I haven’t been following the Air America scandal, but Leon at Macho Nachos has, and has some information.
Quite honestly, I am overwhelmed with all the investigations under way on other ‘scandals’ du jour, so I have no energy to follow this.
Reader Interactions
16Comments
Comments are closed.
Steve
This is the first I’m hearing of this. I blame the echo chamber.
There are 2 issues: (1) can Air America be forced to pay back the money, and (2) can Piquant, the company that recently purchased Air America, be forced to pay back the money.
As for (1), from what John linked, I don’t see that Air America has asserted any defense, and it sure sounds like a shady transaction. The problem seems to be that Air America doesn’t have the money, I guess?
As for (2), the legal analysts are probably right that it’s not Piquant’s fault. The analogy to someone buying a parcel of land from Enron is apropos; if I buy land from Enron, and later it emerges that Enron ripped a bunch of people off, it’s not my fault, and you can’t foreclose on my land. Assuming Piquant bought the assets of Air America without knowing anything about the ill-gotten gains, it’s simply not their fault.
But (2) is kind of a distraction, and something for lawyers to argue about. The real issue is whether AA’s former chair really stole this money, and if AA has any defense other than inability to pay it back.
Mike S
It seems to me that buying a company entails buying that companies obligations. It sounds like Piquant didn’t do their “Due Diligence.” Although an argument can be made that the escrow holder, or whatever entity processed the sale, should have paid off any outstanding debts through the proceeds of the sale.
Either way it’s bullshit and the loan should be paid off. This is assuming that the story is correct as told through the links.
Rick
Diverting money from the children and the stricken elderly to pimp hate radio. I hate the suffering, but damn! The irony is delicious.
Cordially…
Matt
I’m no lawyer, and wouldn’t begin to wade into that quagmire, but I think a larger question is this: why the hell is the Boys and Girls Club loaning out their public money in the first place? They gave a loan: part of doing that is undertaking the risk that it won’t be paid back (with your proper legal recourse if that happens, obviously). And Air America, even to it’s staunchest defenders, has to be acknowledged as a huge financial risk.
The club’s being investigated for mismanagement of funds. Fully apart from Piquant’s current liability, it seems to me that the Boys and Girls Club pretty clearly did just that.
BinkyBoy
It sounds like Cohen is the one responsible for this mess, not Air America. Of course, when you’re so far into your hatred of the left, its easy to get carried away.
I’m sure Al Franken was running around kicking the little Boys and Girls at the club. He’s like that, you know.
Defense Guy
The problem BinkyBoy, is that while Piquant may not be criminally liable, if they did not know, the corporation Air America will still have to take part of the hit. Otherwise, you have re-created a loophole that would allow companies to just sell off their bad business dealings to dodge liability. This would be like allowing Enron to dodge any responsibility for the actions of it’s leaders, so long as it was sold to another party before litigation.
The actual perpetrators, still can’t dodge criminal liability, if it actually exists, in either case.
Leon H
Matt,
You’ve hit on exactly the central question that the investigators are asking. Why in the world did the publicly-funded Boys and Girls club loan money to a left-leaning propaganda machine?
Also, relevant questions: why did Air America take this money? Given that they immediately engaged in fund-raising activity for the aforementioned club, the appearance of quid-pro-quo is frankly unavoidable.
Finally, where the heck is this money now? Nobody on earth seems to want to answer the question of whether it has been paid back, can be paid back, or whether Air America even INTENDED to pay back the money in the first place. More to come.
Marcus Wellby
I wouldn’t say they had to be a huge risk — there is a large audience for them out there. They need to position themselves differently — even as a Democrat, the idea of “liberal” radio fills me with thoughts of NPR segments on The Greats of Peruvian Lesbian Poetry. There are a lot of people who would gravitate to the politics of the station but cringe at the thought of being “liberal” — the right sure worked wonders on that word.
The problem was they just were all over the place when they first started. They should have began with fewer stations and allowed market forces to determine the rate of growth. I think now things may be falling into place for them, but it was a rocky start for certain.
The HBO documentary about them was very interesting. The first owner was a real dipshit.
Other than that they need better personalities. I am not a huge Franken fan by any means — far too wonkish for anyone but the most die hard news junky. I like Randi Rhoades, but then again I am a huge Stern fan and may not represent the ideal demographic. Some of the early shows were awful, the two women with Chuck D??? Talk about no chemistry. And Ed Schultz’s voice reminds me way too much of Rush.
Steve
There are a lot of facts that are unknown here: was there a written document reflecting this “loan”? Was the “loan” ever approved by the board of the B&G club? If so, how the heck did Cohen convince them to approve a $500,000 loan without even a written instrument?
This could be outright theft by Cohen. It could also be a political issue; if Cohen is no longer with the B&G club, it’s easy to imagine new Board members saying they want no part of Cohen’s pet investment, and trying to get out of it by denying they ever approved it. I’ve seen similar situations more often than you’d like.
I’m willing to keep a completely open mind, but since it’s Malkin that seems to be flogging this story, I don’t know how much evidence I expect to come out. The media sources she links to basically say “there are a lot of questions here, we need to find out the answers.” Whereas her approach is to say “there are some really rotten allegations being made, I have no idea if they’re true, but – what excuses will liberals come up with to defend this?????”
The truth will come out, I’m sure, but probably not via Michelle Malkin.
Matt
I agree that there’s a large audience out there, but there’s a large customer base for a lot of businesses that fail. Fact is, this was always closer to “huge risk” than “sure thing.” Lots of people, not only on the right, were thinking failure, or, at least, no short-term profitablity.
BinkyBoy
Steve says what I tried to say, but does a much better job at pointing the finger at Cohen.
Piquant may be responsible for the debt, but they may not have even known about the debt until recently, and its possible that even then they may have a case that they didn’t buy that debt because it wasn’t documented. Air America itself may end up with the bill, but I think that then goes right back to Piquant.
Cohen appears to be the man in the hot seat, with all of the questions his to answer.
Marcus Wellby
I think it was a lot closer to “huge risk” because of how the concept was handled – though I think the concept itself is a “sure thing”.
Once they have a more solid roster of personalities they will be in a better position. I think they made a mistake by making Al Franken the focal point when he really isn’t the best on air personality.
DougJ
The real scandal is that the jackasses at Air American are allowed to broadcast at all. We’re at war and they’re providing aid and comfort to the enemy. I read that Great Britain is initiating a media crack down in the wake of the bombings. We should do the same here.
Stormy70
I’ll take mine a la mode, please. Air Enron, for the children. (head tilt)
Al Maviva
Pish, you nay-sayers.
The problem isn’t the loan, or the talent. It’s that Al Franken’s superior brain power doesn’t translate easily into tiny soundbites capable of assimilation by the untermen… er, I mean the ordinary people. You just need to repackage the message so it’s more attractive to sheepl… er, the voters. I’m sure there’s a huge market out there for it, because the mainstream networks, the NY Times, the whole corporate media is just a vast right wing tool that totally gives Bush a complete free pass – good coverage of his evil wars all over the world, the terrorist threat he generated, and his ties to Nazis. Why, if some enterprising film maker came along and marketed a mockumentary slamming Bush, there’s no way any mainstream company would handle it… that’s why we need Air America. I encourage all of you to send your checks to Al Franken, and help save this noble endeavor.
In the alternative, there are other projects with equal utility, such as giving $20s to hobos to burn in trash cans on Philly street corners on cold winter mornings.
Steve
Wow, that just wasn’t very good snark at all.