Posted on 11/30/2007 5:02:39 PM PST by neverdem
The uproar grew Thursday over expenses for Rudy Giuliani's protection during his trysts with Judith Nathan as his campaign's initial defense - that its accounting methods were the same as previous mayors' - unraveled.
Joe Lhota, a deputy mayor in Giuliani's City Hall, told the Daily News Wednesday night that the administration's practice of allocating security expenses to small city offices that had nothing to do with mayoral protection has "gone on for years" and "predates Giuliani."
When told budget officials from the administrations of Ed Koch and David Dinkins said they did no such thing, Lhota caved Thursday, "I'm going to reverse myself on that. I'm just going to talk about the Giuliani era," Lhota said. "I should only talk about what I know about."
The embarrassing backtrack comes as Giuliani rushed to network airwaves to defend himself against allegations his administration deliberately attempted to conceal the taxpayer cost of his NYPD protection while he engaged in secret Hamptons liaisons with Nathan, his then-mistress and current wife.
In interviews on CBS, ABC and CNN, Giuliani portrayed the allegations as a political "hit job" and "dirty trick" unleashed hours before a big Republican debate. The story was first reported Wednesday on the Politico.com Web site.
"This was really done to try to focus on my personal life," Giuliani said on ABC. "It was a perfectly appropriate set of expenses," he added on CNN.
"I was covered by the police for 24 hours a day, every day that I was mayor," Giuliani said. "I was covered because there were threats to kill me. Contracts back from when I was United States attorney, all kinds of things."
Denying any effort at concealment, he said, "All the billing is open - that's how you can find it."
As questions swirled about Giuliani's bookkeeping methods, others were focused on the potentially damaging political cost of the scandal.
Fran Reiter, former deputy mayor under Giuliani who is now supporting Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, said the biggest problem for him is the renewed spotlight on his adultery.
"Was there a corrupt activity? Were there expenditures that shouldn't have been expensed? Clearly no. The mayor has 24-hour, 365-day a year security. It should be paid for by taxpayer dollars," she said.
"The only political issue is any potential embarrassment because he was going out to Long Island to meet with Judith."
Records obtained by Politico.com through Freedom of Information laws showed for the first time this week how the Giuliani administration scattered travel costs totaling thousands of dollars among a slew of small city agencies, such as the Loft Board, which regulates the conversion of lofts in the city.
"I don't understand when it started. I don't understand why it started," Lhota said. "But I do know one thing: It was consistently done ... in no way shape or form did it imply a coverup."
Former Mayor Ed Koch and City Controller William Thompson, along with budget officials from the Koch and Dinkins eras as well as independent budget experts, described the bookkeeping practice as shoddy and wrong.
"It's simply an effort to fool the public," said Koch, a longtime Giuliani critic and supporter of Clinton. "I haven't got the slightest idea for his motivation other than it appears he wanted to disguise it so people wouldn't know what was happening. It's asinine."
Thompson, a Democrat, said the accounting practice "does not promote open government."
"It's not the way you want to see expenditures handled," Thompson said. "It creates just a more opaque, more difficult situation to track and to follow."
Dinkins declined Thursday to comment, but Carol O'Cleireacain, who served as his budget director, said Giuliani officials scattered expenses because they "didn't want anybody to know about it."
"This was the least transparent administration in a very long time," she said. "I have no trouble saying that."
Officials at the Independent Budget Office and the Citizens Budget Commission also slammed the practice, saying it severely undermines budget transparency.
Asked to respond to budget experts' criticism about the lack of transparency, Lhota replied, "They're out of their minds and you can quote me saying that."
"It's not a coverup," he said. "If you want lack of transparency, the costs would have been borne exclusively by the NYPD - it's total lack of transparency at the NYPD."
Thursday, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg appeared to back up Team Giuliani's assertion that all of the security money ultimately came from the NYPD.
"During the Giuliani administration, we believe that security expenses that were originally paid by the mayor's office were ultimately reimbursed by the Police Department," Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said.
dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com
It is getting harder and harder just to find one decent man.
Should people care? Arguable. Will people care next November? Probably.
Hitlery's minions would run attack ads reminding swing state Reagan Democrats of Rudy's disgusting personal life. This is yet another of Rudy's vulnerabilities. It is further evidence that he is not electable next November. As such, he cannot be allowed to win the nomination.
Indeed, that was a big factor last year. Not everyone cares about this kind of stuff, but these kind of scandals swing just enough voters to make a difference.
Even BJ Clinton, running against the inarticulate Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, could not even get a majority. If BJ had lived a cleaner lifestyle, he might have won two landslides.
I’m convinced it is folly to try and switch someone on this forum from thinking they way you do, so I’m pretty much out of the biz of slamming a candidate and praising another. It is a no-win scenario.
It's true that FReepers, being better informed than the general public, tend to have already made their minds up about who they will vote for. In the larger population, however, negative attack ads are effective, as a well communicated negative message can devastating to a campaign.
I read somewhere, I think about online restaurant reviews, that one negative review has as much impact as ten positive reviews.
Isn't it wonderful seeing Republicans take the EXACTLY same defense that Clinton and the Clinton-Apologists took not that long ago???...LOL The 'Clinton Vaccine' is alive and well.
So now Republicans are saying that conduct and character no longer matters??? The irony is incredible. YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!!
While Rudy had his escapades with his cigar bar bimbo, the NYFirefighters needed radios that worked.
No. We fired executives that are messing around on the job. Rudy was busy with his latest fling rather than working to get his city working smoothly.
It's sickening how the Rudebots cavalierly dismiss every revelation about this hunchbacked egomaniac.
As if every city budget has a provision for financing the Mayor's sexual urges on the taxpayers' dime.
This self-centered sociopath treated his wife and the mother of his children like they were inconvenient sacks of garbage.
Rudy and the NY tax payers also pay to upport Judy and her dirt poor family.
As for Hazleton, the Giulianis are buying more than gas there these days. On Nov. 1, records show, the couple purchased Nathan’s childhood home from her parents for an unspecified sum.
I am by no means an expert on something like this. Isn’t doing something like this against the law?
Rudy - the second best democrat in the race.
Giuliani’s defense of Islam as a ‘GREAT RELIGION’ (his words) in the CNN debate was absolutely disgusting.
The point is not that he had an affair. The point is that they cooked the books to hide the affair (and continue to lie and mislead about it).
In other words, this isn't that he has low personal morals, but that his administration was corrupt. Huge difference.
This is just the beginning for Rudy. If he happens to get the nomination, the Dems are going to be dragging out his dirty laundry over and over again. The American people will (rightfully) be disgusted. Rudy will never be elected President.
His track record says he would.
“In other words, this isn’t that he has low personal morals, but that his administration was corrupt. Huge difference.”
low morals = dishonesty
Of course, but there is a distinction between a man who’s a jerk at home and a man who’s crooked on the job.
I’m not voting for a pal, I’m voting for a President. I can overlook a messy personal life, but would never vote for a crooked politician.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.