Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Giuliani's Hamptons trysts funded by money earmarked for NYC indigent, disabled

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 21:37:02 PM MST


You probably heard this bombshell already: as mayor, Rudy Giuliani used taxpayer money to help fund trips to the Hamptons, where his now-wife and then-mistress Judith Nathan lived. Basically the mayor billed the cost of his security detail to "little-known city offices":

The billing practices, however, drew formal attention on Jan. 24, 2002, when Thompson, the city comptroller, wrote the newly elected mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a confidential letter.

One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.

Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People With Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.

The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.

That's right: Giuliani, an advocate of "fiscal restraint," used city taxpayer money earmarked for the poorest among us to help him carry on an extramarital affair in the ritzy Hamptons.

Kossak Hunter:

Fine, so Saint Rudy was having an affair. Not an unheard of concept. What on earth would make someone bill the expenses related to that secret affair to the city of New York? Did he think his penis was declared a city landmark? Did he think that his sexual exploits made the subways run on time? Was it somehow titillating for Rudy Giuliani to hide expenses for his sex romps to city agencies charged with helping the disabled? Did it make it more sexually satisfying for him to know that his Hamptons-based Republican affair was being paid for by agencies to help the indigent? Is this how Republicans make their sex "fun" -- to attach a monetary price to it, and then screw as many other people as possible in the process?

Or is this just a perfectly normal case of a crook being a crook, and doing what a crook does -- squeezing for every dime and dodge and cheat, just for the sake of the thing? Is Rudy simply so damn corrupt that to him, his now-indicted friend Bernard Kerik really did seem like a great fellow?

Meanwhile, like OJ Simpson, Rudy Giuliani has vowed not to rest until the real perpetrators of the accounting tricks are brought to justice.

Is this the end of Giuliani? Or just another "ho-hum" scandal for the press?

Jay Stevens :: Giuliani's Hamptons trysts funded by money earmarked for NYC indigent, disabled
Tags: , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Could we talk issues of substance instead of National Enquirer material? (0.00 / 0)


you don't think this is important? (0.00 / 0)
Bilking taxpayers to fund personal outings is of "substance."

[ Parent ]
I'm sure... (0.00 / 0)
Interested will have a thing or two to say about the Lincoln bedroom.

[ Parent ]
Exactly why we don't need Hillary in there for a repeat performance! (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I sure hope your holding the Good Guv.... (0.00 / 0)
...to the same standards as Rudi.  That piece on the contractors at his house that hit the papers and NPR this morning was just some of the same sort of "National Enquirer" type of material that you despise, yes?  

[ Parent ]
Yeah but my point... (0.00 / 0)
...is that you are crucifying the goose and not the gander. Not substantial you say. I say there is no difference. Both instances were sketchy.  

[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox