Comments (35)

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 9:10 AM:

So in addition to "why" we also would like to know WHAT ELSE the NYC taxpayers paid for to allow Mr. Giuliani to have a mistress.

Expensive city "business dinners?"

Rent on any condos?

No-show job salary?

Northlite wrote on November 30, 2007 9:42 AM:

The real issue isn't how the money was accounted for, it is that Rudy provided security to his girlfriend at considerable public expense while simultaneously providing security at public expense to his wife and family. As this points directly to his "family values" and to his using his position to serve himself at public expense, I think the man is a dead duck.

j swift wrote on November 30, 2007 9:43 AM:

So, any CPA's out there? A continuing practice of misallocating expenses is what, creative accounting?

JasonZ wrote on November 30, 2007 9:45 AM:

So, Giuliani's administration consistently accounted for expenses in a false manner, for eight years, and that makes it all okay? Would Giuliani recruit some of those Enron folks for OMB?

gregor wrote on November 30, 2007 9:46 AM:

Many uberboys of the Corner and the right are still ardent supporters of Rudy despite all these revelations.

Perhaps extramarital affairs at the givernment expense are acceptable so long as no blow job is involved.

Clearly, you should have your reporters on the beat raid the mistress'/current wife's wardrobe to look for a stained dress.

PattyP wrote on November 30, 2007 9:47 AM:

"I should only talk about what I know about."

Wow. These words actually came out of a Republican's mouth? Just further affirms the theory that they're only honest by accident.

norbizness wrote on November 30, 2007 9:49 AM:

Shorter Rudy staffers: "We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas!"

Alguien wrote on November 30, 2007 9:50 AM:

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 9:10 AM:
So in addition to "why" we also would like to know WHAT ELSE the NYC taxpayers paid for to allow Mr. Giuliani to have a mistress.
Expensive city "business dinners?"
Rent on any condos?
No-show job salary?

Probably all of the above, plus some pretty interesting deals on merchandise from Tiffany's, Cartier and Saks Fifth Avenue.
With all these perks, anybody can afford to have a mistress! [Or even more than one, like Bernie Kerik...!]

ihatebeets wrote on November 30, 2007 9:51 AM:

Rudy's BFF Bernie became Police Commish in 2000 when a lot of these expenses were paid by the NYPD. This smells like they worked out a deal to cover each others' Shag-A-Thons while they were boinking their respective Judys.

danger wrote on November 30, 2007 10:08 AM:

I wonder if his 'security consulting firm' is really just a criminal conspiracy to maintain his public appearance and sweep these criminal actions under the rug. Managing the information for security's purpose, if you will. Consulting on other client's agendas and situations for their personal 'security'.

I gotta wonder what a private consulting company like Giuliani's is even doing, or what sort of information that he's managing. The report yesterday that his Qatari client had ties to Khalid-Sheikh Mohammed's really making me wondering what sort of business venture this even is.

The FEC should be forcing a full disclosure of his company as soon as humanly possible, though I think he'll be out of the race before that has to happen.

bwindrip wrote on November 30, 2007 10:09 AM:

CORRUPT

FASCIST

ASSHOLE

craig wrote on November 30, 2007 10:11 AM:

rudy may very well be responsible for the deaths of many nyc firemen, police, and citizens; in order to facilitate his ferret-like libido, he had the city's emergency coordination center built
within a 15-minute walk of city hall.' that means building 7, WTC. many city staffers have indicated this was so rudy could boff whenever the mood struck, rather than run to the hamptons. it included fancy cigars, a humidor, and monogrammed robes, as i recall. when the planes hit, the emergency center was KO'd - JUST like they told rudy it would be.

how many died so rudy could screw at his convenience? THAT should be the question, not who paid for a bodyguard...

danger wrote on November 30, 2007 10:28 AM:

So I guess maybe I was wrong a few days ago, Rudy may very well be responsible on some level for 9/11.

Now it gets tricky from here. Was WTC 7 really blown up like all of the truthers say? This is going into tinfoil land and I'd really rather not post it on this site but it's making me wonder with all of these interesting bits of information about Rudy coming together.

danger wrote on November 30, 2007 10:30 AM:

And when I say 'be responsible' he may pass that threshold into criminal inaction by his gross incompetence, corruption and negligence. Sheesh.

tomH wrote on November 30, 2007 10:43 AM:

Joe Lhota's gaffe is particularly interesting, because - contrary to what the quote suggests about him - he is not a buffoon. Lhota was one of the smartest and most reasonable players in the Giuliani admin. And to call a Giuliani official reasonable is a high compliment in my book.

If Lhota says that the practice was "consistently done" in the Giuliani Admin, maybe it was. Someone should check. If the practice predates l'affaire Nathan, it would still be a scandal, but not a "shag fund" scandal.

green heron wrote on November 30, 2007 10:46 AM:

I love this story because it bitch slaps anyone who has been taking Rudy seriously. Rudy is a sleazy and corrupt little alderman disguising himself as a national player.

voicereader wrote on November 30, 2007 10:50 AM:

Any voters who claim to have hated both Clinton and W can now have in Giuliani the worst of both:

Use of public office as a platform to chase tail PLUS creeping authoritarianism.

The latter, in fact, will work as cover for the former.

Moreover, the office of President would put Giuliani in contact with a broader variety of the brand of Gold Digger/Mommy figure that he's already been pursued by and fallen for.

Except, on the presidential level, those women (and men) will be more skilled, dogged and numerous.

When would Rudy have time to get any actual work done as president? In the above way, he'd be like Wolfowitz and John Bolton, combined and worse.

This all makes the shenanigans of Russell Harding and Luke Cusak look much less surprising. They were merely a chip off the Giuliani block. Interesting, that.

upisdown wrote on November 30, 2007 10:51 AM:

Lying, corrupt, authoritarian, 9/11, war mongering, unprincipled, 9/11, crony hiring, pedophile supporting, 9/11, cousin marrying, adulterer, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Still in all, would be an improvement.

TheraP wrote on November 30, 2007 10:57 AM:

Here's my image of rudy... it's the opposite of kissing a frog and getting a prince.

"kiss" rudy... and you get a frog!

DallasNE wrote on November 30, 2007 10:59 AM:

Watching Rudy twist slowly in the wind is a fun spectator sport. It couldn't be happenend to a nicer guy. :-) After all, what is a little embezzlement amoungst friends.

As I watch this unfold I am reminded of the old saying that ends "you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

gcs wrote on November 30, 2007 11:17 AM:

As much as I would love to see Rudy implode over this, I'm afraid it just may not happen.

Realize this country is full of Rudy-lovers who truly believe he was some kind of savior on 9/11. These are angry, stupid people who only want to hear how he'll bomb the living shit out of any country that so much as looks at us the wrong way and do it all without collecting any taxes at all.

Sadly, expecting "value voters" to turn away from Rudy because of his multiple affairs or conservatives to take a hard look at how much he dipped into public money is a fool's game. They just do not care. If one of their own, like Rudy, does it then it's okay. Since he's one of them, one of the "good guys" who "loves" America, then anything at all he does must naturally be "good."

On the other hand, anything "those people" (liberals, democrats, Clinton) do must be bad since they "hate America." See how it works now?

I mean, have "value voters" turned away from Rush Limbaugh because of his drug use? Or away from Newt because of his affairs? Have fiscal conservatives abandoned Bush because he's run up a $9 trillion debt?

There can be no cognitive dissonance when there's no cognition going on.

TheraP wrote on November 30, 2007 11:26 AM:

gcs:

How right you are!

The right needs a story line. Like a bedtime story kids want over and over.

This time it IS a bedtime story. The grown-ups see the true story. The repub/fundies, however, won't see the "undies."

That's the problem when you have voters with no cognition. Obviously there is a hard core of folks that simply will not see what is before their eyes due to their rosy-colored glasses.

That's what we're up against - "bread and circus" is all they see. rudy fits the story line they need... and they simply won't look further.

JEP wrote on November 30, 2007 11:35 AM:

shag fund?

You guys are a riot... still lmaof-ing.

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 11:38 AM:

Rent on any condoms?

DickTater wrote on November 30, 2007 11:56 AM:

If I were a woman, you would have to be dribbling diamonds and pooping pearls for to me to spend loveshack time with Skeletor "Shags" Giuliani.

What could be more enticing than his horselike teeth, overbiting lisp, as his protruding skull and shiny head descend with old man breath on your neck. Hear him rasping as his withered body, all 5'6" of him, gives off the sound of sandpaper and he makes his Oh Oh face.

anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 11:56 AM:

I disagree that the reimbursement is irrelevant. it may be that the NYPD did reimburse the agencies; then it would be irrelevant. But I notice, for instance, that they pawned off these expenses on an agency that provides legal services for the poor. Rudy's never been fond of such services -- see his battle with Legal Aid early in his first term. If this agency didn't get reimbursed, that means less legal services for the poor, right? Sounds like a municipal version of Ollie North's "neat idea" in Iran-Contra.

Liam wrote on November 30, 2007 12:17 PM:

Follow the Money. Who were involved in the scheme.

Start with the little guys and go up the chain. Make some one roll, to stay out of prison.

This was a conspiracy to defraud and conceal.

Follow The Money.

Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on November 30, 2007 12:18 PM:

I wonder if he had to put a security detail on her to make sure she was not cheating on him. After all... he was cheating on his wife!

So the real question here is.... who's he gonna cheat with next? And how? Will he use campaign donations for that?

Who would want to vote for someone who's so fickle?

Randomfactor wrote on November 30, 2007 12:27 PM:

Rudy doesn't care about the Presidency. He's after that bachelor pad at Camp David. Woo-hoo!

Rudy, remember the Commandments seven and eight?

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not get the city to pay for it.

Fran Taylor wrote on November 30, 2007 12:53 PM:

'Skeletor' has already been taken by Slade Gorton. Besides, it's too mild for the Rudester.

Primordial Ooze wrote on November 30, 2007 1:03 PM:

From the front page:

"The point is that the effort to hide Rudy's mounting travel and high life expenses really does appear to have been a general practice, one not restricted to hiding the Shag Fund"

Somehow, Giuliani's "mounting [...] expenses" is a bit too literally what NYC paid for, with money and probably with lives.

Mounting expenses, oy.

Penguin wrote on November 30, 2007 1:08 PM:

So it comes down to this. The top republican front runner is a twiced divorced, prochoice, progay canidate. The fact alone that Billy Grahm endorced him makes my stomach turn. After all the years of telling people how superior the religous right is he backs a man who has such character flaws? I fear for our country.

BRD wrote on November 30, 2007 2:11 PM:

I just wish that he could have gotten the nomination before this stuff dropped - but I guess that's a bit too much to ask.

Ex-NY wrote on December 1, 2007 12:18 AM:

As an ex-New Yorker, none of this stuff is really a surprise. People forget that, on September 10, 2001, Rudy was just playing out the string, and didn't really care what people thought any longer. He was living it up with his new lady friend, and had a "yeah, and what are you going to do about it" attitude. He wasn't running for anything else anyway -- his next stop was cashing out and making the big bucks. It was only after he became America's Mayor that this whole President thing came up. So, if reporters woudl actually look at the months before Sept. 11, I'm sure there is a lot to be found.

REAL FACTS wrote on December 2, 2007 11:10 PM:

The American people have been kept in the dark too long!!There is a
"CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE", that has been hidden from the world much too long and many people have been killed when they went public with this information.
THIS CONSTITUTION CAN NOT BE CHANGED-NO WAY-NO HOW.
WHEN ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOING TO STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS?
THE GOVERNMENTS ONLY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!!BUT THEY HAVE BEEN SLOWLY BURYING EACH ONE OF US BY TAKING OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS AWAY FROM US.
I truly believe that this is our only hope for survival!

"THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE"

PREAMBLE:
THE PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE IS TO LIVE HAPPILY AND PROSPER.THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT IS TO GUARANTEE THOSE CONDITIONS THAT ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO FULFILL THEIR PURPOSE. THOSE CONDITIONS CAN BE GUARANTEED THROUGH A CONSTITUTION THAT FORBIDS THE USE OF INITIATORY FORCE, FRAUD, OR CO-ERCION BY ANY PERSON OR GROUP AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL.

***

ARTICLE 1
NO PERSON, GROUP OF PERSONS OR GOVERNMENT MAY INITIATE FORCE, THREAT OF FORCE, OR FRAUD AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUALS SELF OR PROPERTY.

ARTICLE 2
FORCE MAY BE MORALLY AND LEGALLY USED ONLY IN SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THOSE WHO VIOLATE ARTICLE 1.

ARTICLE 3
NO EXCEPTIONS SHALL EVER EXIST FOR ARTICLES 1 AND 2.