Rudy and Judi in Southampton: Guess Who Paid?

Politico has a major story about Rudy Giuliani. Through a freedom of information act request, it obtained copies of Rudy's Amex bills and billing records that show Rudy billed the city using obscure agencies for hundreds of thousands of dollars for his and his detail's travels, including many trips to Southampton, during the early days of his and Judith Nathan's relationship.

The point is not that he was married. Everyone knows he cheated on his wife. The point is the unusual billing to other agencies and his office's refusal to provide the documents to the comptroller's office investigating the expenses and billing, citing "security concerns." The comptroller then alerted Bloomberg's office who forwarded the matter for investigation.

One thing I find unforgivable is his billing of $400,000, including his 2001 Southampton expenses (he went there every weekend in August and the first in September and none of the trips were listed on his official schedule) to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office -- the office that provides lawyers for the poor. As if they aren't already underfunded, Rudy took more money out of that till.


In 2000,

[Controller] Thompson also warned that travel costs had increased by 151 percent in Giuliani's final fiscal year, to more than $618,000, a number which also includes police security on campaign swings for Giuliani’s abortive 2000 Senate run and trips to Los Angeles by Donna Hanover, who remained Giuliani's wife and the city's official first lady, in the fall of 2000.

Other agencies Rudy billed the expenses to: The Loft Regulation Board and the agency providing aid to the disabled.

"There is no really good reason to do this except to have nobody know about it," Carol O'Cleireacain, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was budget director under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins, said of the unusual billing practices.

The American express bill is here. The controller's letter is here.

For those interested in the marital details, Rudy and Donna Hanover announced their split on May 11, 2000.

It doesn't sound like a one time deviation. In 2006, he claimed a deduction on his tax return for paying Judith Nathan $125k a year for her speechwriting help.

Is this a man to whom we want to entrust our federal budget? Surely not.

Let's hope the press doesn't drop the ball on this. It has the earmarks of a major story.

Update: Giuliani's senior advisor says Giuliani will investigate the billings. Great, Rudy gets to investigate himself.

< Judge Tells Cops: Return the Pot Plants to the Defendants | Trent Lott's Brother in Law, Nephew Indicted on Bribery Charges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm speechless (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 07:46:29 PM EST
    Screwing the indigent and screwing a hooker at the same time.

    Rudy should win a Poet Laureate for that metaphor. Who else could capture the essence of the Republican Party like that?

    Correction (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 07:56:25 PM EST
    I'm being told Rudy's girlfriend may not have been a hooker.

    Some people say (none / 0) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:06:56 PM EST
    that she wasn't.

    some people say (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:57:19 PM EST
    the apollo program never actually landed a man on the moon.

    I reminded of that video (none / 0) (#5)
    by DA in LA on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:34:59 AM EST
    Of Rudy during his weekly call in radio show when he says some ugly things to a handicapped man who called in to complain about his aid being cut.

    Rudy's done.  Sex and money = big scandal.

    Here it is (none / 0) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:37:22 AM EST
    Here it is.

    Ahhhhhhh (none / 0) (#7)
    by DA in LA on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:37:46 AM EST
    The point is more subtle than just (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:22:32 AM EST
    having the people pay for his tomcatting around and even more than his having hidden the price of it in obscure city agencies' budgets.

    Rudy Cue Ball's conduct in this episode was criminal.

    His conduct is what the feds ordinarily prosecute as honest services fraud - it's right down the middle of what that statute proscribes, and a slam dunk case.  Had it been timely brought.  If you compare it to what, say, Wisconsin US Atty Biskupic prosecuted as honest services fraud in the Georgia Thompson case, the criminality of Rudy Cue Ball's conduct becomes even more clear.

    Right now, I have doubts that the statute of limitations hasn't run on his crimes - at least if there isn't some conspiracy or continuing course of conduct which could be relied upon to extend it.  But, avoiding his own criminal liability is part and parcel of the benefit of having your campaign's legal adviser appointed to be the Attorney General....

    Like I said yesterday:  Rudy Cue Ball is his father's son - a thuggish street hustler who has no problem with corruption (in all flavors) so long as he gets his cut and with a particular blindness as to how he gets it.

    SOL in NY (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:40:55 AM EST
    New York Code, Section 30.10 - Timeliness of prosecutions; periods of limitation.

    1. A criminal action must be commenced within the period of limitation prescribed in the ensuing subdivisions of this section.

    2. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three:
    (a) A prosecution for a class A felony may be commenced at any time;

    (b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five years after the commission thereof;

    (c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor must be commenced within two years after the commission thereof;

    (d) A prosecution for a petty offense must be commenced within one year after the commission thereof.

    3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision two, the periods of limitation for the commencement of criminal actions are extended as follows in the indicated circumstances:

    (a) A prosecution for larceny committed by a person in violation of a fiduciary duty may be commenced within one year after the facts constituting such offense are discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered by the aggrieved party or by a person under a legal duty to represent him who is not himself implicated in the commission of the offense.

    (b) A prosecution for any offense involving misconduct in public office by a public servant may be commenced at any time during the defendant`s service in such office or within five years after the termination of such service; provided however, that in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.

    (d) A prosecution for any misdemeanor set forth in the tax law or chapter forty-six of the administrative code of the city of New York must be commenced within three years after the commission thereof.


    Fair enough, Decon (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    though the one cardinal rule I live by when even attempting to calculate the Statute of Limitations in NY is "it's not a science, it's an art - it's shorter than you think when you need it longer and longer than you think, when you need it shorter."

    In any event, I was thinking of the federal statute of limitations and the possibility of using a conspiracy-type allegations to extend the time.  He's still well within the 10 years' lookback for a RICO prosecution (and will be for a while even after the election, though to be fair the "continuing enterprise" element might be difficult to meet).  Pursuing him under RICO  would indeed be delicious irony on so many levels.

    And, if anyone should think I'm being a little facetious, look at Tuesday's paper:  the feds are setting up to have a fourth go at John Gotti, Jr., this time over some alleged killings which an alleged informant recently told them about....

    Not that we'll see Rudy In Chains any time soon, though.  Except maybe in an art exhibit.


    Paying her 125K for speechwriting help (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    That is some hubris.  Pay her a few grand here and there if she actually helps, but paying her four or five times what your average Joe and Joanne make actually working, well, you're gonna get what you deserve.  And the siphoning money from the legal aid department, wow, you're right, you couldn't be more malevolent.  My second stepfather went down like this, after it came out he was doctoring enrollment records in his district, getting more money from the state than he sould have been because of it, paying for lavish trips for his cronies and listing them as "staff development", etc..  My stepfather didn't go to jail (though he came close), but his career was completely finished.  As Rudy's should be.