Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Luis Montalvan on NPR's Morning Edition 11/28/07 | Main | Immigration chief Myers took question from plant »

November 28, 2007

Sneaky Giuliani billed obscure agencies for travel expenses

Ben Smith of the Politico has a great investigative scoop today. Smith used New York's Freedom of Information Law to obtain Rudy Giuliani's spending records as mayor.

The documents reveal that Giuliani racked up tens of thousands of dollars in security costs for personal business, and that his office billed these expenses to obscure city agencies:

The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.

When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller.

But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.

Auditors "were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.

The letter, whose existence has not been previously reported, was also obtained under the Freedom of Information Law. [Politico]

As mayor, Giuliani was entitled to 24/7 police protection, no matter where he happened to be. So, there was nothing improper about bringing the NYPD on his weekend getaways.

Long trips and overnight stays with security do cost the city more in gas and lodging. For example, the city spent over a thousand dollars to put up for officers at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn, according to the Politico. (You can't make this stuff up.) But that's not sinister, either. Even the mayor needs to get out sometimes. Nobody's suggesting that he should have been a prisoner in Gracie Mansion to save the city some money.

Still, Giuliani hasn't explained why he chose to bill these expenses to the New York Loft Board, Office for People With Disabilities, and the Procurement Policy Board. 

Why all the secrecy surrounding services that Rudy was entitled to anyway? The Politico's sources speculate that Giuliani's office didn't want to tarnish the boss's reputation for fiscal discipline, or let on that he was visiting his mistress on a regular basis. 

I hope that none of these agencies did without because the mayor's lifestyle was cutting into their budgets.

Here's are some municipal accounting questions: Would anyone those agencies have known that Giuliani was charging tens of thousands of dollars to their offices?  If any officials knew, did they break the rules by letting these illegitimate charges ride? If nobody noticed, it doesn't speak well of accounting standards under Giuliani.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00e54f9038f68833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sneaky Giuliani billed obscure agencies for travel expenses:

Comments

Also, as I often have, I protest the sloppy, generalized use of the term "troll."

As this informative Wikipedia entry puts it:

>An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

Emphasis added, and it's important. By that sensible standard, the only trollish poster around here is (ugh) milorad.

I love the faux morality of libs. Those who have never used the word "mistress" in their little PC lives will use it every single time when Giuliani is mentioned, forevermore. So shocked at a man who was seeing a woman outside the bounds of marriage . This man who is on his third wife

Get the hell out of here. The guy was a hardass, but was never a moralist on any personal matters.

There's a charming phoniness to the false "mistress" and "many times married" comments, which detracts from the real issues that may exists. But hey keep it up.


Dock

OK, she's a dummy that knows nothing. What does wikipedia say about that?

>I love the faux morality of libs. Those who have never used the word "mistress" in their little PC lives will use it every single time when Giuliani is mentioned, forevermore. So shocked at a man who was seeing a woman outside the bounds of marriage. This man who is on his third wife.

Aren't you getting this backwards at least in regard to the Collin's op-ed? As she said --

>If the vision of city police officers cooling their heels outside his mistress’s home in the Hamptons is troubling, it’s not because of the moral implications.

And, if you can find a single essay where some "lib" is morally outraged by Rudy's behavior, rather than being outraged that impeach-Bill-Clinton types look the other way with Hizzoner, I'll be surprised.

I'm not talking about what he did or did not do. Go ahead and criticize his actions.

Its OK to call Nathan his "girlfriend" or "partner" or whatever else you choose, but "mistress" implies all kinds of things that were not remotely the case here.

The marriage with Donna Hanover was busted, kaput, finito. It wasn't going to be fixed. So good for Rudy for having a personal life.

Again, I'm not saying anything at this point on the allegations just quite yet. Only that the use of words like mistressand the shocked concern about how he acted while still a married man are about as false as it ever gets.

>the shocked concern about how he acted while still a married man are about as false as it ever gets.

Would you please point some of this out instead of saying it over and over and over again?

And the last time I checked, when you're still married and have a girlfriend she's a "mistress." And again, I have no recollection of anybody soft-pedaling the term when it applied to non-Republicans. Sounds like you just don't like people bringing it up.

Its all over the internet and everywhere else. Rudy is a social liberal for Gods sake. He was not an impeachment cheerleader, and had good relations with Clinton. This mock outrage is utterly false in tone. Criticize his actions, but this "mistress" and "married man" stuff, particularly from Democrat/liberals is phony. Those who said nothing about Gavin Newsom way back in 2005 now are shocked, shocked that Rudy had a relationship when his marriage broke down.

Pandagon shocked at the adultery
""
Crooks and Liars astonished at the first">http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/28/giulianis-personal-scandals-take-a-turn-for-the-worse/">first thrice-married serial adulterer

Democratic Underground horrified to find adultery

Rep. Charles Rangel, wagging his finger, saying--Two people, six spouses. It's a little complicated if you're not religious, especially if you're running against a Mormon

Use these arguments against a Republican tub thumper who is a hypocrite. Rudy's not that. How can you beat an opponent when you apparently don't even know him?

Liberals not only use the term mistress, but they have them. Seems some of the rightwingers here have never been to Europe. Not surprising. Worldliness is not their forte.

Look, I don't care if Rudy was doing a dough-nut...just not on our dime, and not while he stood by while his GOP impeached Clinton for a sex affair, that mind you, didn't wreck Clinton's home. And not while he pretended that he was paying attention to security threats. Fact is, 9/11 happened on Rudy's watch, and he did nothing to stop, or even mitigate it.

Hey, Rudy claims to be a Family Values Conservative, and is pandering to a Family Values crowd. I guess that would apply to all of Rudy's families.

He's a liar, and he's corrupt.

>Its all over the internet

Sorry, I'm old school. The opinions and pronouncements that count are from folks paid to have them, not blogs (not that there's anything wrong with them -- but it is tennis with an internet but without a net).

And, okay, I'm officially surprised that Charles B. Rangel, veteran blowhard that he is, would be foolish enough to resort to dissing Rudy's private behavior. You do have to add the following:

>According to a congressional press release, [Rangel] said "I was recently quoted being very critical of Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s personal life. I wish I could say those comments were taken out of context, but I cannot. I apologize to him and his family.”

And you're somehow misreading what I'm saying. I haven't referenced anything about Hizzoner. You just kept saying and saying there was this hypocritical venom directed toward his personal life. And Rangel was idiotic enough to provide some. But I don't see this massive wave of pious condemnation.

Boy I'm glad I hadn't turned the computer off just yet

Yes 9/11 did happen on Rudy's watch, and I blame him for not anticipating it, and for failing to have the New York City Air Force shoot down the planes or if that could not have happened, the NYC anti-aircraft gunners could have done the job when the planes got close to the WTC.

Obviously, he was in league with Dick Chaney and the two of them were together with Judy Nathan overseeing the planned demolition that was about to take place.

I overheard them talking about it in the Raccoon Lodge but Bernie Kerik told me he'd kill me if I talked about it so I did not. I was afraid.

Oh, and Clinton was not only impeached for a sex affair. He lied under oath to a Grand Jury. For that, and only for that, he was disbarred by his home state of Arkansas. He then turned in his license to practice law before they had a chance to disbar him.

>Fact is, 9/11 happened on Rudy's watch, and he did nothing to stop, or even mitigate it.

Mud, I'll say it again, this is a really poor line of argument. Buys into Rudy's way of framing himself and you can't get anywhere with it.

And to all, good night.

>Oh, and Clinton was not only impeached for a sex affair. He lied under oath to a Grand Jury.

About a sex affair.

That the Grand Jury shouldn't have been asking about in the first place.

(Jeeze, I feel like I've been adding this note to discussions for half my life ...)

(But, can't be repeated often enough.)

Rudy is a social liberal for Gods sake. He was not an impeachment cheerleader, and had good relations with Clinton.


Clinton's impeachment never was about sex, or about lying, it was about power. The Republicans saw an opportunity and seized it. Unfortunately, in using impeachment to do so, they cynically and shamelessly debased the most solemn instrument congress has. Conservatives (in both traditional and GOP/wingnut senses of the word) have used exactly that argument to counter moves to impeach the clown/traitor currently parked in the oval office.

If Gulliani didn't cheerlead Clinton's impeachment, that's to his credit, even if I've never heard of him criticizing the impeachment. (Which was, granted, outside of his official bailiwick as mayor.) If Gulliani was opposed to impeachment, I would like to know whether he objected to the triviality of the charge and the general tawdriness of the affair, or if he really understands the gravity and corrosiveness of the GOP congress' attempted putsch.

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a social liberal though, except in the context of the society of likely Republican voters who are only slightly more socially liberal than their beloved televangelists.

Dock

You can thank mudkitty for introducing Clinton to this thread.

You don't get to perjure yourself before a Grand Jury, even if you think that it was unfairly convened. Even if the questions are embarrassing, politically or otherwise.

Clinton's entire "what is is" line of argument showed a complete intent to obscure and evade.

And, taking the devil's argument here--what line of governmental recourse should have been persued here? Nothing, when the President of the country is accepting blow jobs from underlings in the Oval Office?

Be careful how you answer that, because if was OK for Clinton to partake in such activity, then it's OK for every male politician and every male manager to be so serviced on the job by friendly female subordinate employees.

Can't have it both ways. Did Clinton do anything seriously wrong, in his role as employer in chief, and if so how should it have been dealt with?

cfrost

I don't remember Giuliani ever addressing the issue of impeachment in any way.

I don't disagree with your fundamental analysis of why the Republican power structure went after Clinton with the vengeance that they did. They couldn't believe that they had so much power in the Congress at the same time that this charming Dem rogue slipped into the White House. They would have used any pretext.

Though there was an ironclad argument available to them with "employment practices" abuse. I deal with this at times in my work life. And I can tell you that any executive in private industry would have been fired on the spot over such a transgression. Why should a politician, even a charming rascal of one, be exempt from such punishment?


>Nothing, when the President of the country is accepting blow jobs from underlings in the Oval Office?

>Be careful how you answer that, because if was OK for Clinton to partake in such activity, then it's OK for every male politician and every male manager to be so serviced on the job by friendly female subordinate employees.

Nice sexism. You probably didn't even notice.

Yeah, the country would certainly collapse if nobody gave a shit about such matters.

>I deal with this at times in my work life. And I can tell you that any executive in private industry would have been fired on the spot over such a transgression. Why should a politician, even a charming rascal of one, be exempt from such punishment?

Because it's become insane in the workplace, too. Sexual hysteria has become so rampant that, in too many cases, official policy suggests the dark ages of rape laws, except in reverse -- just as there was no rape unless somebody was flat-out assaulted, now there are no consensual office affairs, just sexual harassment.

OK, you're essentially OK with powerful male managers receiving blow jobs from junior employees. Hey, you're consistent, and is likely to elicit a lot of covert support from management groups!

>OK, you're essentially OK with powerful male managers receiving blow jobs from junior employees.

No.

I have to run, but the reason for the "No" is that I hoped Phantom would grow up a little and stop inserting the stupid, sexist slander into my comments. The assumption that "management groups" are inherently some sort of good-ole-boys' club is repulsive, too.

Its repulsive. But it was OK for Clinton do do it.

Or its not OK for some manager at a K Mart to do this, but Clinton gets a pass because he's just a bit of a rascal and we like the guys politics

OK

Excuse me, but Clinton never put a security detail on Monica, and he never charged security detail for his mistresses on the taxpayer dime.

Rudy had the NYPD walking Judith's dog, AFTER 9/11.

Plain and simple common sense.

I'm ok with blow jobs, as long as they're not on the tax payers dime, and as long as it not someone who's running specifically on/for Xian Rightwing Family Values. And it's the rightwing who thinks that sex isn't sex unless you have vaginal intercourse. Ask any Catholic girl.

mudkitty

So you're OK with male managers receiving blowjobs from junior female employees? Or is it only OK with politicians? Or only OK with Clinton?

The comments to this entry are closed.