"So what you're saying is that it's only a story when a republican does it. It's not a story when democrats do it.
I got it."
_______________
LOL....come off it, Bill. I'm no fan of Billy Clinton, as you know from my posts. But the issue TODAY is Rudy, not Marian Berry or Bill Clinton. Because democrats do things we can't support does not make it o.k. for republicans to do the same stuff. Supposedly, they are the party of character.
I don't know what happened in Rudy's office, but somebody instructed somebody to take CERTAIN expenses of the security detail and spread them around in wildly different unrelated budgets that had nothing to do with the source of the expense. This isn't a democrat, it's Rudy's office. If a democrat did the same thing, shame on them.
But why was it done? Who did it? Why didn't they reveal it sooner? And why was Rudy out with Ms. Nathan while still married to wife number two...? (Oh wait, his personal mistakes aren't the subject here). <g>
And if it is o.k. to spread expenses like this, there is probably a policy ruling on it in the NYC ethics or procedures code somewhere. I am sure we will hear about it. However, I wonder if it mentions just spreading the expenses from meeting your mistress, or expenses from any old side trip.
As for why department heads, who are solely beholden to the Mayor and his power brokers, didn't "complain" about having the expenses posted in their cost centers....er...you will have to ask them. But I can guess why, since they liked their jobs and as noted, they served at the pleasure of the Philandering mayor.
No tin hats required. It just looks like Rudy (or someone with the power to place the expense) didn't want those trips evident in the regular security expense logs. |
