Bernie Kerik started from humble beginnings, but he rose to the top at a remarkable speed. His mother, he revealed in his autobiography, was a prostitute, but he went into law enforcement. Once he became friends with New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, things happened fast: In less than a decade, he went from being an undercover detective to the city's correction commissioner and then the head of its police department.
The fall happened just as fast.
It began at the end of 2004, when then-President George W. Bush named Kerik as his choice to head the Department of Homeland Security. Questions about some of his dealings led to the nomination being withdrawn, but it was too late to save him.
On Thurday, Kerik plead guilty to federal charges that stemmed from the nomination, which included lying to the Bush administration about his relationship with contractors who worked for the city and renovated his apartment. He's also expected to admit to his guilt on tax charges. Prosecutors have recommended 27 to 33 months in prison, but a judge could decide to sentence him to more than that -- the maximum is 61 years.
The plea came after Kerik, who'd originally planned a vigorous defense, had his bail revoked and was sent to jail a little more than two weeks ago. During that time, there were reportedly serious concerns about his mental state and he spent 10 days in a psychiatric unit.
The Senate voted Tuesday in favor of a measure, already approved by the House, that allows the administration to continue transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. for trial. President Obama is expected to sign the bill.
There is one big restriction included in the legislation: The detainees may not allowed to be brought to the U.S. if it the transfer is done for the purpose of releasing them. Despite warnings from people who oppose the idea of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo, the administration is also against the concept of releasing former detainees here.
Congress may not have the last word on this, however. Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will ask the justices to decide whether detainees who are not considered a security risk can be freed in the U.S. The case was brought by 13 Chinese Muslims who were cleared for release six years ago but are still imprisoned at Guantanamo.
Once, Bernie Kerik was the commissioner of the New York City Police Department; later, he was -- briefly -- then-President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security. Now, he can't even stay out of jail before going on trial.
Kerik's facing corruption and fraud charges, and is scheduled to go on trial next week. But at a hearing on Tuesday, Judge Stephen Robinson revoked Kerik's bail and sent him to jail. The New York Post points out that Kerik is likely to be housed in a facility that's right next to the headquarters where he presided over the NYPD not even 10 years ago.
Robinson revoked Kerik's bail because the former commissioner leaked non-public information to people associated with his defense; that information then showed up on Web sites that support him, potentially tainting the jury pool.
The judge was clearly frustrated with the defendant who appeared before him.
"I fear he has a toxic combination: self-minded focus and arrogance," Robinson said. "He sees the court's ruling as an inconvenience, something to be ignored, and an obstacle to be circumvented."
Think your day is going badly? Could be worse -- you could be one of President Obama's high-level nominees.
Earlier today, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination to become secretary of Health and Human Services due to problems with his taxes. Daschle's withdrawal came just a short time after Nancy Killefer, Obama's selection to be chief performance officer, wrote a letter to the president withdrawing herself from consideration because of tax problems as well. And they're just following New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of consideration to be Commerce secretary because of a federal investigation into possible pay-for-play.
Obviously, none of these withdrawals have reflected favorably on either the new Obama administration or the administration's vetting process. But this is hardly the first time in recent history a president has faced some problems with his cabinet appointments.
In 2000, George W. Bush's nominee for Labor secretary, Linda Chavez, had to withdraw when it was discovered that she had given haven to illegal immigrants. Bush suffered further embarrassment in 2004 when Bernard Kerik withdrew his nomination to head the Department of Homeland Security due to a variety of financial and ethical concerns.
In 1993, Bill Clinton had an especially difficult time finding an attorney general who hadn't hired an illegal immigrant to be her nanny. Zoë Baird, the first woman Clinton nominated to be attorney general, withdrew because of the immigration status of her babysitter. Second choice Kimba Wood withdrew for the same reason. Clinton also withdrew the nomination of his choice for assistant attorney general, Lani Guinier, because he deemed her views on the empowerment of African Americans too radical.
It's never a good sign when you've got disgraced and indicted friends vouching for you -- welcome back, Bernie Kerik! -- but maybe that's the best Rudy Giuliani can do just now.
The Politico broke the news Wednesday that obscure city offices in New York were billed for the cost of security when then Mayor Giuliani visited then mistress Judith Nathan in the Hamptons. Since then, Giuliani and his supporters have offered a series of explanations -- one unsupported, one already abandoned and none particularly satisfying.
Or, as the front of the New York Daily News says today: "Doesn't Add Up!"
Let's run through the math.
Explanation No. 1: No explanation whatsoever. When the Politico explained the charges it would be making to a Giuliani spokeswoman before the story appeared, the spokeswoman declined to comment at all.
Explanation No. 2: "It's not true." At the GOP presidential debate Wednesday night, Anderson Cooper asked Giuliani whether, as mayor, "you took trips to the Hamptons and expensed the costs of your police detail to obscure city offices." "First of all, it's not true," Giuliani said. Then, after saying that he needed security because he was the subject of threats, Giuliani said that the security teams "put in their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them. I had nothing to do with the handling of their records, and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately." Giuliani hasn't explained what wasn't "true" about the story, and in fact, no one is disputing the basic allegation: that the security expenses were billed to obscure city agencies rather than to the NYPD.
Explanation No. 3: It's a "hit job." After the GOP debate, Giuliani speculated that the Politico piece might be the handiwork of one of the other presidential campaigns -- but only a Democratic campaign, of course. "I would not accuse any of my opponents of doing it," he said. "But who knows, it could be on the Democratic side." If Giuliani had any evidence that a rival campaign was behind the story, he didn't offer it.
Explanation No. 4: Everybody does it like this. Shortly after the Politico story broke, Joe Lhota, a deputy mayor under Giuliani, told the Daily News that the practice of billing obscure city offices for mayoral security has "gone on for years" and "predates Giuliani." When told Thursday that spokesmen for Giuliani's predecessors disagreed, Lhota said he needed to "reverse" himself. "I'm just going to talk about the Giuliani era," he said. "I should only talk about what I know about."
Explanation No. 5: Whatever it was, it wasn't a coverup: Having abandoned his "everybody does it" defense, Lhota told the Daily News Thursday: "I don't understand when it started. I don't understand why it started. But I do know one thing: It was consistently done ... in no way shape or form did it imply a coverup." But as the New York Times has reported, when a city auditor started asking questions about $34,000 in security-travel expenses he found in the city's Loft Board's ledgers in 2001, Giuliani's office "refused" to answer, citing "security" concerns.
Explanation No. 6: We were helping the cops. On Thursday -- the same day he told the Daily News that he didn't "understand why it started" -- Lohta told the Associated Press that the security expenses were paid out of offices tied to City Hall rather than by the NYPD itself because the NYPD took too long to reimburse the poor police officers assigned to Giuliani's detail. At the end of each year, Lohta said, the NYPD would reimburse the various city agencies that had been stuck with the tab in the meantime. But even if that's true, it doesn't explain why the costs were distributed among random city offices rather than paid out of a single budget account, which is how city comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. tells the Times it should have been done.
Maybe it isn't fair to hang Rudy Giuliani with all of the sins of Bernard Kerik, who surrendered to law enforcement officials this morning after being indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, making false statements on a bank application, making false statements for a U.S. government position and theft of honest services.
Yeah, so maybe Giuliani's "loyalty" to Kerik caused him to miss the "warning signs" he was shown. And yeah, maybe Giuliani has changed his story about what he knew about Kerik when. But Giuliani has sort of admitted that he erred in not vetting Kerik more thoroughly before naming him police commissioner in New York and pushing George W. Bush to nominate him as the director of the Department of Homeland Security.
And yeah, so maybe Giuliani has also made it clear that he thinks his appointment of Kerik was, on balance, the right decision anyway -- he got results, you know? --- but that's all ancient history. After all, Giuliani appointed Kerik police commissioner in 2000, which was a whole year before 9/11, which is when everything changed, right?
Right.
But now that we're living in a post-9/11 world and Giuliani is running for president, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask whether Giuliani would recuse himself from any involvement in Kerik's case?
Apparently not. The New York Daily News asked Guiliani Thursday whether he'd consider pardoning Kerik if he's elected and Kerik's convicted. Giuliani's answer: "It wouldn't be fair to ask that question at this point."
Giuliani out, and maybe in, in 2010.