Rudy's Bills

Ben Smith at Politico broke the story of how "Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records," but it took the more tabloid flavor of the New York Daily News to give us the image above. They also situate the scoop nicely:

It has been known since 2000 that then-Mayor Giuliani used his official, taxpayer-funded NYPD detail to escort him to weekend getaways at Nathan's Southampton condo as early as 1999, well before his marriage to Donna Hanover dissolved the following spring.

Back then, the Giuliani administration stonewalled reporters trying to nail down the costs for guarding the mayor during his Nathan liaison. The full tab remains a city secret.

But the documents obtained by the Politico.com Web site through Freedom of Information laws now show for the first time how Giuliani's administration seemed to scatter travel costs for security details during that time among obscure mayoral offices.

Looks like it's time to say "9/11!" some more. I'm sure it's relevant somehow. Speaking of which, in the construction of the Giuliani 9/11 mythos, part of what's gone missing is the large role that George W. Bush played in setting the stage for Rudy's heroics by so utterly failing to perform his head of state functions properly in a moment of crisis. That day people were really freaked out since, after all, nobody was quite sure what had happened and the President of the United States spent the bulk of the day running and hiding or something, and then that evening delivered a terrible speech. Under the circumstances, Giuliani's composed performance felt very reassuring. But it was only a big deal because Bush was so inept; a better response from him and there would have been no "America's Mayor."

Comments

Forget all that, I want my next President to be a happy Polident Xtra-Strength user.

Posted by norbizness | November 29, 2007 9:02 AM

I have been curious about the effect Judith Nathan as potential First Lady will have on women voters. My experience is that women really dislike home-wreckers. Is this just a Southern thing?

Posted by Th | November 29, 2007 9:05 AM

Perhaps Rudy's 9/11 schtick is finally beginning to wear thin. It's too bad; I would have loved to see Rudy on stage at the Republican convention, surrounded by all zero of the people he saved with his 9/11 heroics

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | November 29, 2007 9:08 AM

This isn't a problem, unless you happen to be opposed to corruption in government.

Posted by djeri | November 29, 2007 9:16 AM

It's an unusual experience to like every single thing said in a post, but I think I like every single thing said in this post.

Posted by Sean | November 29, 2007 9:34 AM

I have been curious about the effect Judith Nathan as potential First Lady will have on women voters. My experience is that women really dislike home-wreckers. Is this just a Southern thing?

It killed Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 (it seems very clear that his relationship with Happy preceded either of their divorces). I'm not terribly sure the same thing will happen today.

Posted by John | November 29, 2007 9:41 AM

Rudy's hard-core supporters are a substantial fraction of the Republican party-- and they're fine with the fact that he's a thug and a liar. I would like to see what Romney and Huckabee make of this, though.

Posted by MattF | November 29, 2007 9:49 AM

This post is proof of one thing: in politics, it's all about whose ox is being gored.

Clinton using state troopers for his flings? Outrageous for his political opponents to notice.

Giuiliani doing basically the same thing? Whoa, toss the "pay no attention" notes in the trash, and pile on.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. If Rose Law firm records come up, I fully expect Matt to do one of two things:

-- studiously ignore the issue
-- get outraged over "old news we should move past"

It's all about the party ID and the observer.

Posted by James Robertson | November 29, 2007 9:51 AM

A lot of women (most famously Gloria Steinem) were willing to look the other way for Clinton because of his domestic agenda. However, considering how Giuliani is going to have to play up his conservative bona fides to keep his party's support, he is unlikely to do moderate things on women's issues. He's already making incoherent noises on Roe v. Wade that would probably in the end lead to more restrictions on abortion rights, for example. If women have no material or policy reason to support a candidate, they're probably not going to look past his adultery. Plus, his cheating took a rather nasty turn, such as marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade with his mistress while still married to his wife, to the extent his kids won't even talk to him. How is he going to play to "security moms" if he's a bad father that even his kids won't talk to him? Meanwhile, his opponent is either going to be 1) the first female candidate, 2) a likeable guy who has been faithful to his wife or 3) another charismatic guy who has stayed by his wife while she battles cancer. The more ridiculous Giuliani makes himself, the more confident I am his whole "9/11 Big Chief" shtick will collapse under itself. He's starting to cross the line between silly to farce.

Posted by Reality Man | November 29, 2007 9:56 AM

Why oh why can't reporters write lead sentences that fully capture the extent of their own reporting?! Ben Smith's lead in his Politico.com article that broke the story seems hard-hitting:

Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

but it isn't. It actually diminishes the extent of his findings in two ways:

1) It wasn't "tens of thousands", it was hundreds of thousands that got billed to "obscure" agencies: over $450,000 in the Giuliani's final fiscal year according to the explicit numbers quoted in his own story.

2) The "obscure" agency that got the lion's share of the tab is a really important one for poor New Yorkers. As Mr. Smith wrote, "the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel." The Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, as Mr. Smith noted in passing earlier is responsible for "providing lawyers for indigent defendants." Now that's compassionate conservatism: sucking hundreds of thousands of dollars from an agency devoted to the poor so you have a slush fund for your personal campaign and adultery expenses!

As long as the leads for this story say just "tens of thousands" and "obscure agencies", the full extent of the scandal will be unrealized.

Very annoying.

Posted by Bill Kaminsky | November 29, 2007 9:57 AM

What a fake "scandal". Giuliani had 24-hour security. Maybe the Politico is too dumb to understand the meaning of "24-hour", but that includes time that the Mayor was attending to his personal matters.

But the prudish left-wing hates the fact that Giuliani had sex, so they bring up this fake sex scandal. To the left, it's all about sex.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 10:04 AM

Damn, but Judy looks good in that photo! And while the comparison to Bush on 9/11 is apt, it still doesn't diminish Guiliani's composure on that day, which really was a big deal. But it doesn't translate at all to the presidency for me, because Guiliani's reflexively aggressive rhetoric now makes me think that President Rudy's first acts would be to lock people up and shot off some missiles.

It's amazing how the Republican candidates all invoke Reagan but completely miss how his demeanor rounded out the rough edges on his words, and that many of his harsh words (especially on social issues) were about stuff that there's no evidence he ever planned to actually do much about. Fundamentally, for all his suposed vacuousness, Reagan was a more sophisticated politician and leader than any of this bunch.

Posted by Gene | November 29, 2007 10:12 AM

Al, long time reader and fan, first time replier:

The Politico story does try to address the "well, 24 hour security of course costs a lot" line of defense.

1) They point out that Giuliani's travel and protection detail expenses jumped 151% in his final fiscal year, and of course...

2) All this extra $400,000+ in expenses weren't billed to the NYPD like one would expect, but rather various "obscure" NYC agencies that have nothing remotely to do with the mayor's security... for example, the legal fund for poor NYC residents.

Posted by Bill Kaminsky | November 29, 2007 10:22 AM

Putting aside your comments about Giuliani (which are apt), I disagree with your characterization of Pres. Bush on and after 9/11. My understanding, and what seemed to be confirmed by many sources, is that Bush wanted to go directly back to D.C. and take charge. The Secret Service, not sure about whether there was still danger in the air or on the ground, insisted that he stay hidden. I agree that it didn't look good, but I can't fault Bush for listening to those who are responsible for protecting him. No one knew what was really going on, and everyone was in a state of shock.
One of the things I appreciate about Bush that day (but which he has endured much criticism for) is that he maintained composure when he found out that the second plane hit. He continued sitting there in front of the students. He didn't rush out, so he didn't scare any of them. I actually think he acted gracefully. (It was reported that he was advised to stay there by someone in the back of the room who signalled him.)
Of course, the Bush I admired then is now long gone...

Posted by lighten up | November 29, 2007 10:32 AM

I don't know if much will come of all this. Those Nelson Rockefeller days are long gone. I think the Clinton experience has shown that the country doesn't much care anymore about philandering pols who use police officers as chauffers, pimps and lookouts, etc. and scrape off a little extra petty cash for their love nests - as long as the pocket money isn't excessive and their mistresses are hot.

This will all be rolled into a emerging Giuliani myth as the lovable hound dog and good-time Charlie who is also the righteously feared Boss and bad-ass scourge of the rival gangs. The Republicans are already saying Giuliani is just the kind of wise guy, bare-knuckled tough the American Family needs in these warlike times: the chief with large appetites, manly potency and seductive wiles, surrounded and supported by rule-skirting but loyal tough-guy friends who put their dubious talents to work for Our Side. He'll be our own Prez Tony Soprano, whose Family is America, and whose capos and lieutenants are the actual captains and lieutenants of the American military. If some uppity Muslim wants to poach on our territory, then ba-da-bing, he'll be swimming with the fishes.

And if some fussy Democratic lawyer-types get all agitated about law-skirting, rights-trampling, torture-chambers and the rest, then ... well ... as Sonny would say, "If we had a wartime consigliere, we wouldn't be in this mess!"

Of course, this imagery has somewhat more traditional resonance in the north than the south. But Americans all watch the same TV shows now. Anyway, if Giuliani has some problems in the south, all he has do is go to church and say he's been saved or reborn or something. All will be forgiven, especially with the unapologetic militarism he has going for him.

This petty corruption angle isn't going to work, unless Democrats come up with something really monstrous like pilfering millions from a 9/11 victims fund. The more Giuliani is invested with a uniquely entertaining and slightly perverse and dangerous charm, the more he turns into a larger than life character, the stronger he becomes.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 29, 2007 10:38 AM

We're a long way from Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart's lap, eh?

Posted by gary | November 29, 2007 10:42 AM

Al:

that includes time that the Mayor was attending to his personal matters.

"his personal matters". I think that may be the greatest euphemism for boinking a floozy mistress home wrecker I've ever seen.

If it's no big deal for the people of NYC to pay for the travel of Giuliani's security detail so that he can boink his mistress in the Hamptons, then why did he try hide it in the budgets of all these obscure NYC offices? If it's all on the up and up, why hide it?

If you smell rotten fish, there's probably rotten fish someplace. And Giuliani stinks to high heaven.

Posted by CKT | November 29, 2007 10:59 AM

He continued sitting there in front of the students. He didn't rush out, so he didn't scare any of them.

Yes, children tend to be truly traumatized when an adult says "excuse me for a moment, kids" and leaves the room.

I still remember that dark day back in '87, when my elementary school teacher told us to work quietly for a while because she had to attend to something. To this day I wake up at night, screaming.

Posted by Jason C. | November 29, 2007 11:19 AM

Horse race time.

Huckabee will say "If you vote for Guiliani, y'all owe Bill Clinton one big apology."

Republicans would rather choke on their own vomit than apologize to anyone.

Posted by PDX Pete | November 29, 2007 11:20 AM

1) They point out that Giuliani's travel and protection detail expenses jumped 151% in his final fiscal year, and of course...

Which included all the travel relating to security during the Mayor's Senate campaign. As well as travel for Donna Hanover's trips to Los Angeles.

Oh, yeah, and something may have happened on 9/11/01 that caused an increase in security costs too.

2) All this extra $400,000+ in expenses weren't billed to the NYPD like one would expect, but rather various "obscure" NYC agencies

So, they were billed to one mayoral agency instead of another mayoral agency, and were eventually reimbursed by the NYPD. Quite a scandal.

As I said above, this is all about sex. Giuliani was getting it, and Democrats don't like that. He had an affair; get over it.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 11:52 AM

He had an affair; get over it.

I just wanted to isolate this one and bask in it for a moment.

Posted by Jason C. | November 29, 2007 12:06 PM

Huckabee will say "If you vote for Guiliani, y'all owe Bill Clinton one big apology."

If Huckabee says that I'll send him a dollar.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 29, 2007 12:13 PM

Boffgate? Rudy's Nookie Fund? I can't decide.

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 29, 2007 12:15 PM

Actually it's weird that he went to such lengths to conceal the expenses, since he might as well have been boning her on YouTube.

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 29, 2007 12:18 PM

Al,

Its not about the sex--who cares about the sex.

Its about the misappropriation of public funds---corruption being a crime.

Posted by djeri | November 29, 2007 12:35 PM

A1, how is this story about the sex? Rudy took non-official trips out of the city and expensed them to agencies where he didn't believe the expenses could be easily traced. When asked to explain these expenses, his team covered up citing "security" reasons. This sounds more like a corruption and cover-up story to me.

I take it that you don't think any less of a man that would charge the $400,000 to city taxpayers for this kind of trip?

Posted by z adura | November 29, 2007 1:14 PM

What a fake "scandal". Giuliani had 24-hour security. Maybe the Politico is too dumb to understand the meaning of "24-hour", but that includes time that the Mayor was attending to his personal matters.

Al: I would agree it would mostly be a non-story if it were just a matter of the expense. No doubt the mayor of New York City is required to be guarded by a security detail 24/7. I think the point of the story (and admittedly this is from a very cursory reading) is that it appears Rudy tried to hide the spike in security expense (necessitated by his love life) via deliberately dodgy accounting practices. In other words he's been caught in a cover up. I doubt even then the story has legs (surely they'll find some staffer who does a public mea culpa and swears the ex-mayor had no knowledge). Still, it looks pretty slimy.

Posted by Jasper | November 29, 2007 1:46 PM

Its not about the sex--who cares about the sex.

Its about the misappropriation of public funds---corruption being a crime.

Well, it would indeed be a scandal if there was any "misappropriation of public funds" being alleged. But there isn't.

The entirety of the "scandal" appears to be that the charges - which no one disputes are perfectly legitimate, since Giuliani was entitled to the security detail - were charged to Account X instead of Account Y. The only reason that the story was ever even published is that someone thinks that the charges are related in some indirect way with Giuliani having sex.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 2:36 PM

Rudy took non-official trips out of the city and expensed them to agencies where he didn't believe the expenses could be easily traced.

No, this is incorrect. Rudy took non-official trips out of the city. He was entitled to 24 hour security, in and out of the city. The security - which, again, we was entitled to - was apparently charged to the wrong account, not Giuliani's personal expenses.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 2:40 PM

He should just do what the Clinton's do. Deny it until its old news.

Posted by Jim | November 29, 2007 2:42 PM

James Robertson wrote:

Clinton using state troopers for his flings?

James, this story was false. David Brock has admitted to inventing the entire thing. People (even Democrats) continue to assume that Bill Clinton was cheating on his wife right and left. In fact, there is only one documented affair--the famous one. It might be true that he cheated other times, but so many of the negative stories about Clinton are completely made up there is plenty of reason to doubt.

In fact, I think his behavior with Lewinski was so childish and silly it kind of indicates someone who wasn't very practiced with that sort of thing.

Guilanni, on the other hand, openly paraded around with his mistress and announced that he was seeking a divorce in a press conference. There is a substantial difference in the behavior of these two men.

All that said, I agree that this is a non-story. Surely no one expects that the NYPD should not have provided security for the mayor on his "excursions". And surely no one thinks this kind of security is free. So the books were fudged to hide the affair. That's a minor deal at best.

On the other hand, I'm glad this story is getting some play. Unfair as it is, I'm still happy to see the unfairness cutting against the other side for once. And reminding people that this is a guy who openly cheated on his wife is completely fair. I think that actually says a lot about his personality and how he would govern the country.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 29, 2007 2:43 PM

Al,

When you cook the public books, i.e. place false billings or expenses for whatever purpose, you are by definition misappropriating public funds.

Posted by djeri | November 29, 2007 4:20 PM

A1, you can say that I am incorrect but provide nothing in support. I do not deny that he is provided security detail. I do not deny that he can conduct unofficial business and that will at times mean that he will be using taxpayer money for personal use.

Yet the issue remains, and read slowly: (1) He would not be going to Long Island on expensive non-official business were it not that his mistress was there. (2) He would not be expensing these expenses to obscure agencies if he didn't know it would be politically inconvenient. Forget the morality of the sex act for a minute. Would you want an employee who fudged his expense account by $600,000 to conduct non-official business of any sort?

My first call would be to security to escort said employee to the exit. My second call would be to my lawyer to see if the expenses were recoverable in civil court. My third call would be to the police to see if I could get the guy on embezzlement charges.

I cannot understand how anybody, anywhere would want this kind of amoral man to be in their employ let alone the leader of the free world.

Posted by z adura | November 29, 2007 4:25 PM

Al,

Let me put it another way. I'm a public employee. I have to put accounts of my expenses in. They have to be correct. If I submit incorrect accounts, incorrect in any way, I can be held responsible for a fraud which lead to the misappropraition of public funds. If Guilani ordered the police to escort his mistress anywhere, to drive her on anything other than his public business, or if he arranged for the books to be cooked, then he performed acts for which other employees of the City of New York could and probably should be dismissed if not also indicted. In and of itself this may not be much, but as part of a pattern including his relations to Kerik, this suggests Guliani isn't fit for office---the Clintons endured years of abuse for less.

Posted by djeri | November 29, 2007 4:29 PM

"One of the things I appreciate about Bush that day (but which he has endured much criticism for) is that he maintained composure when he found out that the second plane hit. He continued sitting there in front of the students. He didn't rush out, so he didn't scare any of them. I actually think he acted gracefully."

I suggest you go look at the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Look at Bush's face in the scene in the school.

There has never been a more guilty-looking, frightened face in US political history. That was a face that said, "Oh, man, Cheney went and did it! I'm in deep shit now!"

Not to mention the fact, as others have, that it was his fucking JOB to get up, proclaim that he unfortunately had to leave to take care of the national security, and simply walk out - not just "act Presidential" by sitting there in a panicked quandary.

Fucking apologists for this asshole are just amazing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 29, 2007 5:50 PM

Affair, shmafair.

The dude married his cousin for christ's sake.

Creepy doesn't begin to describe it.

Posted by David | November 29, 2007 6:57 PM

A1, you can say that I am incorrect but provide nothing in support.

Nothing is needed in support other than a careful reading of the linked articles.

Yet the issue remains, and read slowly: (1) He would not be going to Long Island on expensive non-official business were it not that his mistress was there.

What difference does it make if he went to the Hamptons to go to the beach or to have sex with his mistress? He's entitled to go to the Hamptons on the weekend just like everyone else, regardless of the reason. As I said earlier, the only reason this story is out there is the sex.

(2) He would not be expensing these expenses to obscure agencies if he didn't know it would be politically inconvenient. Forget the morality of the sex act for a minute. Would you want an employee who fudged his expense account by $600,000 to conduct non-official business of any sort?

Explain to me why it makes a difference the the expenses of his security were paid for by the Mayor's office first and then reimbursed by the NYPD, instead of just being paid directly by the NYPD. Because that's the only "fudging" that occurred. The expenses were paid by Account A (which was subsequently reimbursed from Account B) instead of being paid directly by Account B.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 7:33 PM

If I submit incorrect accounts, incorrect in any way, I can be held responsible for a fraud which lead to the misappropraition of public funds.

But, of course, as I noted above, there was no "misappropriation" of funds whatsoever. The expenses of the security detail were paid by the Mayor's office which was then reimbursed by the NYPD, instead of being paid by the NYPD directly. At the end of the day, the money came from exactly where it was supposed to come from.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 7:36 PM

Did someone mentioned how he hooked up his press secretary/mistress as the directory of the Convention & Visitor's Bureau after things went sour?

Or that he chose the Towers as the site for the emergency command center over Brooklyn because it was closer to his next mistress' apartment.

lil' duce appears to make a lot of decisions for Rudy. Hope lil' duce doesn't like Persian women or we will be invading Iran within two weeks of Rudy's inauguration.

Posted by pwhipped | November 29, 2007 8:11 PM

Al, nobody here cares that Giuliani had sex. The money for his affair, however, came from public funds for poor people in New York. He has a history of treating New York as his personal expense account and playpen for his affairs, most famously putting the counter-terrorism war room in the WTC instead of a bunker in Brooklyn because it was closer to his and his mistress's place so they could boink there. People probably died on 9/11 because of that.

Posted by Reality Man | November 29, 2007 10:15 PM

That also is horrible lighting in those pics. They look like wax statues.

Also, unless Giuliani 1) converts to Protestantism or 2) re-marries his ex-wife (and I'm not sure if under Catholic law this would even work), he can't exactly go to church and say he's been saved because he can't receive communion, as I understand it. Being "born again" is more of a Protestant thing.

Posted by Reality Man | November 29, 2007 10:18 PM

George Bush is a coward. On 9/11 he ran and hid, that is what cowards do. The SS made him run away is a big fucking joke.

Posted by merlallen | November 30, 2007 2:17 AM

God. Anyone who takes Al to be arguing in good faith is sadly deluded. He's a partisan hack [it should not need to be spelled out].

Posted by god | November 30, 2007 3:21 AM

I don't take A1 seriously, but it is important to let him/her step far off the ledge of reality so that when we see real or perceived Democratic malfeasance, we can refer back to this very series of posts and rub his/her nose in it.

Posted by z adura | November 30, 2007 12:27 PM