The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: Franken Speaks Again About Scandal

09 August 2005

Franken Speaks Again About Scandal

I'M A VICTIM

Franken Tries To Salvage Image

Repairing Al Franken's mangled public image is probably not a job for the Radio Equalizer, but I do still have to wonder about his reconstruction strategy, unveiled today in the New York Post, via John Mainelli:

AL Franken says 20,000 poor kids and old people weren't the only victims of an exec who allegedly arranged a Bronx charity's mega-buck "loan" to Air America.

"About three weeks into the life of Air America, I became an involuntary investor — I stopped being paid," Franken told listeners yesterday on WLIB (1190 AM).

"I think [Cohen] was robbing Peter to pay Paul," Franken said, adding that the network's current owners, Piquant LLC, did some "forensic accounting" and learned about the defaulted loan.

Franken said Piquant didn't legally have to pay back the loan, "but we morally do, so they started to make arrangements to pay it back.

"I didn't know anything about this until last week," Franken claimed.

"I really had nothing to do with this."

While Franken's getting better at the talking points, it's clear we're going to have to repeat ourselves, more often than we'd like.

Michelle Malkin, by the way, has a complete report of her own, here.

What about the inconsistent actions of the current ownership/management, well documented here, by Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Wizbang, LaShawn Barber, Ace Of Spades and many other places?

If Air America's current owner, which looks quite a lot like the old one sans Cohen, isn't legally obligated to repay the money, why has the New York City Department of Investigation demanded it, immediately?

If it's simply about morality, then why didn't Air America repay the money last year, or earlier in 2005?

Why, when full repayment was demanded by the DOI, did Air America place just $50,000 into an escrow account, controlled by its own lawyer?

Why is Franken repeating this "forensic accounting" nonsense? Did it really take that kind of investigation, or did Air America know about this mess all along?

Al, we've been writing about this for two weeks now, you must have learned about it at some point before then, so how could you have first heard of it a week ago?

Why isn't Franken & Co. being pressed harder about these issues?

From Ace Of Spades:

We'll be talking to radio host/blogger Brian "Radio Equalizer" Maloney," the point-man for the Air America embezzlement scandal.

We'll be sure to plumb the depths of the question that still haunts us all: "Did you hear what Al Franken said today?" (I imagine the answer is a simple "No, who the hell is Al Franken?," but we'll plumb those depths anyhow.

Have we retooled the show? Well, no, not yet. But we are refreshed. Sort of.

It'll be at Rightalk at 4 EDT. Look for "Hoist the Black Flag," which should be right under "Channel 1" at or after 4pm.

As always, the call-in number, which only JFH uses, is 866-884-TALK.

Franken/Scandal graphic by Darleen Click, others by Pete at IHillary and the MarchandChronicles.

33 Comments:

If Air America's current owner, which looks quite a lot like the old one sans Cohen...

I asked this in the previous thread with no response -- does anyone have a link explaining how much or how little overlap exists between the two corporate entities?

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 15:55
Does anyone have a link to something that shows the DOI "demanded immediate" placement of the entire $800,000+ funds in escrow?

I understood that the DOI said, first, that it was doing nothing to prevent AAR from paying Gloria Wise. Then when AAR said they were awaiting instruction from DOI about haw to proceed with repayment the DOI requested that the funds be placed in escrow.

It seems to me the only reason to place the funds in escrow would be if it was later determined that Gloria Wise should not receive the funds but that they should go directly back to the city/state.

I'd really like a link to something from the DOi that demands immediate delivery of the funds into escrow.

But I'm sure I won't get it because I think no such document exists.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 16:10
Air America can EASILY burn through 22 million, especially if it's numbers are tanking in places like Philadelphia, New York, and Los Angeles.

Hell, Minneapolis is talking about dropping AAR for local lib programming (ala KSTP from 9-noon, 3-6, and 8-10).

By Sailor Republica, at 4:12 PM

______________________

AAR continually brags about the number of affiliates is has, but if what Michael Savage is true, and AAR is buying time on these stations, then the increasing number of stations will increase the financial burden of AAR.

AAR should probably be consolidating. Then again, they're doing poorly in their flagship markets, so, at this point, it's just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

Any word on the rumour that AAR has limited employees to two sheets of toilet paper per day?

Brett

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 16:20
HERE is the blog post Brian was just speaking of, methinks...

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 16:37
Wrong Dick!

AA buys almost all their time.

Is all you read is the NY Times?

Hell, they've been covering up scandals since the 1920's.

Two words, Dick: Reynolds Wrap.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 16:56
Jeez, Bri, all you do is keep retelling the same news over & over again. Franken didn't say anything yesterday that hasn't already been said (or that he hasn't been quoted as saying) by you or the Post or the AAR press release on the subject. Y'all are pretty much running in circles now, repeating the same points ad-nauseam, and to a lot of people, it's starting to look like you're chasing your own tails. Ho-hum.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 17:23
I'd seriously like someone to point to a source from the DOI for the fact that DOI allegedly demanded immediate payment by AAR.

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 17:27
malrex, it's all part of the three way circle jerk between Lien Baloney, Hugh Dimwit, and MalKKKin.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 17:29
as for AAR not knowing of the Gloria Wise "loan" except through "forensic accounting"... you are assuming that this transfer of money from a charity to a liberal propaganda organization is the ONLY such "loan".

AAR could be swimming in such "gifts" from the ethically impaired liberals in charge of OPM (other people's money), and desperately seeking to learn which ones can be ignored and which might lead to jail.

So it's quite possible they needed a forensic accounting to ID GW's "loan" as something important.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 18:51
Hackett was a bush-league political hack Democrat who tried to trick the voters into believing he was a good candidate. And got beat.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 18:52
The heck with AAR. I wanna know if Wally Cox had a Dick Tuck?
Is Dick Tuck related to Mike Hunt or Hugh Jardon?
He's about as funny.

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 20:49
Hell, Minneapolis is talking about dropping AAR for local lib programming (ala KSTP from 9-noon, 3-6, and 8-10).

By Sailor Republica, at 4:12 PM

Can't get your facts straight? Air America Minnesota aready has local programming.

7-9 Nick Coleman (the anti-PowerLine)
9-11 Wendy Wilde
2-5 Ed Schultz (NoDak is close enough)
5-6 repeat of Wilde

Majority Report goes from 6-9
and Mike Malloy from 9-12.

By @whut, at 09 August, 2005 21:00
as for AAR not knowing of the Gloria Wise "loan" except through "forensic accounting"... you are assuming that this transfer of money from a charity to a liberal propaganda organization is the ONLY such "loan".

By Anonymous, at 6:51 PM

Great point.

Who besides AAR mgmt really knows where all these cash infusions came from?

My concern is that Elliot Spitzer, a Dem running for Governor, might not investigate this case with his usual intensity as to not be responsible for bringing down a Democratic organ.

Brett

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 21:27
Looking for more liberal radio growth?
Try DemocracyNow! It had about 140 subscribing broadcast stations in 2003 and now has over 340 outlets in the USA and several more in Canada.

Lots more people catch it in podcasts.

Anybody know the equivalent of this kind of growth in right-wing circles?

By @whut, at 09 August, 2005 21:27
Sailor sez:
Do not mess with a former Minnesotan.

then says

Again, do not mess with a Minnesota man.

What a flip-flopper.

Ed Schultz is as local as you can get. He spends half his time talking hunting/fishing and then he brings up ethanol and sugar beets.

By @whut, at 09 August, 2005 22:59
I think sailor is really Jeff Gannon/Guckert

By Anonymous, at 09 August, 2005 23:19
Once a Minnesotan, always a Minnesotan (even former).

Unless you're a Canadian.

Admit that you are lying, Sailor.

By @whut, at 10 August, 2005 01:24
Dick, AA can say they're not leasing time, but they're still leasing time.

Hell, Marxists will believe anything!

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 07:07
Still no one interested in whether DOI actually demanded immediate deposit of the entire amount into escrow?

Is no one interested whether this is factual? As long as Brian says it it must be true? Is that how y'all operate here?

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 12:06
Umm! Where in that article does it say anything about demanding immediate repayment?

Here's what it says;

The first payment of $50,000 was made yesterday, and it was deposited into an escrow account controlled by Air America's lawyer.

That unsettled city investigators, who had recommended that the entire $875,000 be placed into an escrow account that no one could touch without their approval.

"Air America has not followed that recommendation," said Keith Schwam, a spokesman for the Department of Investigation.

"DOI was informed today that Air America's check for $50,000 was deposited into Air America attorney's escrow account. No provision has been made for DOI to approve disbursements from that account."

Kind of hard to reconcile demanded with recommended. But I know that demanded is more useful for Brian since it paints AAR in a more sinister light. Right?

As for immediate repayment of the full amount the story makes no indication that the DOI had any quibble with the amount that was deposited. Just that the DOI did not have control of the account. Did DOI set up an account that AAR was to deposit the funds into? How else would AAR have access to an account that the DOI controlled? They recommended that the entire $875,000 be put in escrow. The story says nothing that can be interpreted as indicating that it be deposited in one lump sum immediately. Just that it all be put in escrow controlled by the DOI. And didn't the DOI, according to the same NY Post, say last week that they were in no way affecting AAR's repayment of the money? Was the DOI lying when it said that? First, it was doing nothing to affect AAR's repayment of the money. Now it's recommending that the money be placed into DOI's control? Sounds like conflicting statements to me. Someone needs to get the story straight.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 13:42
You conveniently truncate the sentence.

It doesn't say;

That unsettled city investigators, who had recommended that the entire $875,000"

It says;

That unsettled city investigators, who had recommended that the entire $875,000 be placed into an escrow account that no one could touch without their approval.

The story goes on to say;

"DOI was informed today that Air America's check for $50,000 was deposited into Air America attorney's escrow account. No provision has been made for DOI to approve disbursements from that account."

It does not take issue with the amount. It takes issue with the access to the account. He states how much was deposited and then notes that no provision for DOI control has been made. He does not note that it is not the entire amount that has been deposited.

No where does the story indicate a time frame of "immediate" repayment of the entire ammount. Of course they want the entire ammount deposited into escrow. Why on God's earth would they want only part of the money deposited into escrow? The DOI spokesman notes the $50,000 figure without editorial. His comments on the fact that it is an AAR attorney's account and notes that no provision, as per the DOI recommendation, has been made for DOI to control access to the account.

You obviously can't grasp such basic concepts. AAR put $50,000 in escrow, DOI was "unsettled" because they wanted the ENTIRE amount deposited (e.g. immediately) instead of $50,000.

Please post the part of the comment where the DOI spokesperson comments about being unsettled because only $50,000 was deposited. Your insertion of the word immediately is laughable. No where in anything that the DOI has said is a time frame indicated. This is entirely a figment of your imagination. In fact, the assertion that "the entire amount of $875,000" be deposited does not even come out of the DOI spokesman's mouth. If I recall correctly the source of that is an anon AAR staffer familiar with the letter. The DOI spokesman doesn't mention the entire amount. The writer of the Post story does.

You also conveniently disregard the demanded and recommended issue. Even while criticizing AAR the DOI spokesman again uses the word recommendation. He most certainly does not say demand.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 15:19
They said they have done nothing which would prevent AAR from repaying the loan...

They had done nothing to prevent AAR from repaying the loan to Gloria Wise. They then proceeded to recommend to AAR that they not repay Gloria Wise but instead put the money into escrow. So what can we surmize from this? AAR understanding that there was an investigation taking place went to the DOI and asked what should we do with the money? DOI said they were not preventing repayment of the money but recommended that instead of repaying GLoria Wise directly that AAR put the money in escrow. AAR deposited $50,000 into an escrow account not under the control of DOI but of it's own attorney. A development that the DOI was unsettled about.

One has to ask one's self;

Why didn't the DOI demand that AAR place the funds in it's control?

Perhaps because AAR really is under no legal obligation, as it has always maintained, to repay the funds? Surely if the DOI was in a position to demand the money that's what they would have done. But they didn't. Could it be that AAR really is in the clear on this and the DOI only wants to insure that no money goes back to Gloria Wise that GLoria Wise is not entitled to? In which case having the money in escrow allows AAR to set the money aside safely until the DOI decides who if anyone deserves the money.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 15:33
If the post guy had a quote from the DOI spokesperson talking about the entire amount why would he not use it? Regardless it does not change the fact that the spokesperson makes no comment critical of the amount, only of the nature of the account.

Can you not understand how the "the entire amount" portion of the DOI's recommendation has no implied time frame? They didn't recomment that the entire amount immediately be placed into escrow. They recommended that instead of waiting until the investigation was done or paying Gloria Wise directly that they place the money in question, the entire amount of which happens to be $875,000 into escrow. Don't put some of the money in escrow. Put the entire amount in escrow. Obviously they want the entire amount ultimately in escrow. But to read it as they wanted one lump sum into the account immediately is ridiculous.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 15:57
Again, they demanded nothing.

They made a recommendation.

So regardless of whether the entire amount should have been deposited at once or over two years is moot. Brian's story is misleading at best and malicious in reality.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 16:01
Look at the statements again;

The first payment of $50,000 was made yesterday, and it was deposited into an escrow account controlled by Air America's lawyer.

That's a statement from the Post reporter. Note he talks about "the first payment" as if multiple payments are to be expected. He raises the issue of who controls the account.

That unsettled city investigators, who had recommended that the entire $875,000 be placed into an escrow account that no one could touch without their approval.

Again, another comment by the Post reporter. He notes the total dollar figure in pointing out that the money was to be placed under the DOI's control. Which it was not.

"Air America has not followed that recommendation," said Keith Schwam, a spokesman for the Department of Investigation.

Now we hear from the DOI guy. Who notes that the DOI's recommendation was not followed. He then continues;

"DOI was informed today that Air America's check for $50,000 was deposited into Air America attorney's escrow account. No provision has been made for DOI to approve disbursements from that account."

Another statement from the DOi guy. Who notes that AAR's check for $50,000, an amount he expresses no displeasure with, was placed into AAR's attorney controlled escrow account. He then comments about how the DOI has no control over this account. He makes no note of the fact that the entire amount was not deposited only that the account is not controlled by DOI.

Again, if the post writer had a quote from the DOI guy talking about "the entire amount of $875,000" at the time he got these new comments why would he not use it. For all we know the DOI guy could have said; "The DOI made a recommendation to AAR. AAR has not followed that recommendation. DOI was informed today that Air America's check for $50,000 was deposited into Air America attorney's escrow account. No provision has been made for DOI to approve disbursements from that account."

The quotes from the DOI as they appear in the Post article say nothing about the DOi being unsettled that the entire amount was not deposited. Only that the DOI had no control of the account.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 16:32
what is funny about the incorrect reading you are taking is in the article the word "unsettled" appears most closeley with the amount of money, not the nature of the account.

Yes, but this is a comment by the Post writer, not the DOI spokesman.

Yet you continue to read the paragraph as if the entire amount isn't there and falsely insist that they are passing no comment on the amount, when clearly they are, which is why its mentioned.

Yes, mentioned by the Post writer, not by the DOI. Read the quotes attributed to the DOI spokesperson. He makes no reference to the total dollar amount or to any displeasure that only $50,000 dollars was deposited.

Again, still no comment on demand and recommend from you?

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 16:36
Also, if you assume that the Post writer was paraphrasing the DOI spokesman when he talks about "the entire amount of $825,000 being put into escrow controlled by the DOI" then you also have to assume that he is paraphrasing the DOI spokesman when, at the beginning of the paragraph, he mentions "the first payment of $50,000 was made yesterday". Why would one talk about "the first payment of $50,000" if there was only supposed to be one payment of $875,000? Obviously the Post writer would not have known of any payment unless the DOI spokesman told him about it. So why would the DOI guy talk about "the first payment" if he was not expecting multiple payments?

Read the paragraph in it's entirety. It is clear that the DOI's concern is with the nature of the account. Not with the amount of the first payment.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 17:17
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 17:21
Can you provide a quote from the DOI spokesperson in that Post story where the DOI spokesperson speaks about the fact that the entire amount was not deposited when it was expected to be?

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 17:23
That unsettled city investigators, who had recommended that the entire $875,000 be placed into an escrow account that no one could touch without their approval.

I assume this is the sentence that you insist that I am reading incorrectly.

I think it's you who has it wrong.

If the sentence was to be read the way you interpret it it would say this;

That unsettled city investigators, who had recommended that the entire $875,000 be placed into an escrow account and that no one could touch that account without their approval.

My additions are in bold. As I've tried to explain, I understand that the DOI asked that the entire amount be placed in escrow. Our dispute is whether they meant for it to be all placed in escrow in one payment or not. I maintain that the comments made by the DOI spokesperson express no concern that all the funds were not placed in in one payment. Only that the account was not set up the way they requested. Personally I think it's just sloppy writing by the Post writer.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 17:36
1800 dead in Iraq, Bin Laden still not captured, Runaway spending by a GOP Congress and President, the outing of a Covert CIA Agent by a top Bush Administration Advisor, the Majority Leader of Congress under investigation, but you got your panties in a Wad over a supposed AAR "Scandal".

That's rich.

By Anonymous, at 10 August, 2005 17:42
As I've said, if it wasn't a 2 part recommendation, why are they on record with the amount 2 times now?

Everyone knows what the total amount is. Correct? But recommending that the money be put into an escrow account controlled by DOI has no implicit definition of time frame. That is my only point.

Look,

DOI recommended A and B.

AAR has not followed that recommendation.

That's basically what the DOI has said. Correct?

Would the statement "AAR has not followed that recommendation" be equally valid if AAR had not done A and B (the current situation according to your interpretation) as it would be if AAR had done A but not B (my understanding)? If they only ignored one aspect of the recommendation, to put the money in DOI control, they still would not have followed the recommendation. I'm not trying to argue that AAR has followed the DOI's recommendation. I just don't believe that the idea, as far as DOI was concerned, was that AAR should make one lump sum deposit into the escrow account. Simply stating the total amount do does not imply that that amount needs to be deposited immediately. DOI's concern is with control of the funds. Again, the new quote says advised AAR to repay $875,000 in to escrow controlled by DOI. It would make no sense for DOI to say "we advised AAR to repay $50,000 into escrow controlled...". Of course they are advising them to pay the entire amount. But you are assuming that that was to be done in one payment. I'm simply saying the DOI statements don't show that. The argument that AAR did not follow the DOI recommendation is equally valid if they desregarded one element of the two part recommendation.

Sorry, I can't be any clearer than that. You can continue to attack my reading comprehension if you like. For all the crap that is thrown around here about people not addressing real issues I find your condescension on that respect raher silly. But whatever.

By Anonymous, at 11 August, 2005 11:04
Anonymous, I'm also troubled over reading the word "immediately" in recent blog posts, since a careful re-reading of the news article reveals that the DOI never specifically stated when the entire amount was to be placed in the escrow account. But was it implied?

If you've followed my comments, for a while now I've avoided contending that "immediate" repayment was "demanded" by DOI specifically - not only because I, too, haven't seen it printed, but because the more important question isn't, "why aren't they paying it 'immediately'", but "why haven't they paid it already?"

By focusing on the wrong question we direct focus away from their past and onto the present. As it's really their past that's the most disturbing, I think getting sucked into a debate over what's going on right now is a waste of time. (Though it's no excuse not to be precise.)

Where Ace has it absolutely right - though you may not agree - is this: a sensible reading of the DOI quotes shows their intent to communicate certain points while downplaying the rhetoric, similar to how Rumsfeld calls Iran's infiltration into Iraq, and the subversion of democracy there, "notably unhelpful": he's not demanding X or Y - at least not in public, in the conventional sense - but we get the message that a very different discussion is happening behind closed doors.

To which an Anonymous might ask, "then how do YOU know what's really happening? How can bloggers insist that DOI said 'immediately' and 'payment in full'?" Valid perhaps, but the DOI (like Rumsfeld vis-a-vis Iran) provides clues that are hard to ignore. IMO a sensible re-reading indicates:

1. DOI is couching their requests as "recommendations" until they are ready to take legal action against AAR, should it be necessary.
2. DOI fully expected their "recommendations" to be honored by AAR without question or contradiction.
3. Yet they weren't. DOI has made it quite clear they were not pleased by this.
4. DOI does not endorse AAR's delayed payment "schedule", and is not likely to tolerate it much further.
5. AAR's behavior, and the DOI comments about it, send a clear message without using words like "demand" and "immediately" in public.

Is this interpretation fair? I think so. But I'll admit that, until DOI states on the record that they've "demanded immediate repayment in full", it may be premature to insist they've done so publicly. ;) Anyone agree/disagree? Ace, have I missed something or left out something important?

By RD, at 14 August, 2005 03:43

The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

09 August 2005

Franken Speaks Again About Scandal

33 Comments:

Recent Equalizations

Bumping Up The Levels

Syndicated Talkers

Local Hosts

TRE Contributors

Broadcast Scoops

Busy Equalizing

Humour

Ireland

The Radio Equalizer

About Me