Air America - Charitygate (1 Viewer)

[GPS_Flex]

Federal Funds Diverted To Air America : Air America's Dirty Dough

In a developing story, it seems Air America has been caught stealing half a million federal tax dollars from an underprivileged children and Alzheimer’s day care charity to fund its operations. Has anyone heard about this yet?

It looks like the new ownership of Air America has no intention of paying it back either.

The Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050728-081354-1414r.htm

Air America Statement: http://www.airamericaradio.com/press/gloriawise

The Radio Equalizer: http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/07/federal-funds-diverted-to-air-america.html

 

[Stinger]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Federal Funds Diverted To Air America : Air America's Dirty Dough

So not only do they benifit from millions of dollars worth of free publicity in the news media, they are now ripping off the government and the needy in order to keep their little failed radio network alive.

How disgraceful and where is the outrage?

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

So not only do they benifit from millions of dollars worth of free publicity in the news media, they are now ripping off the government and the needy in order to keep their little failed radio network alive.

How disgraceful and where is the outrage?

Something sure smells bad. I don't think the excuse of "well it happen before we took over" is gonna wash. Even if the current owners were not involved (which I would seriously question) they'd still be responsible for the debt. I'm no expert on business but it would make sense to me that when you buy a business you own both the assets and the debts of that business. Isn't this why when large mergers occurs there's such a huge investigation into the companies debt ratio? If Air America took funds from charities they should repay the charities in short order. And who ever is responsible should be held accountable.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Something sure smells bad. I don't think the excuse of "well it happen before we took over" is gonna wash. Even if the current owners were not involved (which I would seriously question) they'd still be responsible for the debt. I'm no expert on business but it would make sense to me that when you buy a business you own both the assets and the debts of that business. Isn't this why when large mergers occurs there's such a huge investigation into the companies debt ratio? If Air America took funds from charities they should repay the charities in short order. And who ever is responsible should be held accountable.

Actually, Evan Cohen is the guy who is in the center (no pun intended) of this. He's the one who did whatever was done with the money, and that is THE reason he had to resign. He allegedly personally took and misused funds from various sources, including banks.

BTW - It is not automatic that new ownership becomes responsible for old debt incurred before they took over. That is determined by the terms of the transfer of ownership. It is a point of negotiation.

Another example of criminal liability: if RICHARD M. SCRUSHY had been found guilty of misstating Health South's earnings he and the people responsible for the crimes would have been convicted. The other employees would not have been equally guilty.

Evan Cohen was a real scummy, nasty, and it is very likely (IMHO) guilty of various crimes. I guess then it is up to whatever courts it would be adjudicated in to decide the final outcome.

What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. I am confident that if Evan Cohen et al is indicted that it would receive widespread coverage.

It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's scandal, as if the two are somehow equal in their scope.

If you want someone to focus on it should be Evan Cohen AND the charity itself that lent money to Cohen / Air America. The act of the loan is under investigation for it is an apparent misuse of their funds. The founder of the charity, Charles Rosen is also under investigation for violating certain laws.

I wrote recently that with Rove we should all wait and see the outcome of the investigation before judging right or wrong. I think the same logic applies to this investigation.

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Actually, Evan Cohen is the guy who is in the center (no pun intended) of this. He's the one who did whatever was done with the money, and that is THE reason he had to resign. He allegedly personally took and misused funds from various sources, including banks.

BTW - It is not automatic that new ownership becomes responsible for old debt incurred before they took over. That is determined by the terms of the transfer of ownership. It is a point of negotiation.

Another example of criminal liability: if RICHARD M. SCRUSHY had been found guilty of misstating Health South's earnings he and the people responsible for the crimes would have been convicted. The other employees would not have been equally guilty.

Evan Cohen was a real scummy, nasty, and it is very likely (IMHO) guilty of various crimes. I guess then it is up to whatever courts it would be adjudicated in to decide the final outcome.

What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. I am confident that if Evan Cohen et al is indicted that it would receive widespread coverage.

It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's scandal, as if the two are somehow equal in their scope.

If you want someone to focus on it should be Evan Cohen AND the charity itself that lent money to Cohen / Air America. The act of the loan is under investigation for it is an apparent misuse of their funds. The founder of the charity, Charles Rosen is also under investigation for violating certain laws.

I wrote recently that with Rove we should all wait and see the outcome of the investigation before judging right or wrong. I think the same logic applies to this investigation.

Well do you think something smells funny here? I do when a charity loans a large amount of money to an up start media company. I think when people give money to charities they expect the charity to spend it on whatever the charity is working on. Not something completely unrelated to the charity.

I think the situation with AA is not comparable with the Health South situation you site. You're comparing the owner with the employees. With AA case it's the current owners be responsible for the debt incurred by the previous owner. I'm not saying they should be held responsible for any criminal or ethical wrong doing. But I am saying they should own that debt just as they own any asset of the company. You buy a company you own both assets and liabilities. Don't you?

I do agree that judgement should be reserved until all the facts are known. I just think something smells bad. Course I think something smells bad about the Rove situation as well.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

I too agree that judgment should be reserved until all the facts are known but Air America is accused of receiving part of its investment capital through the diversion public funds that were intended for use by Boys and Girls clubs. So far as I know, no one is yet disputing this fact. The only defense they have yet offered is, "We've been purchased since then, so neener neener neener."

 

[faminedynasty]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

How dare you people even comment on an ongoing investiagation!?

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

How dare you people even comment on an ongoing investiagation!?

Yep, some people who don't want to pass any judgment on Rove due the the "on going investigation" are willing convict AA right here and now. And the reverse is also true. Some people who want Rove run up a flag pole don't want to accept anything regarding the AA situation until after the investigation is complete. Hmm, wonder why that is...?

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Evan Cohen was a real scummy, nasty, and it is very likely (IMHO) guilty of various crimes. I guess then it is up to whatever courts it would be adjudicated in to decide the final outcome.

What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. I am confident that if Evan Cohen et al is indicted that it would receive widespread coverage.

It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's scandal, as if the two are somehow equal in their scope.

I almost couldn't believe what I read here. Then I see that you qualify it in this last of the three paragraphs I quote.

So you think it is up to the Criminal Justice System to place guilt and not the media. But you still say that QUOTE: "I am confident that if Evan Cohen et al is indicted that it would receive widespread coverage". END QUOTE

Your bias is so evident here. Karl Rove has no indictment and even has the word from the Special Prosecutor after hearing testimony that Mr. Rove isn't even a subject of the investigation. I can agree that Evan Cohen hasn't been indicted but you don't see the difference in Karl Rove being actually called "allegedly guilty" in the media while you are willing to await Evan Cohen's indictment? Karl Rove hasn't been indicted. You actually see a difference here?

Evan Cohen's involvement let directly to the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club going under. What law did Karl Rove break? I held clearance when I was in the military and even though President G.H.W. Bush changed the law governing the CIA which is involved in the Valerie Plame investigation, I can't read anywhere that Karl Rove broke the law.

I repeat, if you think the unindicted should be availed the Criminal Justice System are you saying that opportunity shouldn't be equal? :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Your bias is so evident here. Karl Rove has no indictment and even has the word from the Special Prosecutor after hearing testimony that Mr. Rove isn't even a subject of the investigation.

If you would take the time to read my previous posts you would know that I said the exact same thing about Rove that I'm now saying about Cohen, that we should let the investigation conclude before making a judgement. I do not see how that is bias? Maybe you're just biased against me and anything that I write?

I can agree that Evan Cohen hasn't been indicted but you don't see the difference in Karl Rove being actually called "allegedly guilty" in the media while you are willing to await Evan Cohen's indictment? Karl Rove hasn't been indicted. You actually see a difference here?

Yeah, I do. Don't you think the Rove investigation is a lot more newsworthy than the Air America investigation? Are you suggesting that the press treat them as equal stories? Do you think outing a CIA spy and her contacts is the same thing as half a million dollars illegally funneled into a business?

I believe it's safe to say that the Rove investigation is a much bigger story and that the press will treat it as such. Surely you can see that the AA story doesn't have the cache that the Rove story does? It's so obvious!

I repeat, if you think the unindicted should be availed the Criminal Justice System are you saying that opportunity shouldn't be equal?

In a word, DUH!:thinking

I never said it shouldn't be equal, please do not make up stuff about me....

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

If you would take the time to read my previous posts you would know that I said the exact same thing about Rove that I'm now saying about Cohen, that we should let the investigation conclude before making a judgement. I do not see how that is bias? Maybe you're just biased against me and anything that I write?

Yeah, I do. Don't you think the Rove investigation is a lot more newsworthy than the Air America investigation? Are you suggesting that the press treat them as equal stories? Do you think outing a CIA spy and her contacts is the same thing as half a million dollars illegally funneled into a business?

I believe it's safe to say that the Rove investigation is a much bigger story and that the press will treat it as such. Surely you can see that the AA story doesn't have the cache that the Rove story does? It's so obvious!


In a word, DUH!:thinking

I never said it shouldn't be equal, please do not make up stuff about me....

Well then I'll take your own word and apply it to you, "DUH!"

May I ask? Where do you get the "Rove Investigation"? You do know that I'm not just making something up when I say the Special Prosecutor says "Karl Rove isn't a subject of the investigation." I don't know what they are calling the investigation into Cohen and Air America but isn't it the media that gives the investigations their names?

So! Understanding the "cache" of the two stories, I see Cohen and Air America having much more to do with that investigation especially since Karl Rove isn't a subject of the Plame Investigation. Considering the word comes directly from the Special Prosecutor why don't you understand that? :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

May I ask? Where do you get the "Rove Investigation"? You do know that I'm not just making something up when I say the Special Prosecutor says "Karl Rove isn't a subject of the investigation."

I thought you were going to wait and see, but it appears that you've changed your mind and are now passing judgement? Interesting.

Your spin into semantics is just that spin, and it is transparent.

How about we just wait and see?

How come you appear unable to grasp that the Rove "story" is much tastier to the press than the AA story?

The semantics stuff is a waste of my time, sorry. Come up with something to debate or let's let it go for now....

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

I thought you were going to wait and see, but it appears that you've changed your mind and are now passing judgement? Interesting.

Your spin into semantics is just that spin, and it is transparent.

How about we just wait and see?

How come you appear unable to grasp that the Rove "story" is much tastier to the press than the AA story?

The semantics stuff is a waste of my time, sorry. Come up with something to debate or let's let it go for now....

I haven't ignored the press at all. Even you use the term "tastier" after having accused me of spin. You can accuse all you want instead of facing the question and answering. I have posted nothing but "let's see where the investigation goes" on any thread about both of these stories. So I'll make it easy and just make it the object of this post:

You have referred to the "Rove investigation". There is no such thing. Are you so ill informed that you think I am the one spinning and am the source of this information? Do you deny what the Special Prosecutor has said in the Valerie Plame investigation in regard to Karl Rove? In fact, what are you saying? Please explain even if you have to be transparent to do so. I surely wouldn't hold that against you if you would just make sense.

I can't see anywhere in my referenced post that I have passed judgement at all. Are you ok? :duel

 

[cnredd]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

I haven't ignored the press at all. Even you use the term "tastier" after having accused me of spin. You can accuse all you want instead of facing the question and answering. I have posted nothing but "let's see where the investigation goes" on any thread about both of these stories. So I'll make it easy and just make it the object of this post:

You have referred to the "Rove investigation". There is no such thing. Are you so ill informed that you think I am the one spinning and am the source of this information? Do you deny what the Special Prosecutor has said in the Valerie Plame investigation in regard to Karl Rove? In fact, what are you saying? Please explain even if you have to be transparent to do so. I surely wouldn't hold that against you if you would just make sense.

I can't see anywhere in my referenced post that I have passed judgement at all. Are you ok? :duel

gordontravels,

You're involved in an unwinnable debate with someone who has been previously proven to be a liar who doesn't live up to his own standards of debate that he accuses others of...may I refer you to the thread "Bias In the Media - Air America"...Post #109...

Stop banging your head against the wall...Trying to involve him in a debate is an excercise in futility.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

gordontravels,

You're involved in an unwinnable debate with someone who has been previously proven to be a liar who doesn't live up to his own standards of debate that he accuses others of...may I refer you to the thread "Bias In the Media - Air America"...Post #109...

Stop banging your head against the wall...Trying to involve him in a debate is an excercise in futility.

I'm sorry I can't agree with you. This is a debate forum and even if someone wants to deny facts, be self-elusive about facts or ignore facts I would never call anyone here a liar. Much of what we write here is from a political viewpoint. I was accused of spin and not of being a liar. We all spin if you take the word that the media uses for itself and apply it to our posts. Personally I don't think debates are designed to "win". I believe they are designed to give both sides a "forum" to express opinion. No one here has been proven to be a liar to me.

Because I post a reply to another poster here doesn't have me banging my head against the wall. I read inconsistencies in nearly everyone from time to time. Exasperation causes some to call names or label posts as the excrement they believe they are reading. Not me. I let posts from individuals paint their own picture.

My position is that the media either blows something out of proportion for it's own agenda or ignores stories for the same reason. Much of what people here base their opinions on come from what they hear in the media. That's why I will put up with Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh. Both distort to their point of view and no one here will argue with that without showing that that distortion worked.

I can think of no better example of what I am saying than someone using the term "Charitygate". That's how the media works. Now there are individuals that think this is clever. I say it is the effect of a media out of control that want you to watch or listen so they can sell loans, cars or steaks. I watch or listen for information only and buy what I need including the arguement. :duel

 

[Stinger]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Something sure smells bad. I don't think the excuse of "well it happen before we took over" is gonna wash. Even if the current owners were not involved (which I would seriously question) they'd still be responsible for the debt. I'm no expert on business but it would make sense to me that when you buy a business you own both the assets and the debts of that business. Isn't this why when large mergers occurs there's such a huge investigation into the companies debt ratio? If Air America took funds from charities they should repay the charities in short order. And who ever is responsible should be held accountable.

Yep, it would all have to be disclosed by the seller to the buyer. If it were not then the seller has committed fraud and certainly were it the case the current owners would be in court suing the you know what out of them demanding they, the previous owners, pay the debt or reemburse them the funds from the proceeds of the sale. Notice they are not.

No different than if you sold you house and didn't tell the buyer there was a lein on the property.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

BTW - It is not automatic that new ownership becomes responsible for old debt incurred before they took over. That is determined by the terms of the transfer of ownership. It is a point of negotiation.........................

What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. ...................

A few problems with your defense. The loan was made to Air America (AA) not Cohen. He was not the owner of AA when the loan was made, he persuade Gloria Wise B&GCs to make the loan to AA. AA knew they were getting a loan from a group whose money was suppose to help little children. They denied it at first by have now admitted they took the money. Now they refuse to repay it.

It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's

=

It seems to me you are trying to drop a bomb in order to divert the discussion. Very telling.

If you want someone to focus on it should be Evan Cohen AND the charity itself that lent money to Cohen / Air America.

Cohen left AA after the first month or so, the loan was just made last year.

I wrote recently that with Rove we should all wait and see the outcome of the investigation before judging right or wrong. I think the same logic applies to this investigation.

There's nothing wrong with discussing known facts.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

A few problems with your defense. The loan was made to Air America (AA) not Cohen. He was not the owner of AA when the loan was made, he persuade Gloria Wise B&GCs to make the loan to AA. AA knew they were getting a loan from a group whose money was suppose to help little children. They denied it at first by have now admitted they took the money. Now they refuse to repay it.

It seems to me you are trying to drop a bomb in order to divert the discussion. Very telling.

Cohen left AA after the first month or so, the loan was just made last year.

There's nothing wrong with discussing known facts.

Either I must disagree here or see the evidence.

True that any loan goes to the corporation and not the individual but the individual can be held accountable bypassing the corporation. I've seen many salesmen come into the office bragging about the coup and receive praise from those that don't have anything to do with the salesman's job other than working there too.

As for knowing the money came from someone that "was supposed to help little children". Please. I seriously doubt there was a conspiracy where Al and company sat in a dark room rubbing their hands together in contemplation of stealing from the mouths of babes.

Who was it that made the denial you reference?

When the loan was made and when it was negotiated may be quite different as these things can take time. Again, if these are "known facts" I would appreciate the source, not a link, and I'll do my search. They are known facts to you so you know where they are. Thanks. :duel

 

[Middleground]

Not to steal the topic of this thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. I know this deserves a thread of it's own, but how do y'all feel about Halliburton?

 

[Deegan]

Dropping off like flies I see. First Soro's group announced they were folding, now Air anti-America is on their last legs, and finally the L.A times is in trouble.

Things are not looking good for the angry left, I certainly never saw this coming.:roll:

 

[gordontravels]

Not to steal the topic of this thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. I know this deserves a thread of it's own, but how do y'all feel about Halliburton?

Threads very often go off topic but at least you show the courtesy to ask. I'd go start a Haliburton thread if you want. :duel

 

[Stinger]

Re: Air America “Charitygate”

Either I must disagree here or see the evidence.[/quote]

What evidence are you lacking? At the least it is a gross conflict of interest. AA has done it's 180 and says it will "eventually" pay the money back. Why was money loaned in the first place, that was federal money given in a grant to help little children why is it being funneled to a privately owned politically bias'd company? If AA is such a successful venture then it should have no problem luring private money, but no they had to go the back channel route and get it's hands on taxpayer money.

I've seen many salesmen ...........

This has nothing to do with any salesman you have ever seen or any trival stories you try to post.

As for knowing the money came from someone that "was supposed to help little children". Please. I seriously doubt there was a conspiracy where Al and company sat in a dark room rubbing their hands together in contemplation of stealing from the mouths of babes.

At the least taxpayer money, typical of leftist.

I'll do my search. They are known facts to you so you know where they are. Thanks.

I would do so it is clear the loan was made, it was made under ethical questions at the least possible criminal we'll have to wait and see. But even if there is no criminal it is still outrageous that they have gone to such a non-profit organization and taken federal money meant for kids and at first refused to repay it and now are saying it may be several years. What happens if, as it is seeming more and more everyday, they go under? What happens to the money meant for those kids, paid for by us taxpayers?

 

[Stinger]

Not to steal the topic of this thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. I know this deserves a thread of it's own, but how do y'all feel about Halliburton?

It's a great company that hires thousands of great people paying good wages and offers a good return for the investors both big and small. They do a good job at what they do. Why do you feel a need to interject them in this subject line?

 

[Stinger]

Threads very often go off topic but at least you show the courtesy to ask. I'd go start a Haliburton thread if you want. :duel

Why? What is there to discuss or is it just an attempt to divert? There is nothing in the news about Halibuton.

 

[Pacridge]

It's a great company that hires thousands of great people paying good wages and offers a good return for the investors both big and small. They do a good job at what they do. Why do you feel a need to interject them in this subject line?

I'm sure the company has lots of hard working honest people in it's ranks. The company itself engages in business with countries, such as Iran, that they can not legally, as an American, company do business with. They do this by using a nothing more then a mail drop in the Cayman Islands and calling that mail drop an 'Off Shore Sub." In short they're doing business with governments that support terror and terrorist. The company is assisting governments who are helping those who attack and kill our troops. It's appalling and completely un-American.

I do agree with you what's this question doing in this thread? I smell an attempted Hijack.