The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

24 August 2005

Wednesday Air America Scandal News

Air Enron Latest

New Air America Scandal Coverage Today


--- A confused Denver Post columnist thinks Air America has just celebrated its first anniversary. No, that's Denver's KKZN, the network's been broadcasting about six months longer.

Dick Kreck's
column then goes on to happily dismiss our research on Air America's scandal, it's not clear if he bothered to read any of it. He sure is happy to pass it all off on the right wing, though.


--- San Antonio News-Express columnist Jonathon Gurwitz
thinks it's mighty strange Air America's descent is flying under the media's radar. Looks like they're paying attention in San Antonio, what's the problem in Denver?


--- Captain Ed reveals
the Washington Post's
real priorities when it comes to funding scandals.

--- In San Francisco
, the Chronicle hasn't touched Air America's scandal, but
thinks it's really neat that Al Franken is pushing for a Jerry Garcia postage stamp.


--- Shot in the Dark believes Janeane Garofalo has it in for the New York Sun. Wonder why?


--- Why weren't Clinton and Gore able to help Air America? NewsMax
has the story.


--- Michelle and I are working on our next investigative piece, watch for it soon.

AAR/Scandal graphic by Darleen Click, others by Pete at IHillary

74 Comments:

  • What I find laughable is Dick Kreck's citing the Daily Kos as a news source (okay, a source of information) but Michelle is dismissed as "shrill". "Oh kettle, thou art black!", exclaimeth the pot.

    By Blogger JRob, at 24 August, 2005 06:50  

  • What I find laughable is Dick Kreck's citing the Daily Kos as a news source (okay, a source of information) but Michelle is dismissed as "shrill". "Oh kettle, thou art black!", exclaimeth the pot.

    I guess it's because Kreck recognizes a idealogically-driven smear job when he sees one. Malkin and Maloney's attempts to push this "story" into the MSM are becoming increasingly shrill. But the MSM is not going to touch this slime. Why? Kreck tells us.

    "Maybe it's not a story because it's not a story. Piquant, the parent of Air America, responded in several statements that the disagreement over some $800,000 in loans is between Cohen and the boys and girls club, not AA."

    Simple.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 24 August, 2005 08:03  

  • Simple.

    So we're simply to take Piquant's word for it that Piquant wasn't involved -- even though Piquant has agreed to repay funds? No further investigation required?

    I'm not buying.

    By Blogger Bebeaux, at 24 August, 2005 08:59  

  • Thanks for continuing to shine a light on a very dark and putrid corner of the media world, Brian.

    You might call the defenders of AAR partisan putas. Cover it up until you cannot any longer, then attack the messenger who brings the evidence. Well done, las putas.

    By Blogger al fin, at 24 August, 2005 09:25  

  • So we're simply to take Piquant's word for it that Piquant wasn't involved -- even though Piquant has agreed to repay funds? No further investigation required?

    Healthy skeptism. Good. Now how about applying some of that skeptism to what Maloney and Malkin are pushing? Maloney and Malkin are pushing speculation and innuendo for which there is no evidence and no basis in fact. The burden to prove these tissue-thin allegations is upon Maloney and Malkin. Where is their proof? Where is their evidence?

    But perhaps I expect too much. Maloney's blog isn't about the truth or even arguments based in fact or evidence. No, it's an ideological campaign to spread lies and innuendo. Let's at least be honest about that.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 24 August, 2005 09:27  

  • Hilarious to see someone from the left talk about "facts" when he himself isn't interested in the actual facts of the matter.

    If the allegations are "tissue thin" (what does that mean anyway, there was no 875,000 "loan"?) why is Spitzer investigating?

    You realize that statement you are touting is highly misleading, if not false, right?
    If its between Cohen and Gloria Wise, why did AAR's parent agree to pay the money back "months ago"?
    Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"?

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 09:49  

  • Easy, Ace! It's "tissue thin" because no Democrat can be convinced of it.

    By Blogger Brian, at 24 August, 2005 10:11  

  • Ya gotta admit the SF/Franken/Garcia thing is just sublime comedy. I would rank it a 103 on the UCS (unintentional comedy scale)

    By Blogger That Dude, at 24 August, 2005 10:44  

  • Hey, I was just wondering why you haven’t found something to say about the MADDOG Pat Robertson’s latest boo-boo?

    Seems like it’s all part of the MEDIA you say you cover here.

    Oh wait, you don’t use that Fair and Balanced tag line, that’s those other guys.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 12:27  

  • How could I have over looked good old Ann Coulter (she really is old isn’t she) latest monstrous gaffe when she said:

    "it's far preferable to fight them in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender)."

    Any comments?

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 12:45  

  • The Ace: If the allegations are "tissue thin" (what does that mean anyway, there was no 875,000 "loan"?) why is Spitzer investigating?

    I remember a few weeks ago there was an article published in some newspaper back in New York or maybe it was Washington DC, I think it was New York tho.

    The article said that “Spitzer investigation IMUS Ranch”. As I recall there was ZERO behind this in fact the same day the article appeared in the paper Spitzer closed the case.

    IMUS was pissed at the reporter and newspaper because they didn’t have the guts to talk to him before they published the article. He was right it was a hatchet just like this Air America story.

    The point is that what you are trying to do is IMPLY that there is something going on by saying “why is Spitzer investigating”,

    The answer to your “tissue thin” question means THERE IS NOTHING THERE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

    mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 13:10  

  • Mick,

    I guess I am getting old too. That excerpt quote from Ann makes perfect sense and seems perfectly logical to me.

    By Blogger NtvAmrcn, at 24 August, 2005 13:11  

  • Mick - how can I put this so you will understand?

    If AAR is innocent, Spitzer will exonerate them.

    If they are guilty, they will have to pay up.

    What will NOT happen is that the interesting disbursement of federal grant money will not be swept under the rug unexamined.

    Now why would you have a problem with that?

    And about Ann Coulter - she needs to also mention that the citizens of Cambridge, in addition to surrendering, will also take up arms on the terrorists' behalf against Amerika, to expiate their guilt (which perhaps someday they will be able to pin down - it's just about SO much!)

    By Blogger Peter Porcupine, at 24 August, 2005 13:24  

  • NtvAmron said: I guess I am getting old too. That excerpt quote from Ann makes perfect sense and seems perfectly logical to me.

    You can’t be serious!!!

    I read the following somewhere that sums it up perfectly: “That's what Ann Coulter thinks of the cops and firemen of New York City, and of the family members of those lost on 9/11, and of the everyday people who refused to let the attacks keep them from going on with their lives.”

    “Never mind the courage and character New Yorkers have demonstrated in the face of terror. People in the city tend to vote for people other than the ones Coulter supports, so she calls them cowards.”

    I don’t know where you were on 9/11 but the people of America and PARTICULARLY NEW YORK did not SURRENDER.

    She and Pat Robertson make a fine pair. TWO quality people.

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 13:34  

  • Hey, Mick? You were just born a maroon, weren't ya?

    To hell with Ann Coulter, and to hell with the Boys & Girls Club. Air Idiot has been in arrears for near a million bucks to Multicultural Radio damn near from the day they got under way.

    Talk out of that, jack.

    By Blogger TC, at 24 August, 2005 13:42  

  • peter porcupine said: Now why would you have a problem with that?

    No problem here.

    But come on, is this your first visit to this Blog? Some of these folks have Air America guilty and Al Franken (if you look around is the genius behind this “STEALING FROM THE POOR KIDS”.

    Don’t know what Cambridge has to do with anything. Must be an inside joke so. . . what ever.

    Hey is that your picture? Interesting, very interesting.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 13:49  

  • tc lynch said: Air Idiot has been in arrears for near a million bucks to Multicultural Radio damn near from the day they got under way.

    And your calling me the maroon? Maybe the management folks at the Multicultural Radio need to look in the mirror.

    I’m afraid if they did they might see your face. . . how shocking would that be.

    mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 13:58  

  • I see there's still nothing worthwhile to read on this blog on this topic.

    Don't you get tired of just reposting the same old garbage day in and day out?

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 15:26  

  • By Blogger David, at 24 August, 2005 16:34  

  • Never give in. Never surrender. You go, Brian, you're making them squirm!

    Continue twisting the knife until the sh!t for brains NYT and WaPo start to do their job and expose these weasles at AAR. They're not journalists at those papers, they're godawful propagandists. But whip them hard enough and once in a while they do their job.

    By Blogger Buffy, at 24 August, 2005 16:37  

  • Ann Coulter was making a joke for crying out loud! Although explaining a joke is the best way to ruin it, here goes:

    At liberal rallies you are much more likely to hear things like, "Violence never solves anything", "Give peace a chance", "Free Mumia", "Save the Whales", yada yada.

    Conservatives might be accused of many things but responding to violence (9/11) with cries for peace isn't one of them.

    That's why it's funny. If you had a sense of humor you'd realize that. Of course it has nothing to do with the firefighters and policemen who lost their lives - those guys and gals are on the front line.

    Some would say they are the reason liberals can be so deluded into thinking that humans are naturally peaceful people.

    By Blogger alephnaut, at 24 August, 2005 18:02  

  • alephnaut said: That's why it's funny.

    I have over 3000 reasons I don’t think that’s FUNNY. Plus add another almost 1900 in Iraq and maybe, just maybe you’ll understand why it isn’t funny.

    Did you lose anyone on 9/11 or in Iraq? Do you even know of anyone that’s in Iraq. Maybe you should talk to Cindy Sheehan. . . the president won’t.

    You want to hear something funny see the GIANT LEAP in miles per gallon for trucks and SUV’s that this administration is putting forward. Which by the way will still be under what Henry Ford’s cars were doing 100 years ago.

    That’s like JFK saying we will land a man on the moon in 10 years with a BB gun.

    Finally with the president signing the Energy bill a week or so ago the gas companies got a $9 billion Christmas bonus. Now that’s funny.

    mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 19:09  

  • Mick, the president has already met with St Cindy, she's just trying to make political hay.

    Here's something funny, Mickie. Your savior, your president, Slick Willie, you know, the Clinton Crime Family, had three chances to get Bin Laden.

    But your president was too busy getting campaign contributions from the Chinese Communists.

    BTW, must have missed when your president withdrew all the troops from Kosovo.

    Pat Robertson: even a blind pig gets a acorn. Hugo Chaves is playing footsie with the Chi-Comms, North Korea, and Cuba. His "election" was stolen, Chicago style. He is exporting terror throughout South America. Haven't you noticed this, or have you been too busy at all those Moron.com meetings.


    "THERE IS NOTHING THERE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA."

    You're right, You got nothing.

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 24 August, 2005 19:29  

  • Hilarious to see someone from the left talk about "facts" when he himself isn't interested in the actual facts of the matter.

    Hey wait there Ace. First of all, what makes you think I'm from the left. Oh, I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you or Maloney must be from the left. I guess your too simple to preceive anything other than a black and white world. Facts? Oh yeah. I'm really interested in facts. It's the lack of facts to support Maloney's smears that really interest me, Ace.

    If the allegations are "tissue thin" (what does that mean anyway, there was no 875,000 "loan"?) why is Spitzer investigating?

    I guess it was too much to expect you to understand a simple metaphor. So let me use your standard on another case - why is Fitzgerald investigating Rove and Libby? You know what? Screw waiting for the outcome of the investigation. I'll just assume they're guilty. And you know what else? I know Bush and Cheney aren't part of this investigation but I'll declare them guilty too.

    You realize that statement you are touting is highly misleading, if not false, right?

    How so? Which statement was false or misleading?

    If its between Cohen and Gloria Wise, why did AAR's parent agree to pay the money back "months ago"?
    Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"?


    You don't get it, do you? An investigation is under way. Yet you and Maloney proclaim everyone to be guilty before the outcome of that investigation is known.

    But let's be honest. You're not interested arguments around due process (let's hope you don't end up in a court that applies your standard). You and Maloney are only interested in smearing AAR and Franken.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 24 August, 2005 20:28  

  • "Conservatives might be accused of many things but responding to violence (9/11) with cries for peace isn't one of them."

    So, so true. Conservatives first cowered in the corner clasping a role of duct tape and then began blindly striking out at imagined threats increasing our loses (to date) by 2/3rds not to mention destroying our economy and international reputation. So glad THEY, and not wimpy libs, were in charge. We might have had, brace yourself, peace. Ewwwww, icky.

    BTW, libs are well aware that many humans don't want peace -- you all are 'Exhibit A', after all. We are not blind to the vile nature of your philosophy. We just believe there is another way.

    By Blogger erasmus, at 24 August, 2005 21:41  

  • PhilM, well to answer your question, Rove isn't being investigated.
    So maybe you should get your facts straight, as you seem to talk endlessly about "facts" and yet have none.

    Further, I find it highly troubling that a private company would take a "loan" from a non-profit charitable organization, don't you?
    If that is "guilt" then so be it. But that isn't in question. And neither is the fact that it really isn't a new company (Sheldon Drobny, his wife Anita, Evan Cohen, Rex Sorenson, and Cohen's college classmate David Goodfriend formed Progress Media. In June 2004, the investors, including Highland Park couple Sheldon and Anita Drobny and Air America Chief Executive Doug Kreeger, formed a new corporation, Piquant LLC. The Drobnys and other investors forced Cohen and Sorenson to give up their voting stock and depart.
    Jon Sinton remains with the company as president of programming; Doug Kreeger who was CEO of Progress, remains with the company as an investor.)

    To say "tissue thin" twists the whole thing.
    I'm asking you point blank (and the silly Mick), what is "tissue thin" about this? Did the loan not happen? Is it not wrong for a private company to receive money that is earmarked for city grants?

    The statement you are touting is obviously misleading as they have said publicly they "agreed to pay the money months ago"
    If what your statement says is true, why would they?

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 22:34  

  • You don't get it, do you? An investigation is under way.

    Yes, I get it, and it's an investigation as to how the money got there. You know, the city grant money that ended up funding Air America Radio.

    So if the loan was "between Cohen and Gloria Wise" why did NYC DOI recommend that they put the loan amount into escrow that could be controlled by DOI?

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 22:37  

  • Philm said: “But let's be honest. You're not interested arguments around due process…”

    I just received the below from The City of New York, Department of Investigation. And it’s funny they don’t mention Al Franken at all. I thought it was funny that Brian and Michelle in there Op-Ed piece the other day didn’t say BOO about Al Franken either.

    I asked Brian why that was and I guess he was just to busy to answer. But man you look around this Blog and you would think they are hauling Al off right now.

    You are DEAD ON PhilM they can’t handle the truth. This is all they got. . . there is an on going investigation.

    NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

    FACTS HOW IT MUST HURT!!!

    Thank you for your interest in the Department of Investigation (DOI). DOI issued a press release about Gloria Wise in June 2005 and you can read it at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doi/pdf/pr42gwise_62405.pdf

    In addition, DOI issued this statement on Friday, Aug 5: "DOI advised Air America to repay $875,000 into an escrow account from which no money can be disbursed without DOI's approval. Air America has not followed that recommendation. DOI was informed 8/5/05 that Air America's check for $50,000 was deposited into Air America's attorney's escrow account. No provision has been made for DOI to approve disbursements from that account."

    There have been no other public comments from DOI.

    The City of New York
    Department of Investigation

    ROSE GILL HEARN
    COMMISSIONER
    80 MAIDEN LANE
    Release 42-2005
    NEW YORK, NY 10038
    www.nyc.gov/doi
    212-825-5900

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: EMILY GEST
    FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2005
    (212) 825-5931

    GLORIA WISE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB and PATHWAYS FOR YOUTH BOYS & GIRLS CLUB DETERMINED TO BE NON RESPONSIBLE VENDORS

    Today, it is announced that the Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD), has sent a letter to the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, Inc., and its affiliate, the Pathways for Youth Boys & Girls Club, stating that the Bronx-based not-for-profits have been determined to be Non-Responsible City contractors in connection with several recently submitted contract proposals. In these letters, DYCD said its respective Non-Responsibility determinations were based on an on-going investigation by the New York City Department of Investigation concerning allegations that, among other things, officials of Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club approved significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various City agencies.

    The Department of Education (DOE) and DYCD will terminate all contracts with Gloria Wise and/or Pathways in the best interests of the City, as will the Department for the Aging (DFTA). The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is terminating a grant agreement with Pathways for Youth.

    In anticipation of this action, the City agencies have worked diligently to ensure the continuation of these services and to transfer the programs to other service providers.

    Anyone with questions about the services or programs provided by Gloria Wise or Pathways may call 311 for assistance. Get the worms out of the Big Apple. To report someone ripping off the City, call DOI at (212) 825-5959. 1

    mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 22:53  

  • You know what? Screw waiting for the outcome of the investigation. I'll just assume they're guilty

    PhilM, are you somehow suggesting you girls on the left haven't done that in the Rove affair?
    See, that's another thing that's funny about this, is this story broke during the second month you kids on the left were saying Rove "outed" a CIA agent and elected Democratic officals said he should resign, while the investigation is still underway.

    But now its of course, "let the facts come in", which in fact you are not doing as you're quoting someone who is either misinformed or lying about said facts.

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 23:04  

  • and then began blindly striking out at imagined threats increasing our loses (to date) by 2/3rds not to mention destroying our economy and international reputation. So glad THEY, and not wimpy libs, were in charge. We might have had, brace yourself, peace. Ewwwww, icky.


    Peace with whom? Given that we were attacked repeatedly, with increasing frequency from 1993 to 2001, how were you silly liberals going to achieve "peace"? Or are you suggesting that was a peaceful time? (hint: who was President during 7 of those years).

    Finally, the economy is 'destroyed'? Which economy? I'm assuming you're talking about another country than the US, because that adjective certainly doesn't apply to the US Economy.

    If I was that ignorant, I really wouldn't be talking about political issues.
    You're embarassing.

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 23:20  

  • The A$$ said: I'm asking you point blank (and the silly Mick), what is "tissue thin" about this? Did the loan not happen? Is it not wrong for a private company to receive money that is earmarked for city grants?

    A$$ asked: Did the loan not happen? I don’t know. My guess is you don’t either.

    My other GUESS is that if there was a loan it was with the PREVIOUS OWNER. What part of PREVIOUS OWNER don’t you get.

    I’m going to s*a*y t*h*i*s s*l*o*w so that you might be able to understand and keep up. Using your logic. Someone buys a house that the PREVIOUS OWNER had killed his wife in. Applying your logic that means the person that bought the house is also guilty of murder. Remember now the key word PREVIOUS.

    I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the laws of New York so I’ll pass on city gran money. You should too.

    “Tissue thin” if you read one of my other posts you’ll come to understand what “tissue thin” is. If you can take the DOI statement as a GUILTY VERDICT well go for it. But it’s a stretch.

    good night, silly mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 23:31  

  • the dip, obviously you can't read.

    AAR has a "previous owner", like you have a "brain"
    Simply not true.
    The Drobny's are still principal investors; Air America CEO (under progress) Doug Kreeger; is still invested; Jon Sinton President of AAR under Progress, is still President & director of programming.
    Real "previous" huh?

    I'm not talking about a "guilty verdict", as I think its damnable enough that Air America Radio was funded in part with NEW YORK CITY GRANT MONEY EARMARKED FOR CHILDREN AND ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

    Which isn't in dispute.
    Does that make sense to you yet moron?

    No shit you're not a lawyer, but GW Girls and Boys club was getting millions in city grants from NYC.
    So an organization funded by city grants takes its "money" (city grants) and gives it to Air America Radio.
    Not terribly complicated.
    Yes you're not a lawyer, but you are ignorant.

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 23:39  

  • A$$:

    Are you denying that Rove is not a person of interest in Fitzgerald's investigation? That's either denial or delusion.

    And you keep presuming I'm from the left just because I disagree with you and the rest of Maloney's ass-kissers. I'm a swinging voter who is fed up with this dishonesty that is being perpetuated by the likes of Maloney and Malkin.

    I'm waiting for the outcome of the NY DOI. Why don't you? Just because some Democrats have called for Rove's resignation after a key witness has directly linked him to the WH leak? It seems you lost an opportunity to hold yourself to a higher standard than those Democrats. But now your just as tainted as them.

    But of course, all of this is beside the point really, isn't it? Investigations, facts, evidence... you and Maloney aren't interested in those. You want AAR and Franken... bad. And you'll push any lie, any distortion, any slur to do it.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 00:52  

  • can you libs stay on point?

    This is a story about Air America...the station that took money from poor minority children...that is not in dispute at all...really nothing is in dispute.

    It is cute watching the libs try and piece things together...its about as successful as watching a 3 year old try and keep a toy together with a piece of gum..

    And what would happen if a conservative show did the same thing...answer is easy...front page story in the NYT for weeks...

    By Blogger The Game, at 25 August, 2005 01:58  

  • This is a story about Air America...the station that took money from poor minority children...that is not in dispute at all...really nothing is in dispute.

    More willful dishonesty to toe Maloney's ideological line...

    I suppose the NY DOI investigation can be called off now that none of Maloney's accusations are in dispute. And Franken and everyone else associated with AAR will be hauled away in 'cuffs tomorrow morning. I guess some constitutional rights would need to be overlooked. But the ideologues from the far right have never hesitated to slip past the Constitution when it suited them.

    You know... one thing that interests me is how quiet Bill O'Reilly is on this issue. You would think that if this story had any legs and that the alleged wrong-doing by Franken and the rest of AAR were beyond dispute then BOR would be all over it given score he wants to settle with Franken. Perhaps Maloney's lick-spittles can answer why?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 02:51  

  • By PhilM, at 8:28 PM
    If its between Cohen and Gloria Wise, why did AAR's parent agree to pay the money back "months ago"?
    Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"?

    You don't get it, do you? An investigation is under way. Yet you and Maloney proclaim everyone to be guilty before the outcome of that investigation is known.

    But let's be honest. You're not interested arguments around due process (let's hope you don't end up in a court that applies your standard). You and Maloney are only interested in smearing AAR and Franken.
    ___________________________________

    LOL...See the question is asked--Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"? And what does PhilM do. Does he answer it or discuss it. No he sticks his head in the sand and then proclaims that we have to get the results of the investigation before we can discuss it.

    It isn't even worth argueeing with them because they have their fingers stuck in their ears, singing La la la, I can't hear you. They will not conceed to even the most well known facts-ones that have been coroberated by several sources or those that are in a court filing.

    Oh, and it looks very much like the new company was formed to escape from their debts. If so that's illegal. The courts will decide that one.

    By Blogger Linn, at 25 August, 2005 03:47  

  • "Peace with whom?"

    I'm not suggesting we'd be living in the Peaceful Kingdom, but we would not have unnecessary war as we do now.

    "Finally, the economy is 'destroyed'?"

    This 'great' economy we have now is an illusion. (I notice you didn't give us a dissertation on Now vs Then on the Economy. Heh.) The markets are going sideways, jobs are iffy, interest rates going up, oil out of sight, commodity wars with China are on the horizon while our deficit spending -- real numbers not the phony ones you dickwads want to believe -- continues unabated at incredible levels. The recent 'good' news, tax receipts, etc., were mostly due to one-time anomalies. There are very few positive long term indicators -- unless, of course, you are rich, in which case the current admin has got your back, like every good Christian should. Jesus always sucked up to the rich folks, after all.

    "If I was that ignorant, I really wouldn't be talking about political issues.
    You're embarassing (sic)."

    I'm rubber, you're glue, it bounces off me and sticks on you, mother fucker.

    As to the issue at hand, i.e., Air America living off the flesh of street urchins:

    That you guys feel this is the Issue of the Day after Day after Day, is so absurd. Does anyone believe that the current AAR mngt conspired to steal grant money from the Boys/Girls Club? As I understand it, the investigation is focused on the mngt of the B/G Club, which at best had very poor internal controls, and Cohen, who apparently was/is a crook. Has AAR slow paid into escrow? OMIGOD, maybe so, maybe not. Will civilization stand in the face of such villainy? The jury's out, but surely, given a generation or two, we will be able to get past this great sin.

    Christ almighty, do you all have any sense of proportion? Surely there's SOMETHING more important to worry about. Of course, Franken was #37 on Bernie Goldberg's enemies list, so no doubt this is a high priority.

    By Blogger erasmus, at 25 August, 2005 04:03  

  • PhilM,
    Rove isn't a target of the investigation. His lawyer has said so publicly mulitple times, and he's testified as a witness in the Grand Jury proceeding. I know this is terribly complicated for you to understand, but people under investigation for felonies don't testify against themselves in court. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates an ignorance that is appalling.

    Why you are continuing to deny that money from Gloria Wise went to Air America is beyond me. That is not, and has never been disptuted. Again, its ignorance and its probably willful because as a person of the left you don't want to believe it.

    And then we have an apparent economist chime in:
    This 'great' economy we have now is an illusion

    Yeah, 26 straight months of job growth, total U.S. employment of 142 million workers stands at an all-time high; 9 straight quarters of GDP growth above 3%; 5% unemployment rate, etc, its all an "illusion"

    Whatever, moron.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 08:02  

  • LOL...See the question is asked--Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"? And what does PhilM do. Does he answer it or discuss it. No he sticks his head in the sand and then proclaims that we have to get the results of the investigation before we can discuss it.

    Because it's a dishonest leading question of which you're already convinced you have the answer. Obviously the owners of AAR have a dispute with the DOI directive because they haven't fully adhered to it. It was a secret deal was between Cohen and Rosen. It's obvious that Cohen misled everyone and left others to clean up his mess. No one is even sure where the money went - most of it appears to be used by Cohen. Yet you're so keen to smear AAR and Franken for his wrong-doing.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 08:05  

  • PhilM,

    It was a secret deal was between Cohen and Rosen

    Please provide a source for this "fact"?
    Please do.


    Obviously the owners of AAR have a dispute with the DOI directive because they haven't fully adhered to it


    Really?
    Or maybe the "dispute" is they don't have the cash, huh?

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 08:08  

  • A$$:

    Rove isn't a target of the investigation. His lawyer has said so publicly mulitple times, and he's testified as a witness in the Grand Jury proceeding. I know this is terribly complicated for you to understand, but people under investigation for felonies don't testify against themselves in court. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates an ignorance that is appalling.


    You want me to believe the slippery words of Rove's lawyer that he is not under investigation yet is still part of that investigation? And you have absolutely no clue how the Grand Jury system work with special prosecutions. You can deny it all you like but that won't make it go away. Rove's words and actions are being investigated and he may be indicted if the prosecutor concludes that there is a case to pursue against him. And what's this BS - People under investigation do not testify against themselves in court? What?! And you accuse me of ignorance? Yeah right?!!

    The money was a secret deal between Cohen and Rosen. No one is even sure where it went - it appears that most of it was used by Cohen. Yet you support the dishonesty of Maloney's smear campaign against Franken and AAR. Be honest - you want to smear Franken and AAR by associating them with Cohen's alleged wrong-doing. That's not in dispute either.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 08:26  

  • The money was a secret deal between Cohen and Rosen. No one is even sure where it went - it appears that most of it was used by Cohen.

    'Cept AL FRANKEN.

    "...was used for operations. Which I imagine it was."

    Who better to know?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 08:46  

  • 'Cept AL FRANKEN.

    "...was used for operations. Which I imagine it was."


    Yeah Franken wasn't sure either.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 09:18  

  • Franken wasn't sure either

    Gee.... so I guess we don't know. Oh, gosh...

    Wait a minute! The "Forestic Accounting"! Forgot about that, didn't you?

    That DID show the money going into Airball America and it being used for operations!

    Awww.. sorry... But thanks for playing!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 09:27  

  • Ignorance exemplified:
    You want me to believe the slippery words of Rove's lawyer that he is not under investigation yet is still part of that investigation? And you have absolutely no clue how the Grand Jury system work with special prosecutions. You can deny it all you like but that won't make it go away. Rove's words and actions are being investigated and he may be indicted if the prosecutor concludes that there is a case to pursue against him. And what's this BS - People under investigation do not testify against themselves in court? What?! And you accuse me of ignorance? Yeah right?!!


    --Please tell me when people take the witness stand and testify against themselves. Please, I'd love to hear this.

    I don't know how the Grand Jury system works, really? Gee, I must have blacked out in law school phil.
    See, there is this little thing called the 5th amendment which prevents you from being compelled to testify against yourself, and that includes in front of a Grand Jury. There is no sort of distiction between "special prosecution" and not for the 5th Amendment.
    Can you even grasp this?

    You can not be compelled to testify against yourself in any court proceeding anywhere, you moron. I guess in your mind this still makes him a "person of interest" even though he testified as a witness (a distiction you can't grasp), was given written assurances he isn't a target of the investigation, and testified - which you can't be compelled to do.

    So let me get this straight, you think Rove's laywer is going to go on record and lie and jerk around a Federal Prosecutor?

    As I've said, its comical to see someone as ignorant as you talk about facts and make posts like the one above.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 09:53  

  • The money was a secret deal between Cohen and Rosen. No one is even sure where it went - it appears that most of it was used by Cohen.


    Please tell us how you know this "factsmaster"? Please.

    Funny how you keep making these silly statements and then can't back them up upon questioning, huh?

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 09:54  

  • A$$:

    So you claim you went to law school? Gee... standards are slipping in this country.

    Don't give me this snow-job about the 5th Amendment. I know that witnesses can't be compelled to testify. Do you know if Rove took the 5th? If he didn't, his testimony as well as that of other witnesses will include scrutiny of his role in the WH leak.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 10:21  

  • you think Rove's laywer is going to go on record and lie and jerk around a Federal Prosecutor?

    Like Nutcase America is jerking around the NYC DOI. They will be really happy they did that.

    Funny how the 'rats don't have and sense of right and wrong when it comes to the law, purjury or anything like that. If it feels good and gets them what they want - it is OK!

    Hey, like my picture?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 10:23  

  • Franken is pretty smart. If I were Franken, I would not really want to look too closely into where my paycheck is coming from, either.

    Too bad about the hungry kids and disabled folk. But a wealthy talk show host has got to live, you know?

    By Blogger al fin, at 25 August, 2005 10:31  

  • What I find laughable is Dick Kreck's citing the Daily Kos as a news source (okay, a source of information)

    Has Kreck published a column since then?

    Or is he just "resting comfortably" now with his buddy Bruiser?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 10:42  

  • I know that witnesses can't be compelled to testify. Do you know if Rove took the 5th?

    --I don't even know what to say.
    You are so stupid its embarassing.
    If he took the 5th, why would he show up and testify 3 times, get written assurances he isn't a target, and sign a waiver of confidentiality for the reporters.

    Yeah, I bet he took the 5th.
    You don't seem to understand this concept:
    He testified as a witness

    His testimony was deemed valuable as a witness.

    Like if you are in 7-11 and saw someone steal something then the prosecutor calls you in to testify.
    That means you're "under investigation" for your "role" in the theft, right?

    Really, you need to just stop, you are doing nothing but making yourself look more & more foolish.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 10:47  

  • get written assurances he isn't a target,

    Rove DID get written assurance he wasn't a target.

    Gee... I'll bet Al Franken wishes HE had one of those!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 10:53  

  • Like if you are in 7-11 and saw someone steal something then the prosecutor calls you in to testify.
    That means you're "under investigation" for your "role" in the theft, right?


    Now I'm certain your delusional if you're comparing Rove to an innocent bystander. Again, more dishonesty, smear, and selective argument. (I must admit you've certainly learnt Maloney's trade well.) You try to slip past the issue with fine semantic distinctions (lawyers being what they are) but everyone who has testified to the Grand Jury in the special prosecution are witnesses.

    All your twisting and sleight of hand around Rove being only a witness with signed assurances whose testimony is only merely valuable doesn't alter one thing. The special prosecutor will be scrutinizing Rove's role in this matter by examining his testimony and the testimony of other witnesses, and may therefore conclude that there is case to bring an indictment against Rove (and/or others) for his/their role in the WH leak.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 14:03  

  • Wait a minute! The "Forestic Accounting"! Forgot about that, didn't you?

    That DID show the money going into Airball America and it being used for operations!


    And still Franken wasn't sure.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 14:09  

  • And still Franken wasn't sure.

    Oh, baby, he was sure, alright.

    Hey, my picture - MY PICTURE! I posted it so you could make a sarcastic witty comment!

    No more softballs for you if you're just going to watch them go by!

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 14:14  

  • The desperate hope by Tom C. that somehow Al Franken will be found to have done something wrong in this whole affair is made that much more pathetic by Brian Maloney doing his best to encourage him in this belief.

    It's hard for me to understand how a second rate comedian like Al Franken has managed to get under the collective skin of the right to such a point of irritation.

    It's laughable really.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 14:16  

  • Dear me A$$man. You've been caught red-handed plagiarizing and lying about it. My my... what dishonesty! Then again I'm not that surprised coming from a Maloney goon.

    So who is going to believe you now? You probably didn't even go to law school as you claim. Another Maloney lick-spittle is exposed. You have absolutely NO credibility.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 14:25  

  • It's hard for me to understand how a second rate comedian like Al Franken has managed to get under the collective skin of the right to such a point of irritation.

    It's laughable really.


    This "liberal firebrand" steals money from the inner-city children's charity - yes, I think of it as the only funny think Al Franken ever did.

    Too bad he didn't think of it first. He stole that act from Jesse Jackson.

    Hey, do YOU like my picture?

    By Blogger Tom C, at 25 August, 2005 14:30  

  • All your twisting and sleight of hand around Rove being only a witness with signed assurances whose testimony is only merely valuable doesn't alter one thing. The special prosecutor will be scrutinizing Rove's role in this matter by examining his testimony and the testimony of other witnesses, and may therefore conclude that there is case to bring an indictment against Rove (and/or others) for his/their role in the WH leak.


    -Um, moron, except for the fact that he has written assurances he isn't being investigated. Therefore, how are you going to bring and indictment against someone you aren't investigating?

    You really have no clue about the subject matter. Your wish that his "testimony is being examined" for a possible indictment against himself - which has has assurances was not the case - is laughable.

    Again, you are an ignorant moron.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 14:43  

  • Now I'm certain your delusional if you're comparing Rove to an innocent bystander. Again, more dishonesty, smear, and selective argument

    -Um, moron, I didn't "compare" Rove to an "innocent bystander", I compared the circumstances around a case. Adults can make these distinctions. You as an uninformed liberal, obviously can not.

    Please name the "dishonesty" I wrote. Please.
    And the "smear" as well.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 14:54  

  • Air America is crashing and burning and all these idiots can do is to go into denial. If they had any working neurons left they'd probably start their own blog or internet radio station, get their message out, but clearly that's not an option.

    Pathetic losers.

    By Blogger Buffy, at 25 August, 2005 16:06  

  • I see buffy's been reading about neurology today.

    Good for buffy.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 16:33  

  • -Um, moron, except for the fact that he has written assurances he isn't being investigated. Therefore, how are you going to bring and indictment against someone you aren't investigating?

    You really have no clue about the subject matter. Your wish that his "testimony is being examined" for a possible indictment against himself - which has has assurances was not the case - is laughable.

    Again, you are an ignorant moron.


    And you're a thieving little bitch. (I thought I would get the name calling out of the way up front).

    Again you try to slip by with selective argument. So Rove has written assurances that he is not being investigated. And you're telling me that those assurances give him protection against indictment!! I don't think so A$$man. Your continued efforts to dodge the point are now getting desperate.

    Then there's your credibility issue. Why would anyone give any weight to your statements when you plagiarize other people's work?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 19:34  

  • -Um, moron, I didn't "compare" Rove to an "innocent bystander", I compared the circumstances around a case. Adults can make these distinctions. You as an uninformed liberal, obviously can not.

    Uh-uh. No sale. I guess it must be difficult to keep track of all the misleading statements you make. But it is significant that you backtracked on your portrait of Rove as innocent bystander.


    Please name the "dishonesty" I wrote.


    Ahhh... your dishonesty...
    Well, everyone on this blog now knows that your a thieving plagiarist, don't they? And your absolute stupidity for thinking you wouldn't get caught. But you were caught and exposed as the fraud you are. Law school? Yeah right!

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 19:52  


  • So Rove has written assurances that he is not being investigated. And you're telling me that those assurances give him protection against indictment!!


    I put that statement in bold so everyone can read it clearly.
    You are so stupid you don't even see the contradiction.
    I'll just leave it at that.

    But it is significant that you backtracked on your portrait of Rove as innocent bystander.


    Same as above. Note that I never said nor "portrayed" Rove as an "innocent bystander" I said he was there testifying as a witness.
    Your appalling ignorance prevents you from grasping an analogy.

    Its worth noting that you have been asked 5 direct questions and answered none of them. Gee, I wonder why that is?


    Well, everyone on this blog now knows that your a thieving plagiarist, don't they?

    Yeah, not quite. Because you are an ignorant buffoon, as you continue to demonstrate, you of course asked for information on a subject of which you have zero knowledge. I provided that information, and instead of being able to comprehend or discuss it, you yell "plagiarist"

    Whatever, dipshit. As I've said, you're only embarrassing yourself with these comically false statements.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 21:03  

  • PhilM:

    I know a place in Oak Forest, Illinois. It's a very nice place Phil, where you'll get the help you need. The mental help you so desperately need before you go off on a 6 state killing spree.

    You need to go to the Oak Forest Hospital for the Criminally Insane.

    Because, Phil, you've been off your medications for several days now, and your loved ones worry so.

    And Phil, you've been a lying sack of sheep dipt.

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 25 August, 2005 21:19  

  • Ouch! It sounds like you're getting a little defensive...

    I guess you're moronic claim that Rove is protected from indictment demonstrates that you don't learn much by plagiarizing your way through law school.

    Oh...I see...your little story about innocent Rove is an analogy now. Gee. I actually thought it was a just a stupid misleading story.

    You know... sometimes you have to give the dumb kids a break so guess what? I'll answer your 5 questions, if you answer just one of mine first.

    Did you or did you not insert someone else's published content in a post to this blog and try to pass that off as your own work?

    If you tell the truth, maybe the judge will go easy on you.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 21:45  

  • Whaddya know? Purple Redneck is back to parrot Maloney's crap. You got anything even remotely intelligent to say.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 21:51  

  • I guess you're moronic claim that Rove is protected from indictment

    Do you even know what an idictment is? Because based on your comments, one would easily conclude you do not.

    Oh...I see...your little story about innocent Rove is an analogy now. Gee. I actually thought it was a just a stupid misleading story.


    -If you re-read the post:
    His testimony was deemed valuable as a witness.

    Like if you are in 7-11 and saw someone steal something then the prosecutor calls you in to testify.
    That means you're "under investigation" for your "role" in the theft, right?


    Its quite clear it was never a "story" about anyone being "innocent" (a word I never used it's worth noting), rather was making an analogy that should be simple to understand, but quite clearly you can't.

    You have no clue about the legal process and yet are writing about it. As I said, its comical and embarassing. You are putting conflicting words together and don't even know it because of your ignorance.

    Did you or did you not insert someone else's published content in a post to this blog and try to pass that off as your own work?

    I know this is another concept that is terribly complicated to you, but I was posting information about a topic. Facts aren't owned by anyone in particular and I was posting facts.
    Something you are not familiar with. In doing so I unknowingly posted a snippet from an article, however, I never claimed or intended to claim that the facts contained were mine.
    So the answer to your silly and baseless question is no.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 21:57  

  • But Ace... how can we take you or your opinions about legal process seriously when you have a history plagiarism?

    In doing so I unknowingly posted a snippet from an article, however, I never claimed or intended to claim that the facts contained were mine.
    So the answer to your silly and baseless question is no.


    What! Am I'm supposed to read your dustbowl of a mind to know if those words were yours or not? And the most devastating confirmation of your dishonesty and your stupidity is that I directly asked you to provide sources for that post. And what did you do? You tried to hide.

    I'm sorry Ace. You've been caught. The law school has no choice but to expel you.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 22:24  

  • Hey phil, why don't you again repeat that when you have been assured you're not being investigated by a convening grand jury, how said grand jury often turns around and indicts you.
    Stuff like that makes us all take your silly posts seriously.

    I'm not posting "opinions" about the legal process, I'm posting facts.
    You can't see the difference because it is you who is posting ignorant opinions, and what you want to happen. Nothing more.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 22:30  

  • Come on A$$Man... give it up. You're punting when the game is over and the crowd has gone home long ago. You've been caught plain as day stealing other people's work and lying about it. Rove and Maloney would be proud.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 23:26  

  • Tell you what PhilM, I've already said a lot of intelligent things this week.

    You haven't. Why don't you try.

    But most Marxist Socialists like you parrot the party line.

    Did you get your talking points from Moron.org, DU, or the Kossacks?

    Stalin would be proud of you.

    By Blogger Purple Raider, at 26 August, 2005 10:40  

  • I see Purple Raider has exhausted his supply of intelligent things to say for the week.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 26 August, 2005 10:56  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger