"Do we know for sure that it was ONLY the police expenses for his trips to the mistress that were spread out over several budgets? What if ALL the police detail expenses were handled the same way? Would you still have a problem with it?"
___________________
It comes down to intent. If he (or someone with the power to make the decision, maybe UNKNOWN to Rudy) was trying to disguise the fact that these trips were being taken, then really, as Buddy says, its the cover up, not the event itself. Rudy has always been a bit of a dog with the ladies. That is well known.
Now, if security costs for other trips not involving visiting Ms. Nathan were likewise sprinkled around the other city budgets, then the question is: Why? Both the Dinkins and Bloomberg administrations say they didn't use this creative accounting. So why was it done? If a dollar is a dollar, why not just charge it to the most appropriate budget from day one?
Sure, this may be much ado about nothing...except the PERCEPTION that Rudy or his staff is a little fast and loose with public awareness of personal conduct flaws and may try to disguise them. As many have said, its a little too clintonesque to ignore...
If it is just "sloppy bookkeeping".....well, maybe the fact that over half the questioned trips so far involve Ms. Nathan might call that into question, don't you think? |
