Bernard Kerik To Be Sentenced
Tweet
Bush’s choice to be homeland security director.
Former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who has been free for months since pleading guilty to eight felonies, likely is heading back behind bars.
Kerik, who was hailed as a hero alongside former Mayor Rudy Giuliani after the Sept. 11 terror attacks and nearly became chief of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, admitted in November that he lied to the White House, filed false taxes and committed other crimes.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson told him that a prison term was ‘a mortal lock.’ Sentencing was scheduled for Thursday morning in federal court in White Plains.
35 Responses to “Bernard Kerik To Be Sentenced”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Sorry, Kerry’s choice for Vice President trumps this now and forevermore.
And therefore, Bush’s terrible appointments are therefore meaningless. A horse judge as the head of FEMA? His cleaning woman as a Supreme Court justice? A criminal as the director of Homeland Security? All washed away, because Kerry’s choice for the VP candidate in 2004 is an adulterer.
Good point, Farris.
You’ve been stupider than usual lately.
His cleaning woman as a Supreme Court justice? –mambochicken23
Highly misogynistic.
No doubt about that.
Your mask just slipped, spring chicken.
It’s the hypocracy: every time Bernard Kerik’s name comes accros the Lexus-Nexis wire, Oliver does a blog post on it: this time for Kerik “filing false taxes”
Would that Oliver did that for each of Obama’s apointees (not just a nominee), nothing else would get done around here. It’s actually a credit to Bush that he had only nominated *ONE* tax cheat, and then pulled him once the info surfaced. Has Mr. “Most Honest, Ethical, and Transparent Administration Ever” done that yet? Has he?
Until then, your complaints are irrelevant…
Oliver is clearly implying that Obama’s appointments are better than Bush’s, which is ridiculous. If you disagree, justify tax cheats holding high office, especially the head of Treasury.
I had no idea that John Edwards and Tim Geithner were guilty of criminal offenses. Oh, I forgot– Bush proved that laws don’t matter. Carry on, then, conservative geniuses!
Further Dennis: “And I am outraged, I tell you!”
I’d like to hear how my comment was misogynistic. Please explain it to me. Tell me how my comment indicates that I hate women.
Give it a rest, Dennis. You’re grasping at straws.
You describe Harriet Myers, a lawyer and Bush’s White House Counsel, as his cleaning lady.
No matter how you’d try to weasel your way out of it, that is unquestionably misogynistic.
You may think her legal background and education are not strong enough to qualify her for SC judge consideration, but calling her a cleaning lady is definitely a slur against women of achievement.
All women, actually.
but calling her a cleaning lady is definitely a slur against women of achievement. All women, actually.
So, you’re saying that “cleaning ladies” are not women of achievement? That calling Harriet Myers a “cleaning lady” demeans her, that being a “cleaning lady” is somehow a slur? What’s wrong with working in housekeeping, Dennis?
That is horribly misogynistic, Dennis. Clearly misogynistic. And I am outraged.
(See, we can both play this stupid game of false outrage.)
Harriet Myers was unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Bush may as well have nominated a housekeeper, or a piano tuner, or a waiter, or a postal worker for the job. And this is not because there is anything inherently insulting about these lines of work. It is because those lines of work are not proper training for the position of Supreme Court justice,
You lose again, as always. You’re a clown. Quit being stupid.
You are dead wrong, mambo. I made no implication whatsoever that was anything wrong with being a cleaning lady, but to call a woman who was not a cleaning lady that as a putdown and as slur, as you clearly did, is demeaning and hateful to this woman and to women in general.
Gwen Ifill said she heard firsthand that her producer heard Don Imus refer to her as a cleaning lady saying Imus said on the radio “Isn’t The Times wonderful, It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.”
He claimed he never called her a cleaning lady, but he did call her to apologize for some reason, and I’ll leave that speculation to you whether he did or not, but the fact is, if that is the quote, it was not only racist, it was misogynistic too. And you didn’t mean in any way to use the term a positive light, but as a putdown. Against a woman.
You’re an ass, mambo.
No Dennis, you clearly said that being a housekeeper is not being a “woman of achievement.” Therefore, you demean housekeepers and say that they aren’t as important as other people. That is misogynistic and wrong, Dennis. How dare you say that housekeepers are not women of achievement? What gives you that right? HOW DARE YOU?
Phony outrage, Dennis. You’re full of shit.
game.set. match. Well said
They’re gonna love Bernie in jail.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer Republican.
Funny how the Democrats push for letting convicted felons vote. They seem to think they can harvest a significant number of the legally challenged vote. But that’s an improvement over the Democrat’s majority of the zombie already dead americans electoral support they count on now. Kerick skewers the demographics of the institutionalized rightwards.
Game. Set. Match., Kevin??? If his point was valid, then why did he do a complete about face on this on the other thread?
mambo was busted. He admitted that calling her a cleaning lady was an insult to her achievements.
And he avoids the question of Don Imus calling Gwen Ifill an cleaning lady like the plague. Mambo chicken could use some Testosterone Replacement Therapy. My guess he’s trying on man-bras right now.
If what Imus said was racist and misogynistic, and Mambochicken said the exact same thing about a woman, then what he said was misogynistic. He knows that and can’t argue otherwise, so he flees the scene of the accident.
mambo was busted. He admitted that calling her a cleaning lady was an insult to her achievements.
In what world is that being “busted”? You’re a fucking idiot, Dennis. I admit that calling her a “cleaning lady” is an insult to her achievements. But the charge in question was one of misogyny, which is not true. Jesus, man.
And he avoids the question of Don Imus calling Gwen Ifill an cleaning lady like the plague. If what Imus said was racist and misogynistic, and Mambochicken said the exact same thing about a woman, then what he said was misogynistic. He knows that and can’t argue otherwise, so he flees the scene of the accident.
I reject your presumption that Imus’s comment was misogynistic, Dennis. I think Imus’s comment is racist though. If Harriet Myers was Latina or African-American, you’d have a charge of racism to pin on me, I would agree. But she’s not.
Mambo chicken could use some Testosterone Replacement Therapy. My guess he’s trying on man-bras right now.
What? Seek help, clown. You’ve got problems.
You’re busted because you contadicted yourself in those two posts:
In the one post you said that I demeaned housekeepers (I didn’t) and you said demeaning housekeepers was misogynistic and wrong.
In this last post now you admit admit that calling her a “cleaning lady” is an insult to her achievements, but that has nothing to do with misogyny.
That makes no sense.
This does not make sense, either. None. If Imus said what Ifill’s producer quoted him saying, calling her a cleaning lady was both racist and misogynistic; it was without question both a slur to her race and her sex.
You lack the capacity to admit that, mambo.
You’re still a kid.
“Funny how the Democrats push for letting convicted felons vote.”
Really? Who?
Oh my… Dennis, wow, you are stupid. Go back and read the prior posts again.
In the one post you said that I demeaned housekeepers (I didn’t) and you said demeaning housekeepers was misogynistic and wrong.
Dummy, we were playing the phony outrage game. Remember? I could just as easily call you misogynistic, as you me, because your words could be interpreted to be insulting to cleaning women. Did I truly believe that? No. Phony outrage. Get a dictionary, you dim bulb, and look up the word “phony”.
In this last post now you admit admit that calling her a “cleaning lady” is an insult to her achievements, but that has nothing to do with misogyny.
It doesn’t. Insulting a woman isn’t automatically misogyny. Just like every time I call you an fucking idiot… I’m not insulting all men, Dennis. Only you. And not for being a man, either. No, I’m insulting you for being a dumb bastard.
If Imus said what Ifill’s producer quoted him saying, calling her a cleaning lady was both racist and misogynistic; it was without question both a slur to her race and her sex.
I disagree. I see it as being racist, but I do not have any idea how that can be posed as misogynistic. You’ve reduced me to defending Imus (kinda). This shows you how insipid your commentary is here, Dennis. If Gwen Ifill was a Latino man, and Imus had substituted “poolboy” for “cleaning lady”, it would be racist, right? But would it be an insult to all men (i.e., misandry?). No, it wouldn’t. And only a fucking dolt can fail to comprehend that.
You’re still a kid.
And this has nothing to do with anything, whatsoever.
You try so hard to beat me, Dennis, but I just make you look like a fool over, and over, and over. Give up, man. You’re outmatched. Hell, my brother’s basset hound could best you in a battle of wits.
You know, THOSE Democrats. The ones over there stuffed with straw, with the “Dimocraps” signs hung around their necks. The ones that do and think everything AO wants them to do or think, and HE CAN READ THEIR MINDS.
It’s eerie, I tellya.
Here, mambo, I’ll link you to a liberal blog where Ifill is quoted about her feelings about Don Imus and what he said about her. I’ll let you judge for yourself whether or not Ifill thought being called a cleaning lady by him with regard to her covering the White House for the New York Times in 1993 was not only demeaning to her as a African-American, but also as a woman.
Gwen Ifill Calls Out Russert, Brooks For Their Silence On Imus
Again, the quote:
“Isn’t The Times wonderful, It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.”
—-
It was 1993, mambo. Not ages ago, but not a whole lot of women covering the White House, either.
There are 300 comments there at the Think Progress link, too. Be sure to read a few of them and see if they agree that not only were Imus’ comments about the Rutgers women’s hoops team racist and misogynistic, but so was his slur of Ifill calling her a cleaning lady.
Proclaim your superiority, that’s what kids full of false bravado do. They do it to mask their insecurities. Then ask yourself why no one is backing you on this. Think about the guys like fafaroo and Jaim and Quaker who never shy away from something like this if they knew they could defend you in an argument against me. I’d welcome it, but they all know you’re wrong.
1) Dennis, there is nothing in that link that describes that Ifill thought it was a misogynistic comment.
2) I don’t care whether some anonymous liberals thought that it was misogynistic. They are wrong.
3) I don’t need anyone else on this board to come to my aid – I think that Jaim, fafaroo, Zython, etc. realize that. I also think they stopped reading this subthread a while back. But regardless, I can handle myself.
4) Do you wonder why none of the other wingnuts are on here, coming to your aid, trying to pile on? Maybe it’s because they know that you are FULL OF SHIT in this conversation.
5) You’re wrong, for reasons I described above. Do you care to tell me whether it would be misandrygynous (sp?) for Imus to make the “poolboy” comment above?
You don’t understand that insulting a woman isn’t the same as insulting her for BEING a woman. Just like insulting a man isn’t the same as insulting him for being a man. Just like insulting a younger person isn’t the same as insulting them for BEING a younger person.
It’s interesting to note that you do, however, do the latter thing all the time here. You’re continually insulting to me, for example, simply because I am younger than you. Tell me, is that acceptable?
Ifill doesn’t call Imus a racist or a misogynist for that comment. It is clear that she was offended on both fronts, and she expresses both sentiments.
Ask yourself if Keith Olbermann had called Hillary Clinton a cleaning lady on his show, along the same lines of Imus comment, such as “Isn’t The Obama Administration wonderful, It lets the cleaning lady become the Secretary of State.” Would there be a call for his firing and all sorts of people calling him a misogynist for it demeaning her on grounds of her sex?
And if he was, could you see yourself on here defending him against charges of slurring someone of achievement based on their sex?
I can’t answer your question sbout Imus calling a man a poolboy because I’ve never heard that term used as a slur to demean some man who had achieved what Harriet Myers had achieved because they didn’t think he was qualified to be a SC judge. If you can show me an example anywhere close, I’ll try to answer you, but it’s a dodge on your part.
Holy fuck, Dennis, you are a weasel.
You can answer the question. You can. It’s not like it is unanswerable. You just don’t want to, because you either have to A) Admit that you were wrong, and my comment was not misogynistic, or B) Come up with some pretzel logic to explain why one case is misogynistic (Ifill) and one is not misandrystic (hypothetical “poolboy”).
There is nothing keeping you from answering the question. Nothing.
So answer it, weasel.
Ask yourself if Keith Olbermann had called Hillary Clinton a cleaning lady on his show, along the same lines of Imus comment, such as “Isn’t The Obama Administration wonderful, It lets the cleaning lady become the Secretary of State.” Would there be a call for his firing and all sorts of people calling him a misogynist for it demeaning her on grounds of her sex?
I should also point out that this would not make any sense. The abhorrence of the insult only makes sense in light of race and racism, dummy. If KO made a comment about Sotomayor being a cleaning lady on the Supreme Court, I would call for his firing.
Goddamn, just give up already. You are wrong yet again. So it is.
mambo, the poolboy question is ridiculous and a dodge for you. I answered it, you just refuse to accept that you didn’t get the answer you wanted. You said you didn’t know how being called a cleaning lady could in any way be misogynistic, but I’ve told you several times. If Imus had called a Latino male journalist from the New York Times assigned to cover the White House a poolboy, yes that would be a slur based on his race and not his sex, but the comparison would make sense only if the White House pool coverage was historically dominated by women. Yeah, I guess if the White House pool reporters were mainly white women and the NY Times hired a young Latino man with the implication by some that they were killing two birds with one stone with regards to diversity, and there was perceived to be a glass ceiling against men and minorities to be WH pool reporters, and Imus called him a poolboy, then yes, it would be a slur against men too.
But like I said, even thinking about that hypothetically is ridiculous. So ridiculous that you are only trying to divert attention away from the fact that you’re a pig for calling Miers a cleaning lady.
What if Olbermann called Ruth Bader Ginsburg a cleaning lady because he didn’t like one of her decisions? He’d be gone before he could scrunch up his cheat sheet and throw it at the camera. Rachel Maddow would be speechless and in tears.
Or what if Rush Limbaugh said it was a joke that Ginsburg is allowed to remain on the SC and called her a cleaning lady. How many commenters here would be calling him a male chauvinist pig and that it was a slur against her being a woman?
Obtuse idiot.
Like I said: Pretzel logic.
You’re an idiot.
the poolboy question is ridiculous and a dodge for you. I answered it, you just refuse to accept that you didn’t get the answer you wanted.
Really? Hmm, I must have been imagining this…
I can’t answer your question sbout Imus calling a man a poolboy
If Imus had called a Latino male journalist from the New York Times assigned to cover the White House a poolboy, yes that would be a slur based on his race and not his sex, but the comparison would make sense only if the White House pool coverage was historically dominated by women… I guess if the White House pool reporters were mainly white women and the NY Times hired a young Latino man with the implication by some that they were killing two birds with one stone with regards to diversity, and there was perceived to be a glass ceiling against men and minorities to be WH pool reporters, and Imus called him a poolboy, then yes, it would be a slur against men too.
Pretzel logic. You’re making up the rules as you go, Dennis. Not to mention that ultimately we are not talking about Ifill, we are talking about Miers. You’re too stupid to live.
ridiculous that you are only trying to divert attention away
Last time I checked, you were the one bringing up Gwen Ifill and Don Imus from an incident 17 years ago. I was perfectly happy to discuss this without getting into all this other nonsense. But you’ve managed to turn this conversation into something completely different from what it started as. Good work.
you’re a pig
MISANDRIST! I am outraged!!! You insult all men by using that filthy slur!
Get bent, child.
You’re a pig, mambo. You can’t see how a woman with a law degree and a White House counsel position wouldn’t be offended by being called a cleaning lady and that it was a slur against her as a woman. If she were offended and if a hundred women told you how and why that was an obvious slur against her because she was a woman, you freely admit you wouldn’t care what they think. That’s arrogance, and that’s you as a brash young punk telling women how they should think like you do. You’re examples were a bullshit thing to even address because they make no sense- no one would ever use the word ‘janitor’ to slur a male lawyer that was a White House counsel to indicate that he wasn’t qualified to be a SC judge.
You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and yet you cannot admit it. What a jackass. If Rush Limbaugh said the exact same thing as me, you wouldn’t have given it a second thought. And you know it.
I don’t give a flying fuck whether Miers would have been offended. That is inconsequential. The charge is misogyny, and you have clearly failed to demonstrate that my comment was a slur against women in general. Simply saying it over and over and twisting the laws of logic to suit your argument does not make you correct.
Was it an insult? Sure. But not an insult because she is a woman.
You are a fucking hack. And a misandrist to boot.
You’re THE most outspoken liberal on a blog full of outspoken liberals, and not one of them is willing to back you that what you said wasn’t a misogynistic slur.
You lost this one a long time ago. You lost it on your first post when you called her a cleaning lady.
You’re a pig and a loser, mambo. Accept that you screwed up and try to learn from it. You don’t always have to be that way.
YOU’RE the most outspoken conservative on a blog that has a number of outspoken conservatives, and not one of them is willing to back you up, Dennis. Clearly, this means that you are wrong.
You’ve called me a pig three times. Misandrist! You demean me and all men with using such a filthy slur. What’s your defense for that, misandrist?
You’re a fucking hack, Dennis. A total, unapologetic hack. You are only accusing me of misogyny because I am a liberal. That’s it. You know you would not say shit about this if Limbaugh or another conservative had said it. Hell, you’ve defended Limbaugh for saying much worse.
And you’re a misandrist. And, as I demonstrated before, a misogynist. Hateful slime mold that you are.
Clearly, this is when an unstoppable force (i.e., me) meets an immovable, functionally retarded object (i.e., you). The question, once thought rhetorical, has been answered. So we can be pleased with that, I guess.
Doesn’t mean that you’re not a dishonest sack of shit.
Here’s a story from the Huffington Post about how unfair Kerik’s trial was.
Quelle surprise!