer for helping the needy and are for helping themselves. Greedy. I used to vote Democrat a while back, but they have turned me so far away from their party that I don't know if I can ever go back. Supporters who continue to turn a blind eye only perpetuate this view to Mainstream America.

    By Anonymous Shaun, at 01 August, 2005 10:55  

  • Air America defies doomsayers as its ranking climbs

    Nowhere to go but up.

    What's the problem? Well how about the promised $480,000.00 sponsoring all the events listed on the Camp Air America link hundreds of times over, thereby freeing up the Gloria Wise organization to raise funds for other activities?

    By Blogger eLarson, at 01 August, 2005 11:01  

  • Brian-

    It is grossly unfair to put a picture of Franken in your AA "Scandal" graphic. Yes he is the network's marquee name, but no one is accusing him of any wrongdoing. It may not be as sexy, but put up a picture of Cohen instead, since he is the ultimate wrongdoer here (no matter who ultimately has to pay).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 11:02  

  • ...and the resultant coverup qualifies as a scandal.

    Coverup?

    Can you explain?

    By Anonymous, at 10:44 AM

    Why I'd be happy to. The only difference between the ownership structure of Progress Media and Piquant is guess who? Riiiight....Evan Cohen!!

    The other partners , to avoid paying the stolen money back to the poor kids, simply restructured.

    Did they tell anyone what they did?? Nope!!

    Therefore, it's a coverup. If you need me to clarify anything else, please let me know. I'm more than glad to help.

    By Anonymous Crapdog, at 01 August, 2005 11:13  

  • It is grossly unfair to put a picture of Franken in your AA "Scandal" graphic. Yes he is the network's marquee name, but no one is accusing him of any wrongdoing. It may not be as sexy, but put up a picture of Cohen instead, since he is the ultimate wrongdoer here (no matter who ultimately has to pay).

    They haven't yet. If he was part of Air America's board in the pre-Piquant days & is still on the board, then he's legally liable.

    Brian, Thanks for identifying the theft of $800,000 from a charity that ministered to poor children & the elderly infirm. In anywhere but the looney left, that's a scandal.

    I've relied on your reporting for the articles that I've written, including http://therevolutionwillbeblogged.blogspot.com/2005/07/robin-hood-air-america.html

    Keep up the good work & let's all keep highlighting this theft until the truth is exposed.

    By Blogger Gary Gross, at 01 August, 2005 11:16  

  • Wow! It amazes me how many people posting here feels that there should be no accountability toward a company who took money from a charity and have taken months to even address the problem.

    Who said there should be no accountability? Your host himself is the one wondering why AAR is actually taking responsibility.

    And no money to date has yet been paid back. How long do they need to consider it?

    Does not the quote that your host provided from FOXNews state that AAR is working with the investigation and awaiting instruction on how the proceed? Maybe AAR should just write a check to cash and not worry about where the money goes? Would that be alright in your eyes?

    I guess the Democrat party who is silent on this issue and those in this post who are defending the non-payment from AAR are no longer for helping the needy and are for helping themselves. Greedy.

    If that is the conclusion you draw from this then you must like to delude yourself.

    I used to vote Democrat a while back, but they have turned me so far away from their party that I don't know if I can ever go back.

    You will be missed.

    Supporters who continue to turn a blind eye only perpetuate this view to Mainstream America.

    Again. Who has turned a blind eye? The situation is being addressed. AAR has not been charged with anything and they are cooperating to refund the money.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 11:18  

  • The other partners , to avoid paying the stolen money back to the poor kids, simply restructured.

    And you have some evidence of this I suppose?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 11:20  

  • It must suck to have to resort to ad hominem attacks because there's no real scandal for you to attack.

    Obviously you have no idea what an Ad Hominem attack is. I actually said I admire you. Saying it must suck to be you is an observation. If you want to see what an Ad Hominem attack is go back to the thread "Backlash Begins" and have a look at what your friends at the DU and the Ko's are calling me and other sensible folks here.

    If I were to call you a turd, a butt pirate, a whack job, a asswipe, or something like that, which I would never do, that would be Ad Hominem ("At Man", Your Latin Lesson For The Day).

    Have fun trying to defend your hero's at AAR.

    Have a nice day!

    By Blogger Scott, at 01 August, 2005 11:30  

  • Your generalities about all "Lefties" are not ad hominem attacks? They do not address the points that have been raised by those you disagree with. They are simply meant as slights. Oh. And something the other day about "lying douche bags"?

    As I've said before I don't listen to AAR. They most certainly are not my heros. Why can you not take at face value that the organization is in the process of rectifying something that is an obvious embarrassment. They are working with the ongoing investigation. Who is trying to hide anything?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 11:41  

  • Jeebus....this is amazing. There is a whole culture of corruption over at Err America.

    The principle founders of Err America, Sheldon and Anita Drobny were convicted of tax fraud for setting up bogus tax shelters so their wealthy librule friends could cheat thus stealing even more money from the poor kids.

    Good heavens...what else are we going to find under that slimy rock that is Err America?

    Is the Kos Klux Klan still trying to rationalize all this?

    By Anonymous Crapdog, at 01 August, 2005 11:47  

  • Dear friends,
    This is known as "tunneling".

    As a young man in the early 90's, I worked in an investment bank in the Czech Republic and witnessed precisely the same behavoir conducted by utterly shameless criminal frauds who stole the assets of numerous public investment funds and transfered them offshore. The way it worked was exactly as what happened here at Air America: Mismanage the business or fund; then establish a "non-related" (prefereably offshore) entity; perform a dubious, yet "legal" asset transfer, and leave the original shell holding the debts.

    This, my friends, is how the great looting of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union took place in the post 1989 world, and it seems that Air America is no different from those (mostly "ex"-communists) who tunneled out "socieity's" assets in the ex-communist world.

    By Anonymous karlito, at 01 August, 2005 11:56  

  • This, my friends, is how the great looting of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union took place in the post 1989 world, and it seems that Air America is no different from those (mostly "ex"-communists) who tunneled out "socieity's" assets in the ex-communist world.

    AAR has single handedly cornered the market, previously the exclusive realm of ex-communists, in corporate America today.

    LOL! Where do you people come up with this stuff?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 12:02  

  • Who said there should be no accountability? Your host himself is the one wondering why AAR is actually taking responsibility.

    My host? I just found this website yesterday. So I guess he is our host. And I didn't read him wondering why they were taking responsibility. He's saying that they are responsible as a company, but those defenders of AAR saying that they aren't, even AAR is admitting that they are responsible.



    Does not the quote that your host provided from FOXNews state that AAR is working with the investigation and awaiting instruction on how the proceed? Maybe AAR should just write a check to cash and not worry about where the money goes? Would that be alright in your eyes?

    AAR have known of this issue for quite a while now. I guess the charity can wait. They aren't important. And why is it that they waited until the Bronx newspaper, "our host" and Fox News questioned this before they started issuing statements and "looking into paying back the money"?

    If that is the conclusion you draw from this then you must like to delude yourself.

    No delusion. I have been sitting back for a few years now watching my old party blunder and refuse to admit their mistakes and yet call on every minute mistake the other party does and demand resignations. I am a woman without a party these days and it frustrates me.

    Again. Who has turned a blind eye? The situation is being addressed. AAR has not been charged with anything and they are cooperating to refund the money.

    I am talking about the websites that claim this all is a non-story (stealing from a charity is a non-story? Okay.) or that it is all a fake story. This isn't an issue of attacking a political party as many are trying to make this out to be. In my eyes, there was a culprit within the company that bilked a charity out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, money in which said company profited from, the silence was deafening for months on this situation, the situation starts to get a little public exposure, and some want to make it out as a political attack because some don't care for a few of the employees. Stolen money or political attack. Which do you believe this is about?

    By Anonymous Shaun, at 01 August, 2005 12:03  

  • Dear Anonymous -

    The thieving of eastern europe is a well known fact to anyone who actually had anything to do with the region during that time. Sadly you are ignorant of the fact, but that is typical of the left and not unexpected. Enjoy your marginalization and the ridicule you encounter as you dig yourself deeper into the hole and humiliate yourself further

    By Anonymous karlito, at 01 August, 2005 12:13  

  • It is grossly unfair to put a picture of Franken in your AA "Scandal" graphic. Yes he is the network's marquee name, but no one is accusing him of any wrongdoing. It may not be as sexy, but put up a picture of Cohen instead, since he is the ultimate wrongdoer here (no matter who ultimately has to pay).

    They haven't yet. If he was part of Air America's board in the pre-Piquant days & is still on the board, then he's legally liable.
    -----------

    Franken was not ever, nor is he now, part of the AA board of directors.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 12:16  

  • Some of the comments seem to say that Piquant is not liable for ‘fraud’ committed prior to their purchase of the network. I am not a lawyer, just have BA in business and an MBA, but it is my understanding that legally Piquant can still be held responsible for crimes committed by any company they own regardless of whether it happened before the purchase.

    Reminds me of all these lefties who want to hold modern corporations responsible for the ‘slave trade profits’ of companies that were acquired in the distant past.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 12:44  

  • Looking at the Gloria Wise IRS 990 for year ending Jun03 posted by HH, Rosen signed it on May 14, 2004. The non-profit had needed a 3 month extension to May because necessary info was not assembled by the Feb 2004request ... Then Piquant takes over AA 10 days after the 990 was sent?

    By Anonymous HesKay, at 01 August, 2005 12:45  

  • Hey, Gary? Using Franken's face is absolutley straight up and aboveboard. He's the only person on their staff that anyone would recognize.

    And will all you Air Idiot defenders STOP talking about "previous" and "current" when it comes to ownewrship, please? The Drobny's shuffled the cards and discarded Cohen and Sorenson. All the original money and players remain in place.

    You clowns are supposed to be "reality-based" right? Look up "Ponzi" and you'll find Drobny's face ri9ght next door.

    By Blogger TC, at 01 August, 2005 12:49  

  • Shaun,

    And I didn't read him wondering why they were taking responsibility. He's saying that they are responsible as a company, but those defenders of AAR saying that they aren't, even AAR is admitting that they are responsible.

    In an earlier post Brian clearly wondered why AAR was taking responsibility for repaying funds that they said they were not responsible for. The fact that they had agreed to do so was not enough for him.

    AAR have known of this issue for quite a while now.

    And I would assume that the investigation has been going on for quite a while.

    I guess the charity can wait. They aren't important

    Typically people wait until legal situations are resolved until they receive monetary compensation. No? From what I've read AAR is taking instruction from the investigators. You think they should just go ahead on their own and write a check to someone?

    And why is it that they waited until the Bronx newspaper, "our host" and Fox News questioned this before they started issuing statements and "looking into paying back the money"?

    Excuse me? Who says they waited until antone started asking questions to look into repaying the money. Did they not say that they agreed to repay the money months ago? This was just reported in July. Why should they go public with an issue that is still be worked out? So vultures like Brian can pounce on them?

    I am talking about the websites that claim this all is a non-story (stealing from a charity is a non-story? Okay.) or that it is all a fake story. This isn't an issue of attacking a political party as many are trying to make this out to be. In my eyes, there was a culprit within the company that bilked a charity out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, money in which said company profited from, the silence was deafening for months on this situation, the situation starts to get a little public exposure, and some want to make it out as a political attack because some don't care for a few of the employees. Stolen money or political attack. Which do you believe this is about?

    And you don't think this is being used by the operator of this site as a political attack? If he's so concerned that the Club get its money why hasn't he set up a fund raising campaign? No. All he's interested in is blowing smoke.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 13:36  

  • Oh, so now you feel that Maloney should be the one to fix this charity? Way to transfer responsibilty. If you see illegal activity and report on it, you should be prepared to pay off their debt, is that how it goes?

    There is no question that AAR accepted funds from a charity with the promise to repay. Even they haven't disputed this. Why must they wait until after an investigation? You know why? Because they are hoping that they won't be legally bound to pay it. Morals be damned. Take the money and run, I suppose. So a company can take a loan, get rid of the person who illegally received the money, create a new name for the ownership and wait to see if you have to repay the loan. Okay, got it.

    And people wonder what has happened to morals in this country.

    By Anonymous Shaun, at 01 August, 2005 13:50  

  • Oh, so now you feel that Maloney should be the one to fix this charity? Way to transfer responsibilty. If you see illegal activity and report on it, you should be prepared to pay off their debt, is that how it goes?

    Not what I wrote so drop the theatrics. I don't seek to transfer responsibility. It just seems his interest has more to do with damaging Al Franken & co. rather than any genuine concern for the children.

    There is no question that AAR accepted funds from a charity with the promise to repay. Even they haven't disputed this.

    Correct.

    Why must they wait until after an investigation? You know why? Because they are hoping that they won't be legally bound to pay it.

    Perhaps they have been instructed not to make any payments until such time as it can be determined who should receive them. It seems to me there are serious issues with the way things have been done at Gloria Wise Club. Do you not think that it's prudent not to just write a check until the parties who may have committed crimes have been dealt with?

    Morals be damned. Take the money and run, I suppose.

    Yawn.

    So a company can take a loan, get rid of the person who illegally received the money, create a new name for the ownership and wait to see if you have to repay the loan. Okay, got it.

    Won't say that it has never happened before. But I don't know if that is the circumstance here. Believe me. If it turns out that the only reason that the ownership of AAR was "changed" was to default on any obligation related to this debt I'll be right there with you condemning the owners. But that has not been shown, at least I haven't seen any evidence of it, to be the case.

    And people wonder what has happened to morals in this country.

    You are , I hope, as concerned about all cases of corporate theft. Not just those potential cases on the left.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 14:38  

  • Not what I wrote so drop the theatrics. I don't seek to transfer responsibility. It just seems his interest has more to do with damaging Al Franken & co. rather than any genuine concern for the children.

    You said, "If he's so concerned that the Club get its money why hasn't he set up a fund raising campaign?"

    So in your mind, AAR should drag it on for months over who to pay, but Maloney should immediately set up a fund if he is going to have the nerve to report on this and expect a company to be held accountable.

    And yes, I have always held companies accountable for illegalities. And I don't find that Al Franken and the other radio personalities were involved in this illegal action. They just happen to work there and they did benefit from the money contributions, good or bad. But I do think it stinks that they have held silent on it all when they are constantly spouting the dishonesty of others. I'll chide them for that, but I won't play the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game to connect them to this particular dishonesty. However, for those who "bought" this company, apparently the names are familiar with the original owners.

    And why do you yawn over the moral issue? You don't find that too often people will look the other way at a wrong-doing due to their partisanship? It's pathetic how today every issue becomes a partisan one because people try to make it one. So apparently if it is a partisan issue, there is no need to look any further into the allegations.

    In this particular situation, you have a company who is being investigated for more than one illegal matter (isn't there still an on-going investigation over other investor money? And I remember reading about major debts not being paid), but because they are a liberal radio station, it can't be because of their wrong-doing. It must be because of their party affiliation. As long as they are of the same party, let's circle the wagons and protect them.

    It shouldn't take MONTHS to figure out who to send a check to. According to the NY Sun article, the charities are still running due to grants and such.

    "Ms. Graves said Gloria Wise is fully cooperating with the Department of Investigation. She said that thanks to contracts and funds secured from other entities, it is "business as usual" for all of the organization's social programs, which serve 20,000 children, elderly residents, and people with disabilities in the Co-op City section of the Bronx."

    So if it is "business as usual", perhaps there is still a place to put the money, right? Sounds like the charity was damaged, but has not fully disappeared. So, WRITE THE CHECK!!!!!!!

    By Anonymous Shaun, at 01 August, 2005 15:23  

  • In this particular situation, you have a company who is being investigated for more than one illegal matter (isn't there still an on-going investigation over other investor money? And I remember reading about major debts not being paid), but because they are a liberal radio station, it can't be because of their wrong-doing. It must be because of their party affiliation. As long as they are of the same party, let's circle the wagons and protect them.

    Maybe I'm mistaken but are you refering to AAR being investigated? It's my understanding that AAR is not the subject of the investigation. For all you know this could have entirely to do with Evan Cohen. I'm not quite sure where all your 'party affiliation' and "partisan" stuff is directed? I have no interest in covering anything up to protect AAR. But there is a lot of rhetoric flying around here that has AAR already convicted of something although no one seems exactly sure what. Not paying a debt immediately?

    It shouldn't take MONTHS to figure out who to send a check to. According to the NY Sun article, the charities are still running due to grants and such.

    Well this is funds that are part of legal proceeding. It's hard for me to understand why you can not appreciate that the authorities involved would potentially not want funds to be transferred to anyone until their investigation is wrapped up? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of escrow accounts for disputed funds? Perhaps that is being considered in this instance?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 15:47  

  • You said, "If he's so concerned that the Club get its money why hasn't he set up a fund raising campaign?"

    So in your mind, AAR should drag it on for months over who to pay, but Maloney should immediately set up a fund if he is going to have the nerve to report on this and expect a company to be held accountable.

    Now we are in my mind? What I wrote there has nothing to do with AAR. They should repay the money. Period. What I meant was if Mr. Maloney's concern is with the children not getting their funds perhaps he would show some initiative and institute a fund drive to pick up the slack resulting from the fraud. If you have a problem with that suggestion that's fine but I stand by my comment. Is he interested in scoring political points off of AAR or is he interested in making sure the kids have their programs. It seems to me he derives some benefit himself from the continued suffering of the children in that he is, as he likes to point out, getting plenty of publicity from the story.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 15:53  

  • Anonymous, why aren't you bothering to put a name to your posts? It's getting confusing to figure out if I am responding to the same poster or different ones.

    Telling Maloney to basically put up or shut up is a tactic in hoping he will shut up. People can be outraged that a charity was used without having to volunteer for them. Should every journalist or blogger who writes about something have to then participate in it?

    I'll admit that I only know how far this investigation has gone by the very few articles that that have bothered to report this. But it seems obvious that the investigation originated with the club and is now branching out to Cohen and further out to AAR. So I imagine that they are now a part of the investigation to find out who profited here. If AAR play their cards right in the PR department, they can come out of this looking good. It's not looking good so far for them since that loan was two years ago. They got rid of Cohen, but they haven't cleaned up after his mess he left behind. And this guy, Cohen needs his head on the chopping block. What a scumbag he must be!

    So why do you suppose the authorities investigating this thing would see that the club still has existing programs and yet it is impossible to figure out where to write the check? It's a delay tactic. In the end they are going to be pressured to pay it back. But the longer they drag it out, the more they will be put under the microscope. Plus, Piquant owners have some of the same people that the former Progressive owners had. So I don't think Cohen's head will be the only one to roll here.

    By Anonymous Shaun, at 01 August, 2005 16:53  

  • Anonymous, why aren't you bothering to put a name to your posts? It's getting confusing to figure out if I am responding to the same poster or different ones.

    Don't want to register with blogger.

    Telling Maloney to basically put up or shut up is a tactic in hoping he will shut up. People can be outraged that a charity was used without having to volunteer for them. Should every journalist or blogger who writes about something have to then participate in it?

    Again, I didn't tell him to put up or shut up. He has expressed repeatedly the need to get the money back right away. You can read into AAR's motivations about delaying. I can read into Brian's motivations about making no effort to help raise funds for the club. You're the one who brought up morals here. Wouldn't it be the moral thing to do?

    But it seems obvious that the investigation originated with the club and is now branching out to Cohen and further out to AAR.

    Well I haven't seen anything that indicates a "branching out" of the investigation toward AAR. Let me know where that is indicated.

    So why do you suppose the authorities investigating this thing would see that the club still has existing programs and yet it is impossible to figure out where to write the check? It's a delay tactic. In the end they are going to be pressured to pay it back. But the longer they drag it out, the more they will be put under the microscope.

    So in your ideal scenerio AAR would pay back all the money tomorrow and the investigation would be done? Is that how justice is supposed to work in this country. Write a check and get out from under the microscope? Not a very moral vision of justice there. Pesonally I'd rather have the investigation lead where it will. The club is funded. It will get it's money when all the parties involved think it is appropriate. Look, if it comes out that AAR is delaying because they are in a cash crunch I think they should be made to pay up. Realistically, if AAR fails the chances that the Gloria Wise Club is ever going to see any of its money are much worse.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 17:07  

  • Shaun,

    BTW, it's nice to actually have a somewhat rational discussion on the topic.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 August, 2005 17:11  

  • "grossly unfair to put a picture of Franken..."

    When people questioned Air America's financial viability, Al Franken made vicious attacks on them. He made himself into a legitimate symbol of Air America and its failings.

    By Blogger pst314, at 01 August, 2005 21:59  

  • "... now [liberals] must by crying in their organic microbrews after hearing the rest of the story."
    Mr. Maloney, please no ad hominem attacks
    on any type of beer drinker.
    First they came for the Coors drinkers....

    By Anonymous masta ace, at 02 August, 2005 09:33  

  • [Shaun] Telling Maloney to basically put up or shut up is a tactic in hoping he will shut up. People can be outraged that a charity was used without having to volunteer for them. Should every journalist or blogger who writes about something have to then participate in it?

    [Anonymous] Again, I didn't tell him to put up or shut up. He has expressed repeatedly the need to get the money back right away. You can read into AAR's motivations about delaying. I can read into Brian's motivations about making no effort to help raise funds for the club. You're the one who brought up morals here. Wouldn't it be the moral thing to do?

    No. It would be immoral because those who benefited from the theft, including the principals of Air America - unless they prove they are unable to repay the debt - are presumed able to repay and thus not in need of relief. For anyone else to offer this relief would allow them to escape their due responsibility to their creditors. Now: if they make a credible argument that they are unable to repay - even out of their own pockets - then your hypothetical becomes more relevant; but until then it makes the situation worse.

    And - like the argument that AAR is "not to blame personally" - such an argument rings hollow given that the news radio station failed to report the story when it first happened, and failed to get a two-year headstart on soliciting the very kinds of donations you're describing.

    Nor is Brian saying the money should be repaid immediately, he's saying it should have been repaid by now. There's a difference.

    So in your ideal scenerio AAR would pay back all the money tomorrow and the investigation would be done?

    In the ideal scenario, AAR would have raised the balance of the money by now by appealing to their loyal audience over a longer period of time. In the ideal scenario, they would have graciously accepted their due measure of responsibility and acted accordingly at every stage at which that responsibility became incumbent upon them. (In a "moral" sense, of course. ;)

    By Blogger RD, at 02 August, 2005 20:09  

  • And - like the argument that AAR is "not to blame personally" - such an argument rings hollow given that the news radio station failed to report the story when it first happened, and failed to get a two-year headstart on soliciting the very kinds of donations you're describing.

    Two years? Didn't Piquant just buy AAR last may? They only went on the air a year ago.

    I don't buy your argument about others filling the gap lifting any responsibility from AAR. If the programs were saved by others pitching in that would have no impact on the legal obligations of AAR.

    Nor is Brian saying the money should be repaid immediately, he's saying it should have been repaid by now. There's a difference.

    Perhaps he has not. Other commenters have said as much though. It appears however that the investigaors have prevented that from happening. Is it not understandable that there are reasons why no money is changing hands. It sounds to me like there are serious problems with the way Gloria Wise was operated. Perhaps the money should be going into escrow? It just seems Brian likes to sling mud without considering that he does not know all the facts.

    By Anonymous Mitchell, at 02 August, 2005 22:27  

  • Mitchell said: Two years? Didn't Piquant just buy AAR last may? They only went on the air a year ago.

    He may have gotten that 2 year figure from my post and I was estimating it since it says in the NY Sun article that the third loan was made before AAR had launched in March 2004. So at the very least, it was a year and a half ago that the first loan was made....possibly closer to two years.

    I wish that someone would catch up with Cohen. Not that I expect he would say anything about what went on and incriminate himself any further. But we do know that at the very least, Cohen and Ms. Graves were aware of this money. Accountants for the club had to be aware of money disappearing. If this money was put into AAR's account as was planned, accountants for AAR had to be aware. Who else knew? There will be more to this story. I read on another blog a lawyer mention that more than likely the investigation into these records will be available for public view.

    By Anonymous Shaun, at 02 August, 2005 23:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger