Rudy Fiddled And Diddled On Gotham City’s Dime?

New York’s semi-smarmy super hero, the drag queen wannabe who no doubt wishes he could campaign wearing Annie Oakley-esque outfits complete with a pair of precious plaid holsters sporting a set of sassy squirt guns, apparently left some rather large loose ends in his winsome wake…and I’m not talking about the backsides of his bevy of former Frauleins. It appears that Rudy made a number of trips to the Hamptons to shack up with Judy “Make Room For My Vuitton” Nathan on Gotham City’s dime.

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”

The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.

Now one can speculate what America’s mayor meant by “security” when deflecting questions about these rather suspect expenditures…perhaps his psyche was subconsciously pondering the problems he might encounter if the woman holed up in Gracie Mansion had the goods on her cousin kissin’ diddly dallying husband?

I could include additional excerpts but I’m having way more fun sharing my silly and snide snark. When I read about Rudy’s amorphous accounting, I couldn’t help but harken to the head-scratching that followed his loquacious telephone interludes with wifey number three while standing at the podium to deliver a speech. Perhaps the current Mrs. Giuliani wants to keep account of her hubby…after all, she knows all too well about her hubby’s clandestine capabilities.

Truth be told, I doubt Rudy could afford the crown wife number four might require should he elect to discard his current tiara topped trysterina. Besides, can the leader of the free world be found out to be kitty kaptured? I think not. Anyway, I suspect he will have to keep his untrustworthy tallywhacker in toe for the time being.

In the meantime, it looks like Rudy Rudolpho, the ever morphing mayor, has got some splainin’ to do…and I’m not sure he’s all that capable of selling his version of “vitameatavegamin”.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

26 Responses to “Rudy Fiddled And Diddled On Gotham City’s Dime?”

  1. The Political News You Need to Know » Rudy Fiddled And Diddled On Gotham City’s Dime? Says:

    […] Read the rest of this great post here […]

  2. steve Says:

    Heh… call me when he is getting a BJ in the oval office…

  3. Jersey McJones Says:

    Steve, you have the ethical standards of a street pimp.

    If it turns out that Rudy knew he was illegally and illegitimately billing the city for his trists in the Hamptons, then he’s finished. Embezzlement is a crime, though consensual trists are not.


  4. Lisa Says:

    Thank goodness Hillary returned her 800,000 in illegal campaign donations because she stepped up and decided this was the ethical thing to do.
    It’s called “Giving”.

  5. Jersey McJones Says:

    Moral equivication only makes you look like the same unethical pimp, Lisa.


  6. Lisa Says:

    In who’s eyes JMJ, yours?

  7. me Says:

    Rudy can’t like this in the news. Heh!

    Jersey, there is nothing so ubiquitous on the pages of Bring It On! as moral equivocation. It seems to be a favorite past-time. Someone linked James Dobson and Pol Pot in the comments of one of my posts recently. Compared to that, Lisa’s is small potatoes.

  8. Lisa Says:

    Yeah what Craig said! tx Craig.

  9. me Says:

    You’re welcome, Lisa…but it was still problematic. The point is, we need to deal with the issue against Rudy, not redirect to an issue with Hillary.

  10. me Says:

    On the other hand, Jersey, what if he was billing for security while conducting his trysts? Don’t think the Mayor of NYC needs security no matter where he goes? I do. Everyone already knows about the dalliances so if — and I do mean if because this could very well be an issue of embezzlement — these are expenses for security (as opposed to, say, a diamond bracelet for his honey), then I don’t think this is a problem. I’m not making a call on this one yet. I don’t think there’s been enough reporting yet to say whether these were legitimate expenses or not.

  11. Lisa Says:

    Even so nothing is ever directed at her or any of the other democrats who are running. Like the you tube song last night said the republicans have 8 nominees and the dems have 1.

  12. me Says:


    Fair enough. Most of the bloggers are either Democrats or independents whose political preferences usually align them with Democratic candidates so it is understandable that Republicans would come in for more criticism than Democrats and that the criticism would be more harsh — although, it isn’t quite the case that none of the Democrats ever come in for any criticism.

    Say, I know… If you really think that Hillary and the other Democratic Presidential hopefuls deserve more criticism here at BIO!, why not sign up for the various fora and post your own criticisms?

  13. Lisa Says:

    Craig I can see your point although my point wasn’t that the dems need to be to criticized I would just think if the republicans are that bad then the democrats must be so great but never see anyhting positive about them either wheres the right wing blogs will promote their candidates more than trash the oppostion.

  14. me Says:


    There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of candidate-promotion going on. That’s true enough. There might be a reason for that. I’m not thrilled with any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat so maybe it’s that few here are really taken by any of the candidates in a way that they feel like promoting any of them. Maybe there’s a sense that the candidates haven’t really done enough to define their positions in a way that bloggers here can get excited about, I don’t know.

  15. Jersey McJones Says:

    Lisa, to anyone with an IQ higher than their dog’s weight, moral equivication is tantamount to conceding the opposing argument. And it makes you look sleazy. Surely you’re better than that. Two wrongs do not make a right. Didn’t you learn that as a child?

    Craig, the problem with the billing is that it was misappropriated from agencies that DON’T PERFORM SECURITY. He was EMBEZZLING CITY MONEY FOR EXTRAMARITAL SEX.

    Man, what does a con have to do tio piss you guys off? Eat a friggin’ baby?


  16. Lisa Says:

    That’s because he didn’t have the luxury of having sex in the White House with the security already in place.

  17. Daniel DiRito Says:


    That’s only true because his existing wife was still living in Gracie Mansion and she was obviously a tad bit more skeptical of her husband than Hillary.

    Instead, he chose to conduct his affair in an apartment near ground zero as well as making “secret” trips to the Hamptons.

    In truth, I could care less if he’s diddling 20 women. I’m not naive enough to believe that a candidates sexual life is more important than his abilities to be a capable leader.

    If I believed otherwise, most of the employees I’ve ever worked with should have been fired for their illicit affairs. Instead, we judged their work performance and wanted no part of prying into their personal lives.

    Unfortunately, politics is no longer about capable leaders…so we get to play gotcha with their personal lives. In truth, I posted this piece because I love watching the moralists who condemned Bill Clinton contort themselves in order to justify supporting their boy Rudy…and I also suspect I have a nose for hypocrisy that would give most bloodhounds a run for their money.

    Anyway, I’m always hoping we will someday decide to cut away all of the chaff and address each other honestly with an interest in understanding and empathizing. I’m not holding my breath on that one.

    Take care,


  18. me Says:


    And if he was embezzling money, I’ll be pissed off. So far it’s a charge being leveled by something called Politico. I don’t know Politico from apple-butter. As I say, there are always at least a half a dozen sides to every story. So far, I’ve read one. You don’t mind if I don’t throw him in prison and throw away the key before the charges have gotten a bit farther, do you?

    As for extramarital sex, you can’t really expect that to mean much, do you? In a president? Surely you’ve heard of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, no? One of the most admired presidents? Surely you have. Well, if I extra-marital affairs were a bar to the office, it seems we’d have had a sight fewer presidents.

    As for what a con has to do to get us pissed off, a fair number of cons have pissed me off. One sent rather off-color IMs to a former page. One played footsie with an undercover police officer in an airport men’s room, then promised to step down and then reneged on his promise. One bought a gold-gilt commode and other things…I believe he’s in prison now. There are plenty of others.

    If it turns out that Rudy is guilty of embezzling public funds, he’ll join the list. I just prefer to, as I’ve explained to you before regarding the Duke lacrosse team case, presume innocence until I see something like clear and convincing proof of guilt. A charge in Politico is some ways short of that.

    Craig R. Harmon

  19. Jersey McJones Says:


    “And if he was embezzling money, I’ll be pissed off.”

    That’s the question.

    “So far it’s a charge being leveled by something called Politico.”

    Something called Politico??? Jesus H Christ man! Where have you been??? Politico is one of the most respected political news reports in America!

    “As for extramarital sex, you can’t really expect that to mean much, do you?”

    A president was impeached for lying about extramarital sex. Imagine if he embezzled taxapyer dollars to do it!


  20. me Says:

    Yes, Jersey, whether he was embezzling money is the question. For me, for now, that is exactly what it is: a question. It is not a fact. If and when it approaches being a fact, I’ll be pissed off.

    Sorry but Politico means nothing to me. Sue me.

    As for Clinton, he was impeached for LYING…UNDER OATH about an extramarital affair. He was not, nor has any other president, been impeached for having an extramarital affair. Having extramarital affairs, while sleazy, is not a crime nor does it necessarily impinge upon his (or her) fitness for the office. Too many admired presidents are admired in spite of their extramarital affairs for me to believe that extramarital affairs are a bar to the office of President.

    Now I know that there are lots of Christian Conservatives who will not even consider voting for Rudy and his affairs might be high on the list of reasons why they won’t, up there with his position on abortion and his hearty support for gay rights.

    As for me, I haven’t decided whom I support. As I’ve said above, I’m not particularly impressed with any of the candidates, Democratic or Republican so this isn’t about Rudy being my guy in the race and how dare you smear my guy. Not the issue. I agree that this is suspicious and merits a good examination and if the examination doesn’t come up with a clear, transparently true explanation, then Rudy’s toast. All I’m saying is that it’s no where being at that point.

    Craig R. Harmon

  21. Lisa Says:

    That’s only true because his existing wife was still living in Gracie Mansion and she was obviously a tad bit more skeptical of her husband than Hillary.

    Daniel I doubt Hillary gave a hoot about what Bill did anyway. Because had she been skeptical of him she would have a long list to back up that skepticism.

  22. Paul Watson Says:

    And what does that have to do with Rudy billing departments that were not responsible for it for his security detail during his trips to the Hamptons? If it was a legitimate expense, why didn’t he just submit it to the appropriate department?
    Craig’s right on this. Rudy’s affair is only connected in the most loose way to this, in that it was the reason for the trip, not the reason for the impropriety (assuming there was any). So by concentrating on that aspect, Daniel’s done the story a disservice. This is a financial scandal (if scandal it be) not a sexual one.
    So please keep the comparisons to Democratic financial scandals. I doubt that will limit your options all that much.

  23. Jersey McJones Says:

    Craig, in law, if Giuliani is guilty of this, it’s a HELLUVA lot worse than what Clinton did. It is EXTREMELY rare that a defendant is convited of perjury for lying about a matter unrelated to the suit in a deposition. Extremey rare. It is, however, quite routine that pols are convicted of misappropriation for this kind of thing. There is no comparison here.


  24. me Says:


    Yes. You are correct. If Giuliani is guilty of this, it IS a hell of a lot worse than what Clinton did. Absolutely. Not trying to argue otherwise.

    All I’m saying is, for now, it’s still an IF and therefore there is no comparison to what Clinton did…because there is no IF about what Clinton did. He DID lie under oath, rare or not.

    What I don’t get is that, after all the conversations we’ve had here about the presumption of innocence that you still don’t get what I’m saying. What part of “I agree that this is suspicious and merits a good examination and if the examination doesn’t come up with a clear, transparently true explanation, then Rudy’s toast” don’t you understand?

  25. Paul Watson Says:

    But, he’s a Republican politician. Wasn’t the presumption of innocence suspended from them in 2002 or something?

  26. me Says:


    Depends on to whom one speaks. :^)

Leave a Reply