|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Kerik nomination withdrawn, Cover story?
Former NYC Police Commissioner Kerik, nominated to head the chaotic Homeland Security Department, has withdrawn his nomination. He claims he had a "nanny problem". There now seems to be a great deal of controversy over whether this is a cover story, with Newsweek magazine saying they brought allegations of financial misdealings and the fact there was an open arrest warrant for Kerik in force for his failure to appear to face a subpoena. They notified the White House of their intention to print this story at 6 PM, and by 8:30 he resigned, citing this "nanny problem".
In general, this was a terrible nominee - despite his WTC hero-myth and Fox News-created media persona, many NYPD blamed his prior mismanagement of causing problems that resulted in the disorganized reponse on 9-11 that resulted in the deaths of NYPD personnel. In addition, he was appointed to a six month assignment in Iraq and forced to leave after three months following allegations of mismanagement and what some described as "meglomania", given credence by the fact he liked to refer to himself as "The new Interior Minister of Iraq" while his tenure there was disatourous in terms of mission faliure as we all know by the magnificent state of the Iraqi security forces, that is if you can find them. Added to that were allegations of conflict of interest in goverment contracts. How did such a loser get appointment to high office? Why the cover up? Last edited by KirkVining; 12-11-2004 at 11:09 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I'd guess he was being vetted for the nomination on Rudy's recommendation. Probably a Repo attempt to reach for the NY voters. I also read there might be a nannygate issue.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I read that there was a nanny and/or housekeeper whose immigration status was 'not clear' and that Kerik thought it would have been a distraction. Good for him for remembering. But, how did he get nominated in the first place?
Not an uncommon phenomenon- illegal nannys- but an ironic reason for a potential homeland security director to be disqualified. Do they interview people before nomination? "Hi, so, like, you're going to have to make sure no illegal immigrants make it over here, 'cause we dunno who might be a terrorist sleeper" "Ya-sure, no problem" "Ever helped an illegal?" "No, never" "Oh, that's a relief. And, we'll take you at your word and nominate you for one of the most important cabinet positions we've ever made without verifying your story through our supposedly reformed intelligence agencies."
__________________
Cannondale ST600 XL Redline Monocog 29er 2011 Mini Cooper Clubman 2005 Honda Element EX www.djugurba.com www.waldenwellness.com |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
That's why they vett the candidates before bringing them before Congress.
He hadn't been brought before Congress had he? It came out before then, right? There was flaw in the nominee's background found in the vetting process. It's the same thing that happens when you apply for a security clearance. Your closet gets a shake and they see if anything rattles. The higher the clearance, the harder they shake. That's what we call the system working. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
yeah, you're right. We should march out any old boob before doing any rudimentary check into their suitability for the job of critical importance we have them in mind to fill. I cannot believe there is no vetting prior to public introductions. If this is the case, it's rediculous. It's worse that the numbskull didn't vett himself when asked to fill the role.
Is it impossible to evaluate events on their individual merits? Bush has done some good things. This wasn't one of them. Shake the closet before you put your trust in it.
__________________
Cannondale ST600 XL Redline Monocog 29er 2011 Mini Cooper Clubman 2005 Honda Element EX www.djugurba.com www.waldenwellness.com |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697161/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/ Last edited by KirkVining; 12-11-2004 at 01:39 PM. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
I didn't know squat about kerik and didn't pay attention to that. The veting process usually works its way through pretty effectively. Remember the Kimbra Woods thing? Same deal. She was vetted and had a nanny problem revealed at the last minute. Then all of a sudden, all these Washington BigWigs started back-paying SSI for their nanny's and domestics.
If the vetting is like getting a security clearance then revelation of problems depends to a large degree on the applicant. If the applicant fails to disclose potential problems up-front and but they are revealed later through investigation, that raises a question of honesty in the investigator's head. I could imagine that once something undisclosed comes-up that the investigator then starts digging looking for anomolies. But a very thoroughly dishonest applicant could probably cleverly hide problems for quite some time. That's how bad people get into sensitive situations. It happens--remember the CIA had a double agent revealed in the late eighties or early nineties. And the FBI, too. It happens. I don't understand why you guys think its so exciting and reveals some sort of glaring flaw in teh administration. It has never occured to me to check, but I'll bet its not uncommon for prospective nominees to be rejected at upper level posts. Anybody care enough to run a comprehensive search back say, fifty years? It would be interesting to see the who and why of rejections. Full disclosure time: I don't care enough to look. But if I had a hidden staff of researchers I'd put them on it. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Conspiracies unnecessary. Bot "The immediate cause was the nanny problem, the sources say, the same issue that took down Bill Clinton’s nomination of Zoe Baird to be Attorney General in 1993. Kerik explained to the White House that while he was preparing documents for his Senate confirmation hearings, he uncovered information “that now leads me,” he wrote, “to question the immigration status” of someone he had been employing as a housekeeper and nanny. For a period of time, Kerik reported, “required tax payments and related filings had not been made.” According to a Kerik associate, having this kind of nanny problem would have been untenable for the head of the Homeland Security department, which oversees the government's immigration agencies." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Nominee Initially Denied Having Hired an Illegal Immigrant, Officials Say By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, December 12, 2004; Page A01 White House officials yesterday blamed Bernard B. Kerik for repeatedly failing to disclose potential legal problems to administration lawyers vetting his nomination to be homeland security secretary, as President Bush prepared to quickly name a replacement and try to put the controversy over the former New York police commissioner's background behind him. Kerik, who withdrew his own nomination Friday and apologized yesterday for embarrassing Bush, was asked numerous times by White House lawyers if he had employed an illegal immigrant or failed to pay taxes on domestic help, the sources said. Kerik was told he would humiliate his family, himself and the president if he lied on either account, the officials said. He responded with firm denials. After digging deeper, however, Kerik said he discovered last week that he might have a problem on both accounts and withdrew his name. In the vetting process, which was conducted by the office of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, Kerik also never mentioned that a New Jersey judge had issued a warrant for his arrest in 1998 over a civil dispute over unpaid bills, the sources said. The existence of the dispute was first reported by Newsweek Friday night. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57960-2004Dec11.html |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
More evidence emerges that the "nanny" nomination withdrawal story was concocted to cover up the fact this guy was a total washout from day 1. This is also indicating to me that Bush cared more about media star power than competance, and rushed to get what he wanted with out looking before he leaped, the hallmark of his management style that we get to see the results of daily in Iraq. Apparently Mr. Kerik was the subject of some pretty serious charge, and it is amazing the Bush staff would not be aware of them:
Inside the Kerik mess BY DAN JANISON AND GRAHAM RAYMAN STAFF WRITERS newsday.com In the 48 hours before his withdrawal as nominee for the nation's top security post, Bernard Kerik and his lawyer scrambled to keep damaging assertions about his past out of the public spotlight. A week after President George W. Bush announced the former city police commissioner as his choice for Homeland Security secretary, an array of charges and questions about Kerik's past were coming to a boil, threatening his crafted image as an American legend and portending a rougher Senate confirmation process than first predicted. On Thursday, the day before he took his name from contention, Kerik, 49, was forced to testify in a civil lawsuit about an alleged affair with a subordinate. The case, which involves Kerik's use of authority when he was city correction commissioner between 1998 and 2000, was brought against the city by a former deputy warden. Plaintiff Eric DeRavin III contends Kerik kept him from getting promoted because he had reprimanded the woman, Correction Officer Jeanette Pinero. About halfway through Pinero's deposition on Tuesday, attorneys for the city began to raise the issue of sealing the depositions, particularly the parts that concerned Kerik and Pinero's relationship, lawyers in the case said. On Wednesday, the lawyers requested and received a special hearing before Federal Magistrate Kevin Nathaniel Fox, where they requested that both Kerik's and Pinero's transcripts be sealed. DeRavin's attorney, Gregory Lisi, argued against the sealing, calling it a First Amendment issue. The judge ordered the parties not to discuss the contents of either deposition until he ruled. DeRavin said that while other depositions in the case have been taken in small, cramped quarters at the city Law Department, Kerik's was held in a spacious conference room furnished with leather chairs. Kerik arrived with his personal attorney, Joseph Tacopina. On Friday, Kerik was fending off other charges. Tacopina was in contact with at least one TV news organization in a bid to keep it from airing an interview with another ex-jail supervisor, sources said. The interview contained other allegations against Kerik, some of which have already been in print, the sources said. After Kerik's withdrawal, Tacopina complained to MSNBC about a "disturbing" level of "personal attacks" that he deemed inaccurate and unfair. Despite his embattlements, however, there were few, if any, clues that Kerik was about to pull the plug on his biggest career venture. Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) said the White House seemed to have been caught off guard. He said that as late as 7 p.m. Friday, just 90 minutes before Kerik telephoned President George W. Bush and withdrew, the White House faxed King talking points defending the nomination for his use during a TV appearance. King said he talked with the president and White House political strategist Karl Rove on Monday about Kerik during a White House Christmas party. He said both spoke enthusiastically about the nomination and showed no concern about its fate. Later that same night, King said, he ran into Kerik at a Washington restaurant. King said Kerik indicated he was aware that questions would be raised about his background but showed no hesitancy about answering them. In the end, however, Kerik, a proud protege of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, withdrew his nomination with the disclosure that he failed to pay taxes on a housekeeper and nanny who may have been undocumented. "I owe the president an enormous amount of gratitude for this consideration," Kerik said yesterday from his home in Franklin Lakes, N.J. "I owe him a great apology that this may have caused him and his administration a big distraction." Staff writers Ken Fireman and Leonard Levitt contributed to this story. Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Joe B. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I think they knew about his nanny problem but didn't know about this other stuff. Heck, its been 12 years since Zoe, and they could just do a song and dance about the "war" effort etc and how half the country is illegal now anyway. But when it starting looking like they had nominated a guy to the highest council of government who was a man of exceeding poor judgement, they decided to concoct a story that would be a lot less politicaly damaging, let it all out on a Friday, hoping the story would die down before the news cycle started again on Monday. I was amazed they had ever nominated this guy. My brother-in-law, a NH fireman, said to me it was pretty well known that the rank and file NYPD thought this guy was a total jerk who was responsible for a lot of the problems that ended up metaztisizing on 9-11 into communications failures and command failures that got a lot of cops killed. His tenure in Iraq was a scandal, of which the pussy Pentagon press corp never publicized - the guy was literally kicked out of the place. He was successful at one thing, however, being a talking head toughguy bad cop on Faux News and subsequent rightwing media machine darling. Bush wanted image, not competance.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Zoe Schmoe.
The lesson of Zoe Baird, Abe Fortus, etc, is not the specific issue of nanny, or influence but that sometimes an issue comes forward that the folks who vett and the nominee both think is a non-issue but becomes a killer. But if you have to believe it's a sign of the terrible incompetence of the administration, hey that's your prerogative. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
This piece from Blumenthal before this broke seems quite prescient:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1369469,00.html |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|