Bernard Kerik, Rudy Giuliani’s Character Witness

8:32 pm EST March 31st, 2007 | News | 14 Comments

Giulianikerik

Once again, this is the man who Rudy Giuliani appointed to secure and protect the people of New York – the largest city in the country – and who he recommended to be in charge of Homeland Security for the entire country.

Federal prosecutors have told Bernard B. Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, that he is likely to be charged with several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

Kerik’s indictment could set the stage for a courtroom battle that would draw attention to Kerik’s extensive business and political dealings with former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who personally recommended him to President Bush for the Cabinet. Giuliani, the front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination according to most polls, later called the recommendation a mistake.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

14 Responses to “Bernard Kerik, Rudy Giuliani’s Character Witness”

  1. David Greene says:
    March 31, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Should Kerik be indicted Giuliani will have his hands full answering questions about his close relationship with Kerik instead of the issues that he wants to address. Not a positive development for Giuliani’s Presidential hopes.

  2. keith houlihan says:
    April 1, 2007 at 3:18 am

    Kerik is a man who rose through adversity and kept NYC safe and assisted in it becoming a model for transformation. He did nothing that is not done by EVERY politician in this country. It’s a shame because the two who should be persued by the feds for RICCO and extortion are bush and cheney!

  3. SpiderJ says:
    April 1, 2007 at 9:37 am

    Conspiracy to commit wiretapping? Izzat still a crime?

    I thought it was open season, because you never know when somebody on the line will be a terr’ist dumb enough to discuss their plans in English over an unsecured channel.

  4. Wellstone says:
    April 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Kerik is a pig.

    While NYC’s top cop, he was using a lower-Manhattan condo set aside for the use of first responders to have sex with Judith Regan, his mistress!

    NY Times Story Link 12/04

  5. fd10801 says:
    April 1, 2007 at 7:22 pm

    Wellstone, spare me the righteous indignation.

    Wake up and smell the Jennifer Flowers

  6. klein's tiny left nut says:
    April 1, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    Isn’t that kind of a village People meets the Clancy Brothers look?

    Kerik did not rise through adversity or the ranks for that matter. He was a detective who became Giuliani’s driver. His credentials to be chief were pretty thin.

  7. Wellstone says:
    April 2, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    AS you may have noticed, Frank never denied or disputed my assertion that Kerik is a pig.

    The substance of his retort?

    “Yes, but what about the Clenis?!?”

    Pathetic.

  8. fd10801 says:
    April 2, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Wellstone, if you think Kerik is a pig, how would I “refute” that? By saying you don’t think he’s a pig?

    My response had nothing to do with simply saying “Clinton did it, too”.

    Would you have better if I had said, “Don’t be so naive. That kind of stuff happens all the time. Thanks to Clinton, immorality by public officials is fine and dandy”?

  9. SpiderJ says:
    April 2, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Thanks to Clinton, immorality by public officials is fine and dandy”?

    Seriously? Immorality never occurred in public officials before Clinton?

  10. fd10801 says:
    April 2, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    I didn’t say it “never occurred” (where did you get that idea?), SpiderJ.

    Now, it’s supposed to be insignificant — thanks to the “His personal life has nothing to do with anything” crowd.

  11. SpiderJ says:
    April 3, 2007 at 12:33 am

    Frank – You wrote: Thanks to Clinton, immorality by public officials is fine and dandy.

    “Thanks to Clinton” sounds like a blatant attempt to assign responsibility, so
    please explain what you meant by this if you didn’t intend to imply that Clinton’s moral lapses are responsible for immorality by public officials.

    If immorality by public officials is the responsibility/fault of Bill Clinton, then you need to explain how public officials could have acted immorally before Clinton existed in the public sphere.

    Maybe you want to rethink your phrasing.

  12. fd10801 says:
    April 3, 2007 at 2:33 am

    “… please explain what you meant by this if you didn’t intend to imply that Clinton’s moral lapses are responsible for immorality by public officials.

    First of all, I already did.

    But since you seem to have a reading comprehension deficit, I’ll rephrase.

    Because Clinton’s immorality in office got a free pass from the liberals in academia and the media, the bar has been lowered. Now immorality in the behavior of politicians has been declared irrelevant.

    Despite what you may have thought, I at no time hinted, suggested or implied that Clinton was the first President to act immorally in the White House.

    I don’t see how if I did not say, “A”, how that could ever be interpreted as a blatant attempt to say, “A”.

    But, to each his own.

  13. Wellstone says:
    April 3, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Pathetic.

  14. SpiderJ says:
    April 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Clinton’s immorality got a free pass from the media…

    This is either just ignorance or convenient amnesia. There’s no point trying to argue against that, ergo, I’m done.