Skip to comments.Testimony by Giuliani Indicates He Was Briefed on Kerik in ’00 (NY Times Hit)
Posted on 03/29/2007 8:52:01 PM PDT by RDTF
Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Keriks relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Keriks appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records.
Mr. Giuliani, testifying last year under oath before a Bronx grand jury investigating Mr. Kerik, said he had no memory of the briefing, but he did not dispute that it had taken place, according to a transcript of his testimony.
Mr. Giulianis testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Keriks appointment as the citys top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Keriks entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nations homeland security secretary.
In his testimony, given in April 2006, Mr. Giuliani indicated that he must have simply forgotten that he had been briefed on one or more occasions as part of the background investigation of Mr. Kerik before his appointment to the police post.
There is no evidence that Mr. Giuliani knew about the apartment renovation before promoting Mr. Kerik to police commissioner. But the top investigator who briefed Mr. Giuliani in 2000, the transcript shows, was aware that Mr. Keriks brother and a close friend had been hired by an affiliate of the company, which for years had been struggling to secure a city license.
The transcript of Mr. Giulianis testimony was not given to The New York Times by any rival campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I don't talk to asshats like you
Lovely language. Keep shielding yourself from facts.
I think the term you used on me is merely a case of projection, because I study and learn, not hide from truth, and then make informed decisions, which you can't do if you won't do the homework.
I'd never use such vulgar language, though.
(1) Rudeo has trouble remembering, and/or,
(2) Rudeo has incipient Alzheimer's disease,
(3) Rudeo is a serial liar.
Yeah, look at what a liberal Republican Al D'Amato was!/sarcasm off
Any kind of intelligent analytic thinking goes over the head of some people.
They like their politicians simple. Sloganeering.
That quote is correct.
In the absence of the thoughts expressed you don't have freedom, you have anarchy.
The key word is LAWFUL authority.
IF a cop waves you and other traffic off a particular road, in his lawful capacity and authority, you are still a free American.
If everyone decides they will go where they choose, road hazard or not, you have anarchy and danger for all.
Again, the key is LAWFUL authority. It is why the founders founded a Government and a Constitution. All legitimizing lawful authority and Freedom.
BFD. The New York Times has been extremely hostile to Giuliani since the day he first announced he was running for mayor. And once Rudy was elected, the NY Times was against everything he did, from enforcing quality of life laws, to driving porn and prositution from Times Square, cutting taxes, snubbing Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, to driving people off the welfare rolls. Of course there will be some people here who will accuse Giuliani of lying to the grand jury because he couldn't remember something that occurrd six years earlier, yet they will defend Libby to the grave.
No Rudeo has Hellery Clinton Total Selective Memory Lapse disease. Er...uh...I...I I don't recall.
The Rudy POM POM kids find beliving in facts presented as "optional".
Hah, thats just so liberal.
Libby is small potatoes.
Bin Ladin determined to attack inside US
The Leftists still feed on that one.
If one looks critically on the attacks on Giuliani on this site, you will see a huge similarity to the modus operandi of the most revolting and extreme Left.
I've missed most of the rudy posters the past couple of days, we've been stuck with FairOpinion having to carry all of the load, but FO's not as fun as some of the others.
The point is that, if you read the article, it isn't a hit piece, it is largely deferential to his explanation, and reads more like an innoculation against the issue than an attack on the issue.
He doesn't deny it, he just doesn't remember it, he shouldn't be held responsible, no indication he knew about the apartment, it's just Rudy being Rudy.
If I had recommended a criminal to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security, I'd be thrilled if THIS was the "hit piece" about it.
The democrats are going to keep her around as long as Rudy polls better than her, in the hopes that her candidacy contributes to mass hysteria in the republican party leading to a Rudy nomination.
That way, like in Connecticutt last year, they can't loose, at best they get a democrat who opposes the war elected, and at worst they get a liberal who supports the war elected.
Wayne Barrett, a liar yes. Jack Newfield... incredibly slanted yes, liar might be too tough. Newfield had some integrity.
And last time I asked you a yes or no, you deferred, if you remember. :)
You noticed that too. I'm not even sure that I'll vote for Giuliani if given a choice between him and let's say Fred or Newt, but I'm not going to sit by and allow the attack dogs to have their way. There are enough reasons to oppose Rudy that are not in dispute, and so I lose all respect for the Rudy bashers who attack him with lies, deceptions, and disinformation, as if they were working from the radical left playbook. We should be more rational and civilized that that.
FO knows about that poll. In order to blunt it's effectiveness, he posted a thread where he didn't give the results of the poll, just a few snippets, and added his own commentary to make it into a Fred Thompson hit piece.
But that is his right, and what he has to do to defend his candidate.
"lawful authority" simply means authority that is adhering to whatever legal cover has been given that authority by the government.
That legal cover could well trample my liberty and freedom.
If the police tell me I can't jump off a cliff because I might hurt myself, they are exercising "legal authority", and they are infringing on my God-given freedom and liberty.
But that type of nanny-state law is what Rudy Giuliani supports, and he thinks that my freedom should be based on whatever rules he thinks are appropriate for me, like not being allowed to own a handgun, or a ferret.
Freedom is the right to make the wrong choices.
Actually, it was very entertaining, and I should have acknowledged that when I bemoaned being stuck with FO doing all the Rudy posting.
Not that FO is doing a poor job, just that FO's stuff is repetitious now, and growing boring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.