It appears that I have made some grievous errors. First, I erroneously claimed the following:
I would, however, remain cautious about going out on a limb over what Franken says. I don't really expect that Sean Hannity would be an authority on the finances of Disney, and I am highly skeptical that Franken has a clue what he is talking about when it comes to the details of the financial arrangements involved.
On another occasion, I further speculated on Franken's ignorance of the actual issues:
I put this down to Franken's general bumbling idiocy, rather than an official statement on behalf of the company.
It appears, per Michelle Malkin, that I was wrong, and Al Franken was in fact knowledgeable of the shady transaction in question - as evidenced by his signature on a document detailing the transaction in question. So, my bad.
The problem is, I should have been right. What major media company involves one of their on-air personalities in their financial dealings? Does Disney consult Sean Hannity before entering into partnerships, or obtaining financing? Does Clear Channel get Rush Limbaugh's signature before buying a new radio station? What in the world is the possible motivation for getting Franken involved in this transaction?
This baffling turn of events signals, to me, a couple of significant things. First, it is a sign of a business that does not know what the heck it is doing. Franken is not entertaining, but it's at least appropriate for Air America to have Franken in his on-air position, given that he is (at least nominally) an entertainer by trade. For them to involve him in negotiations concerning major financial decisions in their country seems, to me, to indicate a gross negligence with shareholder money. I am too busy at this moment to scan through the document and determine whether all of the rest of the investors in Piquant/Progress Media signed on to this document as well, to determine whether they knew who was making decisions about their money.
Although, given their past history, it might be too hard to find enough people who care whether these particular investors were screwed or not to actually push the issue.
The second thing it indicates is that a large number of Franken's on-air comments were not merely ignorant, they were deliberately false - as Michelle catalogs in her post. Basically, his whole defense - I'm just a humble "entertainer" - a defense which was highly plausible, suddenly has come crashing down. Franken's involvement with this scandal on a personal level is stunning.
I would think this would be of far greater interest to some folks in the media than Rush Limbaugh's addiction to prescription drugs (which, to this point, were legally consumed). Well, it might be, if Franken were conservative.
Or if anyone actually listened to his show.