NY TIMES: GIULIANI CAUGHT IN OUTRIGHT EGOTISTICAL LIE ON "TURNING AROUND U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICE"

[Dems Will Win]

It's a pleasure to bring you another media-confirmed lie from Rudolph Hitler, who seems to be suffering from Baron Von Munchausen Syndrome.

MEET THE PRESS DEC 9:

And there are reports, Mr. Mayor, that according to Mr. Kuriansky, involved in the city investigative unit, that he briefed you and Dennison Young about Bernard Kerik and his relationship with Lawrence Ray before you appointed him police commissioner, and there are documents that demonstrate this. Mr. Ray, as you well know, was the best man for Bernard Kerik, had been indicted for his involvement in a company called Interstate Industrial. Do you recall the warning you were given about Mr. Kerik?

MR. GIULIANI: I don’t. I don’t, and, and I’ll explain it to you. First of all, this is very, you know, this is a very tragic and terrible situation for everybody. Now, the reality is I made a mistake. I made a mistake in not vetting him carefully enough. And it’s my responsibility; I should have. And I’ve appointed hundreds, thousands of people; to that level, probably hundreds of people, and I have made few mistakes. Most of them have been correct, most of them have been outstanding people. Most of them have been outstanding enough to get exceptional results with their services—reducing crime or reducing welfare, turning around the city of New York, prosecuting organized crime, prosecuting white collar crime. So I think my judgment on appointments turns out to almost always be very good, with, unfortunately, some mistakes that I’ve made. This is one of them, and I’m really sorry for it and have, and have learned from it.

...

He also told me that he had cleared Bernard Kerik for the appointment, as well as the other person that was going to be appointed. And that it may be that because he had cleared him that it’s something that I don’t recall clearly. He is—he was not sure whether he briefed me or not, he just said he had a note—here’s the—when you say there’s evidence to suggest this, here’s what it is: it’s a, it’s a notation of an upcoming meeting that has his initials, my initials, Dennison Young’s initials and some notation about Ray and a company called Interstate, to brief me. The question is, did he or didn’t he? I don’t remember it. Dennison Young...

MR. RUSSERT: He says he—he said he did.

MR. GIULIANI: No, what he said is, when he looked—first of all, he said he didn’t remember it. That was his first recollection. Wait, wait, this is important...

MR. RUSSERT: Yep.

MR. GIULIANI: ...we get it right. He first said that he didn’t remember briefing me. Then when he saw his notes, the note that I just described, he said “I must have because I have these notes here.” We talked about it. He thinks he must have because of the notes there. I don’t remember him doing it. Dennison Young doesn’t remember him doing it. He does remember, however, that he did tell us that Bernard Kerik was clear to be appointed. In other words, he was, he was—there was no ethical reason why he shouldn’t be appointed. And then we, we went ahead and did it. I think if I had of known that, I wouldn’t have appointed him. But that’s—I mean, that’s, that’s, that’s the honest recollection that everybody has of it.

MR. RUSSERT: But that was for policeman commissioner. When you recommended to the president of the United States in 2004 that Bernard Kerik be the secretary of homeland security...

MR. GIULIANI: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...the number one position in this country to fight terrorism, you knew at that time that Lawrence Ray had been indicted, had pleaded guilty. There was a lot of information available.

MR. GIULIANI: Right. I did—this is—that...

MR. RUSSERT: You knew none of that?

MR. GIULIANI: Was it available? Sure, it was available. I didn’t find it, which is what—why I made a mistake. I should’ve checked that, you’re absolutely right. I mean, I—when that happened...

MR. RUSSERT: Did you place personal loyalty over integrity?

MR. GIULIANI: No, I did not. I didn’t—I would never, I would never do that. I—what I did, here’s what I did do wrong. You want—the mistake was, I should have checked it out much more carefully before he went forward for any of these positions. And I didn’t. I didn’t check it out carefully enough. I should’ve done that. I usually do, and 95, 98, 99 percent of the times I’ve gotten it right. Gosh, I made a mistake. I, I learned from it. In the future, I’ll be much more careful about it. I should’ve checked him out much more carefully, and I didn’t.

...

MR. RUSSERT: That’s a big misjudgment to make when you recommend someone to the president for that kind of a sensitive job.

MR. GIULIANI: Well, look, I’ve, I’ve recommended and appointed thousands of people over the years. So I think the way you find out is my judgment generally very good and sometimes bad, like any other human being is, what kind of results have I gotten with the people that I appointed? How, how could I have mostly bad judgment about people and have reduced crime in New York by 60 percent? How can I, how can I not have pretty good judgment about the people who work for me and not been able to turn around the United States attorney’s office or do the turnaround of New York City or be successful in, in business?

The Office I Left Giuliani

By JOHN S. MARTIN Jr.
Published: December 17, 2007

ON “Meet the Press” a week ago, Rudolph W. Giuliani attempted to deflect criticism of his close relationship with his former police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, by saying that his misjudgment of Mr. Kerik had to be weighed against his other accomplishments. “How can I not have pretty good judgment about the people who work for me and not been able to turn around the United States attorney’s office?” he asked. But Mr. Giuliani’s claim to have turned around the Manhattan United States attorney’s office is not only untrue, it is an insult to the outstanding men and women who have served in that office over the last 50 years.

When he became the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York in 1983 (I was his immediate predecessor), Mr. Giuliani did not take over a moribund prosecutor’s office; he became the head of the premier United States attorney’s office in the country, with a tradition of excellence stretching back 30 years under the leadership of such legal luminaries as Robert M. Morgenthau, the current Manhattan district attorney, and Robert B. Fiske Jr., the original Whitewater special prosecutor. Mr. Giuliani took over an office staffed by a group of the finest young lawyers in the country.

...

Mr. Giuliani claims that he came up with the idea of prosecuting the leaders of each of the major crime families in a single case under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. While that may be his perception, the idea was first broached by the head of the criminal section of the F.B.I.’s New York office in a meeting with me and my staff approximately a year before Mr. Giuliani took office. By the time he was sworn in, the office was laying the groundwork for that case and had in place wiretaps on three of the five organized-crime families in New York City. Among the lawyers already assigned to those cases were Louis Freeh, later the director of the F.B.I., and Barbara Jones, later the chief assistant district attorney for Manhattan and now a United States district court judge.

While the United States attorney’s office under Mr. Giuliani prosecuted a number of high-profile securities fraud cases, including those against Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, the original information from which these cases developed came from Merrill Lynch, whose compliance staff had spotted what appeared to be insider trading in an account in the Bahamas. This account turned out to be owned by Dennis Levine, a leading Wall Street investment banker who, when confronted with the evidence against him, agreed to cooperate with the United States attorney’s office.

...

There is no question that Mr. Giuliani is an able lawyer. It is unfortunate, however, that he feels he must denigrate the accomplishments of others to advance his own political interests. What has made the office of the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York an example of what a great prosecutor’s office should be is its tradition of hiring the best lawyers available, without regard to party affiliation, and allowing them to do their job free from political influence. Mr. Giuliani did not have to turn the prosecutor’s office around; he simply had to keep it moving forward.

John S. Martin Jr. was the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1980 to 1983.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17martin.html

If you want Rudolph Hitler to become President of the United States, DO NOT RECOMMEND.

[Dems Will Win]

1. this story will have legs

[Historic NY]

2. He is pathological, serial liar.