The Kerik indictment, Giuliani, and the GOP; Update: Kerik pleads not guilty

[Suzie]

The Kerik indictment, Giuliani, and the GOP; Update: Kerik pleads not guilty

By Michelle Malkin • November 8, 2007 08:43 PM
Update 2:00pm EasternThe NYPost (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/news/regionalnews/kerik_faces_jail_on_feds_tax_rap_419750.htm)compil es Kerik’s “rap sheet:”
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/1bernie.jpg (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/photos/news005.jpg)
Update 1:30pm Eastern Kerik pleads not guilty. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiUwHJB4GX0IBu4M4YxeGtu9QD3QD8SQ9IBO0)
Here’s the PDF (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Kerik_Indictment.pdf) of the indictment.
Update 12:04pm Eastern. Kerik facing a cumulative 142 years in jail. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/news/regionalnews/kerik_faces_jail_on_feds_tax_rap_419750.htm)
Rudy Giuliani in the wake of the indictment news: “I am not running as the perfect candidate.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/us/politics/09giuliani.html?ref=nyregion)
“Sad day,” (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=75445) prosecutors say.
Update 11:30am Eastern. McCain (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SQ89J80&show_article=1&catnum=0) piles on: “McCain Says Kerik Reflects on Giuliani.” The problem is that this criticism of Giuliani’s bad judgement on vital homeland security and war on terror matters comes from Mr. “F*** You!” (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/18/fox-news-mccain-drops-the-f-bomb-on-cornyn-in-nasty-amnesty-blow-up/)Shamnesty himself. Pot and kettle.
Update 9:14am Eastern. Kerik surrenders to authorities: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_re_us/kerik_investigation;_ylt=AiTgXsIp1FCVHe44RQYvieOs0 NUE) “The U.S. attorney’s office said it would hold an 11:30 a.m. EST news conference with FBI and Internal Revenue Service officials in White Plains “to announce an indictment of a former public official.”
NYDN (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/11/09/2007-11-09_rudy_giuliani_wont_say_if_hed_pardon_ker.html): Rudy Giuliani won’t say if he’d pardon Kerik as President.
***
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/kerik1.jpg
We are all fallen, imperfect beings. The news (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/nyregion/07cnd-kerik.html?em&ex=1194670800&en=eddc2b25a37772ee&ei=5087%0A) of the federal indictment (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/nyregion/07cnd-kerik.html?em&ex=1194670800&en=eddc2b25a37772ee&ei=5087%0A) of Bernie Kerik is a sad moment, a cautionary tale, and an object lesson.
Sad, because Kerik rose from the child of a prostitute to “America’s cop”–and this nation loves such tales of success.
Cautionary, because it speaks to the fallibility of anointed heroes and the temptations of power.
An object lesson, because it highlights the flaws and vulnerabilities of GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s on the issues of corruption and immigration enforcement.
Here’s (http://michellemalkin.com/2004/12/13/keriks-withdrawaland-my-dream-pick-for-dhs-chief/) what I wrote back in December 2004 when Kerik was forced to withdraw from consideration as DHS chief because of his illegal alien nanny problem and his lack of candor about the debacle:I find it annoying that Bernard Kerik is getting praised in some quarters for “coming clean” and “accepting responsibility” for his “mistake.” From all accounts, including Kerik’s own, President Bush’s aides asked him upfront about the nanny question several times during the vetting process and he did not come clean.
Kerik didn’t just make some minor clerical error. He misled the White House. So, stop making him a martyr.
It’s also interesting that some political observers on both the left and right are pooh-poohing the illegal alien nanny issue. I heard Geraldo Rivera ask Rudy Giuliani during a press conference yesterday why Kerik was in trouble over a “de minimis” issue. A number of other commentators on the Sunday shows echoed that sentiment. And John Podhoretz says Rudy Giuliani, who pushed the Kerik nomination, won’t suffer any blowback.
I disagree. I think the fiasco substantially damages Rudy Giuliani’s reputation as a homeland security leader (and 2008 presidential nominee)–not only because of his sloppy vetting of Kerik, but also because Giuliani’s own laxity on immigration (more here on his open-borders record ) will be difficult to ignore as a result of the Kerik taint.
A few other thoughts on Bernard Kerik’s withdrawal :
First, it puts an end to feminist complaints that only women nominees are penalized for having “nanny problems.”
Second, it keeps a white-hot spotlight on many of the issues raised by maverick House Republicans during the “intel reform”/border security debate, including the push for secure documentation, improved employer verification of Social Security numbers, and strengthening of penalties for immigration-related fraud.
Third, it puts a much-needed focus on the need to enforce federal employer sanctions. Why is it that the only employers who ever seem to suffer consequences for hiring illegal immigrants are Cabinet nominees?! In 2002, the federal government fined only 13 employers nationwide for hiring illegal immigrants. Enforcement of employer sanctions has been a nationwide joke for the last two decades.
And fourth, unfortunately, it virtually kills the prospects of getting someone with real homeland security enforcement experience to head DHS.
Since that post nearly three years ago, there has been little change on the homeland security and immigration enforcement front. Giuliani still refuses to acknowledge (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/21/rudys-real-bullst/) his aggressive, proactive protection of New York’s sanctuary policies.
MORE HERE (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/08/the-kerik-indictment-giuliani-and-the-gop/)

Michelle Malkin has really followed Rudy over the years, she could see 3 years ago what some can't even see today.

[Jack_Savage]

If I was President I would pardon Kerik. He did a fantastic job cleaning up the streets of NY.

The sad thing is how those who work so hard to squeeze some juce out of this seem to forget or intentionally do not Hillarys guy who stuffed the secrets down his pants.

No. No-no. Nah-nah-no! This is a non-issue.

[Suzie]

I don't think anyone forgets that... or that it excuses what anyone else does. But this thread isn't about Hillary.

[Venus de Smilo]

" Michelle Malkin has really followed Rudy over the years, she could see 3 years ago what some can't even see today."

Very true, especially for single-issue voters.

[Jack_Savage]

I don't think anyone forgets that... or that it excuses what anyone else does. But this thread isn't about Hillary.


Of course it is. All of the thread concerns are threaded into Hillarys attacks.
Kerik hates Hillary and she will use what you print here as ammo againt Rudy.
Thats one of the reasons to be careful about what we charge our side with.

[Suzie]

Of course it is. All of the thread concerns are threaded into Hillarys attacks.
Kerik hates Hillary and she will use what you print here as ammo againt Rudy.
Thats one of the reasons to be careful about what we charge our side with.

Yes I am sure Hillary follows what me ... a stay at home mom in WV post on message boards and wouldn't read ... oh let's see, how about MICHELLE MALKIN who has this on her blog.

I didn't write this story, but it's written by a conservative I like. Seems to be some confusion with the idea of which "single issue" we have a problem with ..

Is it his stance on abortion... well no not when a story like this one is posted.
Is it his stance gun control... hmm nope that's not in this one either.
Is it his view of gay relationships ... don't see that one in there either.
Immigration that's the single issue of the day I guess oh but wait that ties in with border security THAT must be the Rudy Glee club single issue of the day oh, but wait, that's two ... till another story that addresses another problem comes out and that thread gets turned into a Hillary thread too even though neither Hillary or Rudy have won anything yet. And she isn't mentioned in the story AT ALL.

I tried, if anyone wants to discuss THIS STORY, it's here for the taking.

[Venus de Smilo]

Of course it is. All of the thread concerns are threaded into Hillarys attacks.
Kerik hates Hillary and she will use what you print here as ammo againt Rudy.
Thats one of the reasons to be careful about what we charge our side with.

What's odd about the article is that Michelle, who normally presents very precise and logical arguments, is trying to connect Kerik's nanny issue that cost him the HS directorship that she wrote about three years ago to his problems today which center around federal corruption charges - taking bribes and favors from private entities seeking government contracts and permits, none of which has anything to do with immigration. Also, none of that has anything to do with Rudy's stance on any one issue. Apparently she doesn't like Rudy so she's trying to smear him with the tainted brush of association, a tactic more usually employed by 'rats. However, in the Sandy Berger example, there actually is a direct connection to the candidate (Hillary). The media, in their ceaseless effort to elect Hillary or ANY 'rat to the presidency, will hammer and hammer this against Rudy, just as they hammered Abu Ghraib against Bush for MONTHS because of their hatred of Bush and the WoT, because he is currently the 'pub front runner, yet they'll never mention Berger. It's sad to see good conservatives falling for this media tactic yet AGAIN.

I would agree that, since the thread is aimed at Rudy, it also involves the election and thus, Hillary and other candidates as well. I notice McCain being mentioned in Michelle's retread piece as well, so I don't really see how the suggestion that the subject matter is limited to Rudy or Kerik or Michelle really flies, if the main theme is corruption. In fact, McCain had his own tangential connection to serious corruption in the Keating Five scandal, so he'd be wise to keep his mouth shut and not awaken old issues. He did nothing wrong but he was looked at, cleared, and remains tangentially connected to it. If the main theme is immigration, surely Michelle can make a more cogent argument against Rudy than who Bernie Kerik's nanny was three years ago. Anyway, if the intent of posting the topic is to provide opinion or information from one particular pundit's point of view, I think a critical analysis of that is fair game, including what the author's motive is for writing the article, what the motive is for posting it, and whom all is benefited by the attention. This doesn't benefit other 'pub candidates nearly as much as it does Hillary, so I think your pointing that out is meaningful.

[Venus de Smilo]

Yes I am sure Hillary follows what me ... a stay at home mom in WV post on message boards and wouldn't read ... oh let's see, how about MICHELLE MALKIN who has this on her blog.

I didn't write this story, but it's written by a conservative I like. Seems to be some confusion with the idea of which "single issue" we have a problem with ..

Is it his stance on abortion... well no not when a story like this one is posted.
Is it his stance gun control... hmm nope that's not in this one either.
Is it his view of gay relationships ... don't see that one in there either.
Immigration that's the single issue of the day I guess oh but wait that ties in with border security THAT must be the Rudy Glee club single issue of the day oh, but wait, that's two ... till another story that addresses another problem comes out and that thread gets turned into a Hillary thread too even though neither Hillary or Rudy have won anything yet. And she isn't mentioned in the story AT ALL.

I tried, if anyone wants to discuss THIS STORY, it's here for the taking.
Perhaps you can take a quick look at the indictment of Bernard Kerik. It has nothing to do with immigration. Michelle uses the indictment against Kerik to support her thesis written three years ago that Kerik's nanny problems are somehow about Rudy and immigration. Even when Clinton nominees and that one Bush nominee, Linda Chavez, had illegal alien nanny problems that truncated their nominations, nobody tried to pin it on the person(s) nominating them or supporting them.

Suzie, instead of all this back-and-forth, perhaps you can pinpoint for us what aspects of the article we're allowed to discuss. Then we'll decide if it's worth sticking around on the thread or not, given your parameters.

Thanks.

[Suzie]

I would say it at least has to be mentioned in the topic posted, because every thread is turning into the same posts over and over. There are COMPLAINTS about this and people are starting to quit posting because of it, they can't discuss a story they are interested in. If we can just try and discuss what is posted in the first story posted on the page as the topic. Discuss the nanny too if you want, at least it's part of her story that is here to be debated. People want to know what someone thinks of what they posted, not how much more horrible something else is. You post a topic to hear views on THAT TOPIC.

[Venus de Smilo]

I would say it at least has to be mentioned in the topic posted, because every thread is turning into the same posts over and over. There are COMPLAINTS about this and people are starting to quit posting because of it, they can't discuss a story they are interested in. If we can just try and discuss what is posted in the first story posted on the page as the topic. Discuss the nanny too if you want, at least it's part of her story that is here to be debated. People want to know what someone thinks of what they posted, not how much more horrible something else is. You post a topic to hear views on THAT TOPIC.

Okay, got it. Thanks.

Here's an assertion Michelle makes that I disagree with: "An object lesson, because it highlights the flaws and vulnerabilities of GOP front-runner Rudy Giuliani’s on the issues of corruption and immigration enforcement."

Michelle doesn't support her assertion that the allegations against Kerik reflect poorly on Rudy or highlight his "flaws and vulnerabilities". If she wants to claim Rudy was involved in the alleged corrupt acts, she should say so and then proceed to support that. If she simply means that Kerik did these things under Rudy's watch, then she is stating, in essence, that Kerik is guilty, otherwise it could not yet reflect poorly on Rudy. The problem with that, though, is that there's been no trial yet. He was only just arraigned, for pete's sake.

Michelle makes no connection at all between the indictment (or the plea) to the immigration issue, her favorite topic (one of my faves, too!:D). She just sort of throws that out there through the very far afield and nebulous fact of Bernie Kerik's illegal alien nanny problem three years ago. Unless she wants to claim that Rudy hired the nanny, which she hasn't, I don't see any connection.

Please tell me what I'm missing.

[Suzie]

Thanks, and I admit I have done it myself or got sucked in when someone else does it. So if we all can consider someone posts a topic because they want to hear about what the members here think of what it says. We are treating our fellow posters with respect to what they are interested in so those who have become frustrated are willing to post something without fear of a hijacking because it mentions a certain person. If it springs to mind something else we can easily start a thread of our own if need be.

To be honest. I thought the issues from 3 years ago were simply a way to beat up on the Bush Administration. I really didn't follow the media hype about it because at the time I thought it was simply the media constructing a hit. I think Rudy did do a good job with 9-11. I know Michelle has followed this and I do like hearing what she has to say, and now I believe the time has come to look more closely at Rudy and what conservatives have observed not just since he decided to run for president ... but what he did before he knew he would. That can be far more informative.

I would like to hear from those who have followed this Kerik/Guiliani story and how conservatives who did keep up with the details have viewed this.

[Venus de Smilo]

I think that Rudy's policies as an administrator and executive before 9/11 have to be looked at in the context of NYC and its political history. It's a tough 'rat city, as we all know. They controlled policy and institutions there for decades upon decades.

IIRC, Rudy was elected to "clean up" the city in a couple of broad areas, mainly crime, quality of life issues such as safety, transportation, cleanliness, the scourge of the homeless, and fiscal issues such as solvency, taxes and attracting business.

According to what I've read, he accomplished those goals satisfactorily even in the midst of strongly leftwing 'rat control of the city council and other pertinent city agencies. I believe he accomplished that by asserting positive leadership and forcing the 'rats to deal with him instead of trying to sabotage him, work around him and side-step him through a rather heavy hand and confrontational manner, which is why I think of him as a tough guy and a "street fighter."

There is no doubt in my mind that he made mistakes along the way and misjudged some people and some situations, but that he made those choices he felt he needed to make in order to make it all work. In the end, he greatly improved the city and accomplished a lot of what he promised to do long before he stood front and center after 9/11.

As we all know, Rudy is no social conservative. I seriously doubt that he could have been elected in NYC if he was. The end result of the anomaly of having a 'pub as mayor of NYC is that NYC benefited and Rudy showed NYers what 'pubs can do, especially when we contrast his performance as mayor of one of the largest and most diverse cities in the world in a crisis versus the way 'rats performed in the Katrina crisis in LA.

So, my impression of him is that he's a tough guy who can handle 'rats rather well and will take the gloves off and get down and duke it out in a street fight with 'rats and obstructionists when necessary. We've all complained from time to time about how weak and wimpy many, many 'pubs are, but Rudy is not one of them.

He played the hand he was dealt as mayor, and did it well as far as I know. I think there's much to admire in his abilities and accomplishments, yet much that I would change about his social positions. For that reason he isn't my first choice. But, I think he kept his word to NYers, and I have seen no reason to believe he would not keep his word about appointing strict constructionist judges, so I think there's hope for him should he be the nominee.

Since most members seem to despise Rudy, there probably won't be many favorable offerings about the Kerik situation as it pertains to Rudy. I don't know what, if anything, Kerik did wrong. Since he hasn't been convicted of anything, neither does anyone else here. I think we do know Kerik was an excellent police chief; so much so that Bush wanted him to serve as HS director.

[Suzie]

But I think Michelle does outline that how he judges others could play into his selection for the courts or other positions, the fact that he recommended Kerik for the Homeland position could tell us something about how he will consider the fact that someone is his buddy more than what might be issues with their performance or character. We know that it's easy for a President to think someone will be more conservative than they turn out to be, it's happened to some of the best. But a blind loyalty and effort to put to buddies who have faced criminal charges into job positions does seem troublesome and I can see where she is coming from there considering he does have a strong liberal slant on many things.

[Venus de Smilo]

Yes, that's something to consider - how he selects people to work for and with him. Kerik was an excellent police chief however, so he wasn't wrong about Kerik in that respect, and, again, we don't yet know if Kerik has done something wrong or not.

Another factor that may have played into Rudy's choices for key positions was loyalty in the face of adverse 'rat agendas. In other words, he may have felt it necessary to only appoint people he'd known for a long time and felt sure he could trust because the 'rat powers were arrayed against him in a united show of force/adversity. From what I understand, Rudy fought the city council 'rats tooth and nail to effect his policies, especially his fiscal policies.

He certainly couldn't afford to have uncertain or unknown quantities in important key positions, so appointing Joe Dokes probably wasn't a realistic option.

So, one can look at it as nepotism or one can look at it as CYA and not making the mistake of appointing somebody who wants to torpedo you so that you fail or give the appearance of failure.

Do you think Rudy would have recommended Kerik to Bush to serve as HS director if he knew what was brewing or had personal knowledge that Kerik was corrupt? I personally don't think so. I think he thought Kerik was a stellar police chief and the recommendation was something he could be personally proud of (and I think it's too bad it didn't work out because Chertoff is a bozo!).

[Jack_Savage]

\ But a blind loyalty and effort to put to buddies who have faced criminal charges into job positions does seem troublesome and I can see where she is coming from there considering he does have a strong liberal slant on many things.


Nothing in the thread is about buddies or a liberal slant on things. :shame:

[Suzie]

Nothing in the thread is about buddies or a liberal slant on things. :shame:

But when the Dem-on-Dem “pile-on” dies down, we are still left with a leading GOP presidential candidate who positions himself as War on Terror strong horse–but who exercised extraordinarily weak judgement (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03kerik.html?em&ex=1194235200&en=f91732cc76ccd6b5&ei=5087%0A) in recommending his corrupted ally for the nation’s top homeland security post, continued to rationalize (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkEKASYyqDGNQY7iWc6PW3d23-IQD8SNOLI81) it, and fails to see his own culpability in perpetuating open-borders chaos in NYC.

His liberal slant.
Since that post nearly three years ago, there has been little change on the homeland security and immigration enforcement front. Giuliani still refuses to acknowledge (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/21/rudys-real-bullst/) his aggressive, proactive protection of New York’s sanctuary policies.

[Jack_Savage]

His liberal slant.

No-no-no. Being an ally for some goal, like cleaning up the streets of New York is an entirely different message. Nothing talks about them being buddies. Buddy implys off duty personal relationship. Nothing Rudy has done with Kerik is anything other than professional.

Also "Liberal slant" is your characterazition. What I got from that was a turn into the Hillary side of the thread which I brought up eariler. So With that in mind, she and her supporters are only going to try and use derogotory comments about Rudy from conservatives like Michelle to turn into votes for them. What good does that for Rudy, Fred or anyone else running.

[Suzie]

:banghead: Good Lord help you.
Well all of you who have talked to me about this ... I tried. Sorry it doesn't get thru. If any of you would like to give it a try yourself feel free.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Venus de Smilo:
Very true, especially for single-issue voters.

:sulk: Get over yourself.

[Venus de Smilo]

:sulk: Get over yourself.
Pull yer head out.

[DesertFox]

I don't count Kerik against Giuliani. What DOES count against him for me is his liberalness.

I personally like the way Giuliani handles himself, but I don't trust him for judicial appointments and those are the main thing.

[Venus de Smilo]

:banghead: Good Lord help you.
Well all of you who have talked to me about this ... I tried. Sorry it doesn't get thru. If any of you would like to give it a try yourself feel free.
Huh? I thought I was on-topic. No?

Anyway, you quoted, ".......recommending his corrupted ally for the nation’s top homeland security post, continued to rationalize (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkEKASYyqDGNQY7iWc6PW3d23-IQD8SNOLI81) it, and fails to see his own culpability in perpetuating open-borders chaos in NYC."

That should be ALLEGEDLY "corrupted ally" (besides, what's really important about the HS department is that it's a huge, bloated, useless bureaucracy that should never have been formed in the first place and represents one of Bush's worst capitulations to the 'rats in the second place. Rudy and Kerik are beside the point when it comes to that organization).

Also, would you please ask Moo to post constructively so this thread doesn't have to be moved to FW like the last one did in which he ad hom attacked me. Thanks.

[Jack_Savage]

Originally Posted by Suzie
:banghead:Good Lord help you.
Well all of you who have talked to me about this ... I tried. Sorry it doesn't get thru. If any of you would like to give it a try yourself feel free.




I don't think kerik is guilty of anything. Its a red-hering, aimed at getting Rudy not anything Kerik did. I support Rudy. I havent taken a swipe at any other GOP candidates. I don't think this is some issue with regards to Rudys judgement other than how smart he is with building an effective team for the job that needed to get done in NY. The topic is designed to turn that around.

If someone has some problem with that please explain it to me. Maybe I am banging my head against a wall here.

[Venus de Smilo]

I don't count Kerik against Giuliani. What DOES count against him for me is his liberalness.

I personally like the way Giuliani handles himself, but I don't trust him for judicial appointments and those are the main thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say a couple of months back that you did trust him to make good SCOTUS appointments? If so, why do you no longer trust him?

BTW, just as a reminder to all, there's more at stake than just the SCOTUS appointments. There are tons of vacancies throughout the entire fed court system. When you consider that only a small fraction of appeals sent up to the supremes are granted cert, this is a very important point to remember.

[DesertFox]

You must have me confused with somebody else. I don't recollect commenting on Rudy in any but the terms I just did. I've always liked his ready wit, his ability to handle himself, his self-assurance; but his liberalness makes him strongly suspect. He's the sort who would appoint a known idiot such as Ginzberg or Kennedy to SCOTUS to satisfy somebody like Ted Kennedy.

[Venus de Smilo]

Cudda sworn it was you, but maybe not. Or maybe it was longer ago than I thought and you don't remember. Dunno. No matter.

[Lazarus]

...Since most members seem to despise Rudy, there probably won't be many favorable offerings about the Kerik situation as it pertains to Rudy....Well I don't dispise Rudy - I don't support him but I have no animosity toward him...

Having said that, there is an issue here that deals strictly with the science of politics that i think meeds to be considered by everyone... It never occurred to me until it was slightly touched on in one of the political news analyst shows...

The issue is Timing... We have a situation where all this info about the indictment has come out now, while we are in the Primary election - However, the actual trial won't occur until after the primary election is completed BUT before the general election...

So we are looking at a situation where Giuliani could in fact win the nomination as the Republican candidate, and in the middle of the general election campaign, be compelled (very likely) to give evidence in this man's trial...

In case the full weight of this reality hasn't hit everyone, I will explain in clearer terms... The Republican candidate for president will be called as a witness in a criminal trial in the middle of the general election campaign, and will be forced to answer questions about what he knew about this man's actions and when did he know it...

Its a dream scandal for the Democrats to wield like a sword against the Pubs in an election where the public will be reminded of the corruption allegations that cost the Pubs both houses of Congress in '06... the Dems will paint the Pubs as the party of scandal, while distracting America from their own flagrant scandals...

I submit that this incident puts a whole new light on the Giuliani nomination... Can we in fact risk allowing this man to represent the Pubs aganst the Dems in November '08, with this potential bomb hanging around his neck? We al know that the MSM will have a field day with this issue... It could end up being the killing blow that hands the election to the Dems if Giuliani wins our nomination...

[Rhino]

If I was President I would pardon Kerik. He did a fantastic job cleaning up the streets of NY.Huh? So that means he should be free to break the law?

[Jack_Savage]

Huh? So that means he should be free to break the law?


Thats my first reaction but I have no idea as to what he is charged with. He did such a great job in New York, and from listening to him speak on other issues, I really like the guy. My gut tells me this is a trumped up charge by the Clinton machine.

If what he did was some serious offence then of course he should be prosicuted. I would hate to do it. My reaction is in response to all of Clintons pardons and the top-secret thief on Hillary campaign. Its a sad state of affairs, when we have to contimplate issues like this. He has plead not guilty, and I would for sure allow him to explain before jumping all over him like Media-Matters has orcherstrated.

[Jack_Savage]

Well I don't dispise Rudy - I don't support him but I have no animosity toward him...

Having said that, there is an issue here that deals strictly with the science of politics that i think meeds to be considered by everyone... It never occurred to me until it was slightly touched on in one of the political news analyst shows...

The issue is Timing... We have a situation where all this info about the indictment has come out now, while we are in the Primary election - However, the actual trial won't occur until after the primary election is completed BUT before the general election...

So we are looking at a situation where Giuliani could in fact win the nomination as the Republican candidate, and in the middle of the general election campaign, be compelled (very likely) to give evidence in this man's trial...

In case the full weight of this reality hasn't hit everyone, I will explain in clearer terms... The Republican candidate for president will be called as a witness in a criminal trial in the middle of the general election campaign, and will be forced to answer questions about what he knew about this man's actions and when did he know it...

Its a dream scandal for the Democrats to wield like a sword against the Pubs in an election where the public will be reminded of the corruption allegations that cost the Pubs both houses of Congress in '06... the Dems will paint the Pubs as the party of scandal, while distracting America from their own flagrant scandals...

I submit that this incident puts a whole new light on the Giuliani nomination... Can we in fact risk allowing this man to represent the Pubs aganst the Dems in November '08, with this potential bomb hanging around his neck? We al know that the MSM will have a field day with this issue... It could end up being the killing blow that hands the election to the Dems if Giuliani wins our nomination...

Very good point. Because of that, any trial should be delayed till after the election. Heck, regular folks cant get to trial for years. Who is tryig to push this into a campaign issue.

[Lazarus]

Well you can bet the Leftists will fight tooth and nail to keep the trial dead center in the middle of the General election... And if there is anyone with any brains in Rudy's team, or in the RNC for that matter, they will dispatch lawyers to argue to postpone the trial till after the election... I don't expect it to happen though... And for that reason, it makes me very nervous to have a likely nominee caught up in this scandal... This could kill us...







I also need to learn how to spell "dEspise"... :rolleyes::D

[Jack_Savage]

Well you can bet the Leftists will fight tooth and nail to keep the trial dead center in the middle of the General election... And if there is anyone with any brains in Rudy's team, or in the RNC for that matter, they will dispatch lawyers to argue to postpone the trial till after the election... I don't expect it to happen though... And for that reason, it makes me very nervous to have a likely nominee caught up in this scandal... This could kill us...







I also need to learn how to spell "dEspise"... :rolleyes::D




I would hope the GOP learns to go on the offense. No more responding with pleas to the left seeking agreement. Does the witch sit on some witness stand and answer our question, No! The new Sheriff in town, No! Ron Pauls in-bred twin Sen. Reid, no. None of them do.

If the trial was not postponed for political reasons Rudy could just refuse to testify until it was in the best interests of the country, telling those who object to "don't vote for me if you don' like it." Initiate a class action suit against the entire Democrat Party for the fraud involved in it. Or because the sky is blue.Thats what the Clintons do. That "depending on what the definitions of the word "is", is. Was worse than using the sky is blue defense. Thats just off the top of my head I am sure Rudy and his team could put together a strategy which cancels any order for him to chase the rabbit this way or that.

Its time to take it to them. Not continue to sit forward on on the edge of our chairs, trying to explain how honest and good we are. Phuk-em! We got all the real important cards in the deck. The ones that actually have plans and solutions to this mess we are in. Hillary and the rest of the slobs, have no plans. Who on our side would want to play that hand. They are the ones trying to play the con. Look at that idiot who stole the top-secrets from the Archives. He is sitting on her campaign, refusing to take lie detector test, refusing to explain what he destroied about the Clintons, and we are worried about what Bernard Kerik did or didn't do that had nothing to do with Rudy.

If we cant hit this one out of the park, we don't deserve to win.

[Suzie]

Well you can bet the Leftists will fight tooth and nail to keep the trial dead center in the middle of the General election... And if there is anyone with any brains in Rudy's team, or in the RNC for that matter, they will dispatch lawyers to argue to postpone the trial till after the election... I don't expect it to happen though... And for that reason, it makes me very nervous to have a likely nominee caught up in this scandal... This could kill us...


I think Michelle is saying we don't want to start off with a guy already in a scandal to begin with.

[Jack_Savage]

I think Michelle is saying we don't want to start off with a guy already in a scandal to begin with.


Michelle is a quitter. Its her M.O. No matter who wins they will pull some fraud out of the hat. Scurring around looking for somebody who cannot be touched will give us some weenie who I wouldn't want in the White House let along 20% of the Democrats who we will need. We need a winner not some loser who will spend his time proving how good and nice he is. Haven't we had enough of that with John McCain?

[Rhino]

Thats my first reaction but I have no idea as to what he is charged with.That might actually be worse. You advocate a pardon without even knowing what he did.

He did such a great job in New York, and from listening to him speak on other issues, I really like the guy.That's no reason to excuse criminal acts.

My gut tells me this is a trumped up charge by the Clinton machine.If so, then he would not be convicted, so a pardon would not be an issue.

...He has plead not guilty, and I would for sure allow him to explain before jumping all over him like Media-Matters has orcherstrated.I would too. I would also want to be certain a crime had not been committed before I started to advocate pardons.

[Jack_Savage]

That might actually be worse. You advocate a pardon without even knowing what he did.



Of course your right. And that is good advice Rhino. I should be careful of that. But you know what, in this season of fraud with the kind of slobs working for Hillary, Kerik gets the full implications of "innocent till proven guilty", from me. 1000%. And anybody who tries to use it as a fraudulant campaign tool should be prosecuted.

And, so far nobody has shown in anyway shape or form that Rudy has done a thing. I hope your not falling into that trap of indicting him out of some far-left peer pressure, simply because he is not your personal choice? Nah, you wouldn't do that. So what is it? Is it Kerik that concerns you or Rudy?
How should Rudy respond to the slob-left who is trying to twist this into something, while they have a felon on their campaign refusing to meet the requirements of his plea deal. I would expect you to be far more interested in what Sandy Berger did, since he was carrying out the orders of Bill Clinton, than some personal mess kerik got into.

[Rhino]

I can understand the gut reaction. Your initial statement was just a little scary. I have not formed a concrete opinion about Kerik, nor how it might pertain to Rudy. Not enough facts are available for that yet. I distrust media reports on legal issues, especially when politics are involved. So I remain neutral on this until more facts are available.

[Jack_Savage]

I can understand the gut reaction. Your initial statement was just a little scary. I have not formed a concrete opinion about Kerik, nor how it might pertain to Rudy. Not enough facts are available for that yet. I distrust media reports on legal issues, especially when politics are involved. So I remain neutral on this until more facts are available.

Well, you have a more even-handed steady composure. Honorable, not to a fault, but what the sheisters are counting on to trample on the integrity of our system. At the same time, while we do give the man proper legal protections, we need to be on the lookout for the ugly-left gunslingers who we know will try to make something out of nothing. How do we use this as an opportunity to gut them? I say we go on the attack.

For starters demand that Sandy Berger take real in-depth lie-detector testing. Produce all the documents. Explain what he knew and when did he know it. Who else was in on it, had knowledge. Find out what kinds of payoffs are in play with his position on Hillarys team. But there are so many more players on Hillarys team. People whos only claim to fame are the "hit" jobs they did on people who interferred with the Clintons on a personal basis. Those thugs who went after Ms. Willey and Paula Jones come to mind.

This isn't a time to get all jiggy, because some Clinton crony brings up alligations against one of the most effective law enforcement officers NY, or the country has ever had. I commend Rudy for his resolute integrity when it comes to standing behind people who produced the results he hired them to do. I would expect no less from you Rhino.

Its the Niemollers I am concerned with they fill Hillarys campaign.

[Suzie]

I can understand the gut reaction. Your initial statement was just a little scary. I have not formed a concrete opinion about Kerik, nor how it might pertain to Rudy. Not enough facts are available for that yet. I distrust media reports on legal issues, especially when politics are involved. So I remain neutral on this until more facts are available.

There does seem to be some strange support by Rudy in this case. Surely in all of New York City you would think there would be someone more qualified for the positions he has given him. I never knew he was only a cop for 8 years when selected.

First, Giuliani made Kerik - who used to drive him around on weekends - correction commissioner in New York, after Kerik had run one jail in his life, in Passaic County. Then Giuliani made him police commissioner, though Kerik had just a total of eight years on the books as a cop. Source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/12/2007-11-12_renaming_the_tombs_for_kerik_bad_move_fo-1.html?ref=rss)

[Jack_Savage]

There does seem to be some strange support by Rudy in this case. Surely in all of New York City you would think there would be someone more qualified for the positions he has given him. I never knew he was only a cop for 8 years when selected.

Source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/12/2007-11-12_renaming_the_tombs_for_kerik_bad_move_fo-1.html?ref=rss)

If thats all he had he must be some result-producing genus. Man he accomplished alot. That is what is so great about America. I got a friend who was homeless until he was 37. made it on looking forward. going for it, making it happen, not looking back. Conservatives should have put up a person they like, and one who is effective if they don't like Rudy.

Its intention that produces results Suzy not some fancy resume. Rudy has the level of intention we need. That fire in his belly.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Venus de Smilo:
Pull yer head out.

:moo: You do the hokey pokey & you turn yourself around...



:curt:

[Venus de Smilo]

Well I don't dispise Rudy - I don't support him but I have no animosity toward him...

Having said that, there is an issue here that deals strictly with the science of politics that i think meeds to be considered by everyone... It never occurred to me until it was slightly touched on in one of the political news analyst shows...

The issue is Timing... We have a situation where all this info about the indictment has come out now, while we are in the Primary election - However, the actual trial won't occur until after the primary election is completed BUT before the general election...

So we are looking at a situation where Giuliani could in fact win the nomination as the Republican candidate, and in the middle of the general election campaign, be compelled (very likely) to give evidence in this man's trial...

In case the full weight of this reality hasn't hit everyone, I will explain in clearer terms... The Republican candidate for president will be called as a witness in a criminal trial in the middle of the general election campaign, and will be forced to answer questions about what he knew about this man's actions and when did he know it...

Its a dream scandal for the Democrats to wield like a sword against the Pubs in an election where the public will be reminded of the corruption allegations that cost the Pubs both houses of Congress in '06... the Dems will paint the Pubs as the party of scandal, while distracting America from their own flagrant scandals...

I submit that this incident puts a whole new light on the Giuliani nomination... Can we in fact risk allowing this man to represent the Pubs aganst the Dems in November '08, with this potential bomb hanging around his neck? We al know that the MSM will have a field day with this issue... It could end up being the killing blow that hands the election to the Dems if Giuliani wins our nomination...
I'm aware of that problem and it's been discussed rather at length on the political talk shows this past weekend after the indictments came down.

Some things I haven't heard discussed yet, though, is a possibility that Kerik might fall on his sword if Rudy gets the nomination. Another thing to keep in mind is that Garcia (the U.S. attorney prosecuting this case) is a Bush appointee and, as near as I can find in researching Garcia, has no ax to grind with Rudy. I also think Garcia would not turn down a federal bench appointment if a 'pub becomes president. Garcia will have a number of legal strategies to choose from; some would involve a heavy hand on Rudy, others include a velvet glove or no touching at all.

It should also be remembered that, although Rudy was informed by the investigating committee that there were rumors linking Kerik to organized crime through a construction company he hired, the investigating committee also told Rudy that there was nothing in Kerik's background that they were aware of or had uncovered that would preclude him from the appointment to chief of police and corrections. The point being, there's no "there" there and there's nothing I've learned, heard or found that in any way indicates that Garcia is out to torpedo Rudy.

I had already made the point that the fact that Rudy suggested Kerik to Bush to be HS director shows a distinct lack of consciousness of guilt. No way would he have made the recommendation, knowing the scrutiny and vetting such nominees undergo, if he was complicit in or in any way aware of the extent of the possible allegations against Kerik.

[Rhino]

:moo: You do the hokey pokey & you turn yourself around...http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif