Bush Administration Knew of Kerik's Questionable Past: Didn't think it would be a problem!
How perverted to think that questionable and possibly criminal conduct would be overlooked.
12.14.04
Kerik withdrew his nomination to HSD and contended, it was because he realized, on examining paperwork, that a former nanny was an illegal immigrant — even though he initially insisted to FBI she wasn't. A further problem was that he had failed to pay Social Security taxes for her. [Verifying an employee's legality is usually only a matter of asking for documentation or calling an 800 number to verify a Social Security number or immigration-document number.] Did he not realize until the vetting process that he didn't pay the required taxes for the nanny's employment? Gee is that all? Kerik — nominated to head a department with responsibility for immigration enforcement, for goodness' sake! Bush lawyers for vetting Kerik, knew this, and didn't think it would disqualify him? Wait, there's more:
with
New York book publisher Judith Regan. It was alleged that Kerik had
met with the two women in a secret Battery Park apartment rented for such
purposes. Kerik, 49, who married his current wife in 1998 and has two children
with her, apparently became close with Regan while writing his book, "The
Lost Son," in which he described being abandoned by his prostitute mother.
To our dismay, Giuliani and others would still see this man as a viable candidate for this job. Why? We hold our leaders to a higher standard, is that not the reasons they are put there in the first place? Do we want people of questionable character in positions of highest authority? I, for one, do not.
Giuliani
still, after all this, insisted Kerik would have been a "very, very good
choice" for homeland security secretary if not for the nanny problem. "Everyone
thinks he would have been superbly qualified," he said, adding that Kerik would
remain a partner at the firm, Giuliani Partners. It is stunning to think
that Giuliani -- who was his boss when Kerik was police commissioner, and who
now works with Kerik at Giuliani's firm -- was unaware of at least a few of
these problems in the years he has known Kerik. Some
wonder if Bernie Kerik´s undisclosed troubles leave a trail that goes
to Gotham City Hall, circa 1993-2001. (I'm sure that will be looked into
now)
Accusations abound. Newsweek reported that the real reason that Kerik was stepping down was because there was an arrest warrant that had been issued against him in connection with some debts on a condominium in New Jersey. (Could that be the tryst apartment?)
The White House said, "Oh, we knew all about that, and we thought we could certainly explain that in a confirmation hearing."
President Bush also remains convinced Kerik "is someone who has a solid record of achievement," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said at a briefing in Washington.
A solid record of deception, I'm guessing. Oh wait, that fits in perfect with the Bush Administration. The White House counsel's office, under the direction of Alberto Gonzales, our likely next Attorney General, has yet to justify its failure to uncover Mr. Kerik's checkered history. The President's advisors have faulted Mr. Kerik himself, as if the government could simply depend on nominees for self-vetting. Evidently they were unable to discover anything he didn't remember to tell them. (Their strange passivity reflects the same Bush administration attitude that trusts major corporations to report their own environmental pollution and consumer swindling.)
But others questioned whether Kerik had the management experience to continue the nearly 2-year-long effort to meld the pieces of the sprawling Homeland Security Department, which has more than 180,000 employees from 22 federal agencies. Given that these indiscrepancies have surfaced, I would have to agree.
Former Mayor Edward I. Koch said in an online commentary about the nanny fiasco, "What trash talk, most people who can afford a nanny know what questions to ask if she is able to legally work in the U.S. Even if he were not the smartest cop on the beat -- and Giuliani appointed him police commissioner -- he had to know it was illegal on his part not to pay Social Security taxes on her employment." (hmm, illegal as in crime? Do you really think he will be charged with such?)
They Knew
"Bush administration lawyers who vetted former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik before President Bush named him to head the Homeland Security Department knew he had a “colorful past” but concluded that his long record of public service would outweigh questions about his conduct, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Monday." Colorful? I would say more like bordering on criminal.
Bush's vetting team overlooked the failings of Kerik; others did not. It leads me to wonder if the Bush Administration thought "others" would be to cowed to look into their vetting findings.
How perverted to think that questionable and possibly criminal conduct would be overlooked? Shame on the Bush administration lawyers, shame on Giuliani. Perhaps they should have had a clearer gander at Kerik's "long record" of public service, or maybe even gotten a few opinions other than the Bush Administration, opinions not skewed from the get go, before vetting him.
Kerik's weaknesses shows why close scrutiny is needed. If a man will do these things, he is not to be trusted period, and especially not to be trusted with the security of our country. It went to the heart of his character, exposing his questionable judgment — his cheating affairs — his evasiveness in reporting his "gifts" from a "suspected mob-associated" company — and his ties (and profit from) companies that do business with Homeland Security, not to mention that little immigration and social security problem. It speaks to Kerik's casual contempt of the law. It demonstrates his willingness to circumvent the law. For these reasons we hold people of high authority to closer examination than others. They hold sway over millions of U.S. Citizens, over foreign countries and over our policies and laws.
Ever since the embarrassments of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood in the Clinton administration, there has been the nanny question: "Do you presently have or have you had in the past domestic help ..." Nominees to administration posts that require Senate confirmation must fill out voluminous and detailed disclosure forms, several sets of them, for the White House, Office of Personnel Management, the FBI and whichever Senate committee must review the nomination.
From a variety of directions, the questionnaire seeks to smoke out any possible scandal in the nominee's business dealings, writings, political affiliations, medical history, driving record, taxes, club memberships, alimony and child support.
Have you ever associated with any person, group or business venture that could come back to haunt you?
And the last question goes like this: "Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family or the president."
The vetting is a demanding and intrusive process. The forms are complex -- and falsifying or concealing a material fact is punishable by fines of up to $10,000 and five years in prison. However, the bush administration apparently decided that Kerik's "colorful past" was hunky dory with them, and so, should be with us. The administrations cavalier attitude with the public's security leaves much to be desired.