Giuliani billed obscure agencies for trips

Politico ^ | 112807 | By: Ben Smith

[shrinkermd]

RG proved once again that when it comes to women, most men are incredibly dumb.

[Politicalmom]

I have a BIG problem with all the secrecy, as well as the fact that he also used taxpayer money for bodyguards and drivers for his mistress.

[stockstrader]

At least Clinton did his,,,,uhhhh....'dirty work' without,,,, extra travel expenses.....lol

Giuliani and Clinton would make a great team.

[Ramius]

as well as the fact that he also used taxpayer money for bodyguards and drivers for his mistress.

See... that's what I mean. You're reading what you want to read, not what's there. There's nothing in the story about security for Nathan. It's the Mayor's security detail, for his trips. It may come as a surprise to you, but the mayor's security detail even goes along on personal trips. Imagine that.

I know you hate the guy. That's pretty clear. But making stuff up just makes your side look pathetic.

[ellery]

Well said. I don’t know what the law says about whether or not the mayor is supposed to reimburse the city for security on personal trips. However, the fact that he appears to have hidden tens of thousands of dollars in obscure parts of the budget is very suspicious. The fact that he cited “security” as an excuse to stonewall auditors’ questions is even worse.

Much like the ‘toons, the guy has a long pattern of behaving as if the law does not apply to him. I will not vote for a would-be king who believes he’s above the law.

[Politicalmom]

No, I am going on another story from early in the year.

He hired police bodyguards for her. They drove her to get her hair and nails done and to pick her daughter up at school.

[Politicalmom]

And I’m not the one who jumped to conclusions and now looks pathetic.

[Ramius]

Sorry, but all the anti-Rudy hatefest is pretty pathetic. I suppose you actually believe he’s a transvestite too, huh?

Heh.

But back to the security detail... once they’re having a relationship of some sort there’s pretty good argument that she should get a protection detail. Just like any other prominent targetable person. Whether that happened here or not... this is really small potatoes.

I guess it’s kinda pointless to discuss it, isn’t it? You don’t care what I think and I don’t care about nitpicks. So... enjoy your evening.

[Fred]

Lets not forget the BIG reason why Republicans lost congress. It was for dirty dealing, just like what Giuliani has done. And this kind of potentially criminal activity is why Hillary Clinton's negatives are so high.

This is not going to be just a problem for Republicans and or conservatives (yeah we get blamed for everything), the average voter is going to have a big problem with this kind of activity.

[af_vet_rr]

It's like somebody hyperventilating because the Secret Service covers Bush out at his ranch when he's on vacation.

Last I checked, George Bush wasn't cheating on Laura and then trying to cover it up by moving the expenses around to other departments - say $100,000 from NASA, $50,000 from Education, $100,000 from Housing, etc.

You're trying to turn this into whether or not Rudy should have been protected, and it's not going to fly with any of us - we aren't arguing that he shouldn't be protected - most of us agree that it goes with the office - we are talking about his trying to cover up his cheating on his wife by moving the expenses around. The fact that it cost more to protect him while he was cheating outside of town than it did while he was cheating inside of town is almost beside the point, but it should be mentioned.

I have a problem with Rudy cheating on his wife, but Rudy did own up to the public about cheating on his wife, and while that doesn't reduce the sleaziness, that's a little more honest than Bill Clinton.

I have a huge problem with Rudy trying to cover up his cheating by moving the expenses around.

I can never trust anybody who cheats on his wife over and over again, and I can never trust anybody who tries to cover it up by moving the expenses around to various city departments. He's doing that while he's Mayor. God and Bill Clinton only knows what he would do if he were President.

[Ol' Sparky]

It’s time to bury this liberal crook so Republican voters can focus in on the other candidates...

[gathersnomoss]

He is a political man, like most.

Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
I want to just show you what my politics are.

Im a political man and I practice what I preach.
Im a political man and I practice what I preach.
So dont deny me baby, not while youre in my reach.

I support the left, though Im leaning, leaning to the right.
I support the left, though Im leaning to the right.
But Im just not there when its coming to a fight.

Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
I want to just show you what my politics are.

[af_vet_rr]

It is creepy that you could replace the names “Giuliani” and “Clinton” in this instance, although I don’t think Clinton tried as hard to hide it while he ran Arkansas.

[af_vet_rr]

You know what, since you said you had concerns about Giuliani, I want to ask you three simple questions, because I'm very curious about your opinion (well two yes/no and one short essay :-) ).

#1 Do you think it's okay that he cheated on his wife - I'm well aware of what he said when he admitted to cheating on her, but I'm only asking you if you think it's okay - a simple yes or no.

#2 Do you think it's okay that he tried to cover up the cheating by moving the expenses around to various departments that had little to nothing to do with his security detail - again, a simple yes/no.

#3 If you read this story, and it was about Bill Clinton and him doing something similar in Arkansas instead of the Mayor of NYC, what would you be saying right now.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The fact that he cited “security” as an excuse to stonewall auditors’ questions is even worse.

Maybe, maybe not. We haven't heard the details of exactly what was said and in what context, nor do we know anything about the political loyalties of any particular auditors who may have said or implied that he "stonewalled" them. I'm sure there were plenty of Dinkins era staffers still around who didn't like Rudy's toughness on petty crime, tax-cutting (read cutting programs that employ leftist hacks), and other un-Dinkins-like crusades.

With the mayor's relationship with Judy Nathan already making the gossip columns, there were some genuine security concerns re tabloid stringers and paparazzi chasing them around, causing trouble at various private and public venues where Rudy & Judy and other well-known people were meeting for both social and political purposes, etc. The risk of sketchy unionized civil servants in the mayor's office tipping off tabloid stringers and paparazzi (for a fee, of course) could have been a real concern based on real experiences, and led to the desire to spread details of his outings around different little fiefdoms within the mayor's office, to avoid any of these people catching on to a pattern that they might share with unauthorized parties (e.g. "He's heading out to Long Island, and the last 5 times he did that on a weeknight, he always had dinner at either Restaurant X or or Country Club Y).

Sadly, our high profile public figures and their close family members and friends really do have to deal with this kind of crap on a daily basis. If he hadn't been mayor nobody would have cared who he ate dinner with or where, so measures to secure a reasonable degree of personal privacy are legitimate job-related expenses in my book. That MAY have been what was going on here. I do think Rudy needs to make some detailed explanations, and have them publicly accepted as reasonable by some of the people in a position to vet these things (e.g. current city auditors who were not employed in that capacity at the time).

[Ramius]

OK... fair enough:

#1. No, it’s not OK. Does it disqualify him from the Presidency? No. I don’t really care that much. It’s a negative, but a small one.

#2. I don’t quite accept the premise. Need more info. I don’t see that anything was all that “hidden”, and none of the charges seem all that out of line.

#3. If it were Bill Clinton, I’d say what I said then when it was Bill Clinton. I don’t really care. I only really cared about his affairs when he was doing it in the Oval Office. That’s my business because it’s a huge security and blackmail risk.

That said, there’s light years of difference between the kind of sleazeball that Clinton is, and the affair that Rudy had. Really... Nobody in NYC *didn’t* know that his marriage was all but over and that they rarely even spoke to each other any more. That he was seeing someone else was hardly a secret let alone a surprise. Should he have gotten the divorce first? Yes. That would’ve been better, but it was slow documentation of a forgone marriage.

Bill is just a sleazy poon-hound. He’s chasing skirts whenever anybody isn’t looking. Or maybe even when they are. Different critter, that.

[amutr22]

Truth be told, if Rudy goes down say hello to “President Clinton” again.

[PJ-Comix]

It is looking like the nomination is going to narrow down to Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson. If this pans out then Rudy is OUT.

[ErnBatavia]

When anybody chooses to run for national office, you can be sure they’d better expect this sort of “digital exam”....all the way back to wanking in Junior High Skool.

[ER Doc]

The Mayor of New York is entitled to make private trips, and is entitled to security while he does so. But legitimate, aboveboard expenses would be billed to the mayor’s normal security account. Billing them to the loft board and the board that was supposed to help the disabled was obviously an attempt to hide them from public scrutiny. I think Rudy’s toast. The combination of the appearance of financial wrongdoing plus sexual trysts in the Hamptons will be irresistible to the MSM.