« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
TPM Shag Fund Timeline
It's not easy keeping track of Rudy Giuliani's shag-related expenditures of taxpayer money while mayor of New York. For one thing, it's impossible to get a total of the amount spent guarding the mayor's then-girlfriend. And the available records are spotty at best. But we gave it the ol' TPM try. So here, without further ado, is our timeline.
5/99 -- Judith Nathan and Giuliani meet at Club Macanudo, a cigar bar on the Upper East Side.
7/3/99 -- NYPD Officers charge the city for gas to "accompany the mayor to Southampton."
7/31/99 -- Four officers accompanying Giuliani stay at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn in Southampton for $1,016. Giuliani had no events in the area that day.
8/20/99 -- Giuliani visits Southampton, where Nathan has a condo. He brings along his aide Manny Papir, and Manny charges the city for a room at the Southampton Inn for $331.16. That same night, Giuliani's four man security detail charged $1,704.43 at the same inn. Giuliani had a fundraiser on the 21st.
Early 2000 -- NYPD officers start escorting Nathan around. Giuliani aides say that the protection at the time was "sporadic and did not include a full-time, round-the-clock detail." They cited previously undisclosed "threats" as the reason. But "former neighbors of Nathan's, as well as a law enforcement source, describe a full-scale valet service at Nathan's beck and call...."
4/08/00 -- NYPD officers charge the city for gas a half-hour from Nathan's hometown of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where her parents live. It's unclear who they were accompanying.
5/10/2000 -- Giuliani announces that he will be separating from his wife, Donna Hanover. Giuliani tells the press that he and Nathan are "very good friends."
5/13/00 -- The New York Post reports that Giuliani's regular weekend visits to the Hamptons cost taxpayers at least $3,000 a day for his detail of NYPD detectives.
7/29/00 -- Three officers charge the city for gas and one night at The Inn at Baron's Cove in Sag Harbor in order to "advance/accompany the mayor to Southampton."
8/20/00 - Giuliani files for divorce.
1/12/01 -- The Post reports that two NYPD detectives have been assigned to guard Nathan from 7 AM to 7 PM, seven days a week. The Post explained, "Her security detail was upped from one to two detectives about two weeks ago after a New Yorker recognized her on the street, walked up to her and casually said, 'Hey, I know you. You're the mayor's girlfriend.'" Since the detectives earned overtime for the gig, the cost to taxpayers was estimated at $200,000 per year. The following day, Giuliani responded angrily, saying that the media should be "ashamed" and that if "you had any concern for decency, or people's safety, you'd leave it alone." You can see video of that here.
Then-NYPD chief Bernie Kerik said that the threat which had triggered the need for the detail had been more menacing than the Post described. Police officials told The New York Times that a man had identified Nathan by name, "made several threatening comments to her, then followed her," and then fled after she went into a store. Kerik wouldn't specify how much the detectives guarding Nathan are paid, only saying, "You can't put money figures on security. Security is security."
Neither Giuliani nor Kerik disclosed that detectives had in fact been accompanying Nathan for approximately a year.
6/01 - The New York Post reports that Nathan's detail, temporarily ended after it was exposed by the Post early that year, has once again been reinstated -- even as the security detail for Giuliani's estranged wife had been scaled back. The piece was accompanied by a picture of a detective escorting Nathan while she walked her dog.
The Daily News later reports that during this time, "it was not uncommon to see Nathan being chauffeured around the city in an undercover Dodge with two detectives, who sometimes even helped to walk her dog."
8/3/01 - Detectives charge the city $1,371 for a stay at Southampton's Village Latch Inn.
10/20/01 -- NYPD cops accompany Nathan to her parents' home again in Pennsylvania. They charge the city for gas.
12/01 -- NYPD cops again accompany Nathan to her parents' Pennsylvania home. More gas.
1/1/02 -- Giuliani steps down as mayor.
7/10/02 - Giuliani's divorce with Hanover is finalized.
Andrew Berger provided research for this post.
Comments (23)
Boy Genius wrote on December 7, 2007 2:38 PM:Cop-on-Dog!
along wrote on December 7, 2007 2:59 PM:I can see where Paul is coming from. The Daily News uses the phrase "helped to walk her dog," they didn't simply say "who sometimes even walked her dog."
But one person generally doesn't need help walking one dog. Unless she made them scoop.
So maybe this interpretation works:
Two cops chauffered and escorted Judi around town. Sometimes she would be traveling with her dog. When they stopped in the No Standing Zone for her to zip into Barney's or Tiffany, one cop would discreetly shadow her (threats! ya know), and the other cop would stay with the car and the dog. "Sometimes" he would walk the dog so it could pee and crap on the sidewalk, instead of in the back seat of his undercover Dodge.
wahooky wrote on December 7, 2007 3:14 PM:Remember the old Kenny Rogers song - "Ru-u-udy, please dont take your love to town..."
pointus wrote on December 7, 2007 3:15 PM:y'know, if this were Edwards or Obama we're talking about here, the above timeline would be splashed all over the MSM like vomit on a frathouse porch. However, since it's a repug, this info stays on "the fringes" of the internets.
Sometimes I think it would be nice to commandeer the airwaves, like the arch-villains do in the movies, if only for an hour or so, just to let the sheeple know what's really happening behind the curtain.
ihatebeets wrote on December 7, 2007 3:21 PM:I wonder if the undisclosed threat in early 2000 was from Judi to Rudy - no special treatment for me, no nookie for you.
SP Biloxi wrote on December 7, 2007 3:23 PM:And I guess I will get my daily dose of a new TPM Rudy soap opera: As the Shag Turns.
Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 3:38 PM:Why isn't the us attorney for nyc issuing subpoeanas and bringing charges over this stuff. Seems to me like misappropriation of tax payer dollars for personal use, like that 400000 payment to fed ex.
In 2006, they slapped a subpoena on menedez right before the election and what happened with that case? Oh, a big mistake and dropped it. They tried to put a dem in jail in western pa over 2000 in mileage charges. That's chicken feed compared to this. Where are the subpoenas????
Why aren't they going after mr. 9/11. Oh, that's right, the us atty for nyc is a king appointee and probably went to regent university law. Guess we won't see any subpoenas anytime soon.
Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 3:39 PM:Oops, I meant amex, not fed ex, before I get slammed.
Alguien wrote on December 7, 2007 3:53 PM:Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 3:38 PM:
Why isn't the us attorney for nyc issuing subpoeanas and bringing charges over this stuff. Where are the subpoenas????
Why aren't they going after mr. 9/11. Oh, that's right, the us atty for nyc is a king appointee and probably went to regent university law. Guess we won't see any subpoenas anytime soon."
That's right! Subpoenas are for the little people!
a peter d wrote on December 7, 2007 3:57 PM:AND...don't forget A.G. Michael Mukasey is Rudy's guy so he is probably pulling all kinds of strings as we speak to prevent any more damage to his buddy!
6/01 Really, it comes down to the size of the dog. Perhaps more than one person, the owner, to walk this canine.
tina wrote on December 7, 2007 4:45 PM:Hey Rudy, if security is so important for your girlfriends, why don't YOU pay for it?
Oh, I know why, because he's a megalomaniac with control of the People's money.
JimBob wrote on December 7, 2007 8:15 PM:You think he's bad as a mayor, God help us all if he were ever president.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Rudy is the kind of guy who can only get laid if he provides benefits like cop-rides. So, he does it. Bloomberg's g.f. takes the subway. There is no security threat. A woman can just about stomach having Krazy Rudy's paws on her if she gets to enjoy his power a little, pretend that she too is important enough to have someone out to get her. It's pitiful. Hopefully this (along with myriad other smutches and smirches on Giuliani's c.v. will be enough to put his campaign in the crapper where it's always belonged.
DENNIS wrote on December 7, 2007 8:22 PM:I wonder if momma Nathan told her little JAP daughter to forget the doctor or lawyer and go for the big one. After which ol'e Judy went out & bought herself a pair of knee coushins/guards & went to NYC with her sights set on Rudy. Judy is not a bad looking lady & I cannot see what she sees in the "Rude One". Shades of Monica Lewinsky.
Dennis
gcs wrote on December 7, 2007 8:29 PM:A small man in search of a balcony, indeed.
But to put it more succinctly, let's just call him Il Douche.
Veritas78 wrote on December 7, 2007 10:25 PM:Judi Nathan: if you liked her as a home-wrecking entitled whore, you'll love her as First Lady!
J. P. wrote on December 8, 2007 9:38 AM:I'm guessing that this is a preliminary timeline? The biggest thing missing here is the identification of which individual expenditures were charged to the obscure NYC agencies that were used for the mayor's and the First Mistress' escapades.
I think about 6 weeks from now, it'll be pretty clear in either case that this has doomed Giuliani's candidacy.
freddy wrote on December 8, 2007 10:10 AM:Dennis,
Judith Nathan was born into and raised in an Italian Catholic family.
cpaguy wrote on December 8, 2007 1:16 PM:There are some taxable events here. Providing private citizen Nathan with a car service is viewed by the IRS as income which she should report and pay tax on. Same as a company car. Ditto private security, she should report and pay the actual amount the officers were making or the fair market price of hiring private guards.
And when public officials use public facilities - airplanes, cars, lodging - for private or political events they are required to pay for the value of those services back to the city/state/Feds.
Nathan is past the three year limit on additional assessments for income tax but there is no limit if the IRS suspects fraud.
CT Voter wrote on December 8, 2007 2:17 PM:Thanks for the timeline!
Anyone want to hazard a bet as to when this will appear in a mainstream publication?
Didn't think so.
Rudy must have gotten down on his knees and said a little prayer of thanks that the NIE was published, and that the CIA did a little housecleaning back in 2005...Sex on the City has vanished from the conversation. I'm hoping it's only a temporary lull.
mk wrote on December 8, 2007 3:31 PM:Can't help but wonder about those cops stopping for gas. It's fun to speculate that the location chosen to get gas was intended to leave a receipt trail that let to Judy's parents' door.
Frank wrote on December 8, 2007 4:16 PM:When will the comparison between Giuliani's acts and those of Al Hevesi be drawn in the media. As New York Comptroller, Hevesi had his wife chauffered at public expense. He was charged with a felony and forced out of office in disgrace. And this was not in the distant past. It was this year. Why does the media that excoriated Hevesi treat Giuliani so mildly?
KeenObserverof the Media wrote on December 8, 2007 10:02 PM:Hevesi is a Democrat; Giuliani is a Republican. The Traditional media have a double-standard. Democrats are raked over the coals for any slight indiscretion or perceived malfeasance; Republicans are given a pass for almost anything. It's called the "Fox effect." Fox News is there as a Republican guard and a Democrat bludgeon. The rest of the media are terrified of Fox News and the right wing zealots who will come after them with both barells blazing if they report anything negative about the Repubs candidates. Shooting and threatening the messenger is now a full time Fox News and Right Wing tactic. The rest of the media is throughly intimidated. The Democrats are easy pickings. Observe the way they bludgeon Hillary almost constantly.
BobR wrote on December 9, 2007 9:57 AM:Off-topic, kinda: A serious question about MSM:
We often cite the aggressively competitive nature of the MSM business as a motivating force for their ridiculous stories.
But could one reason the MSM ignores stories that TPM raises be that if they started paying attention to those stories on the timescale they'd be able to react (about 1 week, given how quick TPM gets all over their stuff), they'd then be working a story that TPM broke -- which would call attention to the fact that they are having their reportage asses handed to them by a 1-office internet start-up?
So, the MSM is in an "Ignore TPM, and hope it goes away" mode? Which is why stories broken here -- USA Firings for an example -- have far greater barriers to overcome before the MSM pays attention?
Which, actually, would be ironic, because it left (for example) the USA firings investigative field completely open for TPM for much longer than I think it would have been, had the story been broken by (say) ABC news.