Nbadan
12-16-2004, 01:18 PM
By Andrea Peyser
Was Bernard Kerik a stalker? As the illicit romance between former top cop Kerik and publishing titan Judith Regan went down the drain in late 2002, the jilted Kerik snapped, according to people who knew them both.
He not only followed his ex-lover around town — he seemed to be following her children, two business associates of Regan's told me yesterday.
One associate, who has not seen or spoken to Regan in a year and a half, said, "She had me in her office one day, raving about how he was stalking her." That was in late 2002, long before Kerik came this close to leading Homeland Security.
"He's insane!" Regan told the associate.
more…
NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/36586.htm)
Now we've got these penny-stocks and a business affiliation that Kerik was hastily unloading (http://www.nypost.com/business/32731.htm) in the lead-up to his nomination. And he was somehow the chaperone for a marriage between that company and another one whose owner is going to be arraigned tomorrow for ripping off the city with padded contracts. And on Kerik's watch the NYPD bought a bunch of security doors they didn't have any use for from that same guy who's about to be sentenced. And if you're already having a hard time keeping up, fasten your seatbelts because another guy who's in business with the guy who's about to sentenced is Lawrence Ray, Kerik's 'financial benefactor' who worked for the allegedly mobbed up Jersey construction company and later got indicted for a mob-run stock scam.
So, without belaboring the point, let's just stipulate that there were probably some problems coming down the pike for Kerik's nomination even if he hadn't had this nanny problem come up.
And now we find out from the Times (and, truthfully, from the force of logic (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_12_12.php#004226)) that the nanny story, which has been the White House's first, second and third talking point all week, is probably totally bogus.
The Times found no evidence that such a woman ever existed. And even when pressed by people who suspect he made the whole story up, Kerik remains adamant in his refusal to provide any details whatsoever. It's very hard to read the Times story and not conclude that the whole nanny thing was a con.
So what's the White House's story? Did they just take Kerik's word for it, not ask for even the most perfunctory details and then repeat the nanny story from the press room lectern for days on end as gospel truth? Or were they in on the con too?
What's the story?
Was Bernard Kerik a stalker? As the illicit romance between former top cop Kerik and publishing titan Judith Regan went down the drain in late 2002, the jilted Kerik snapped, according to people who knew them both.
He not only followed his ex-lover around town — he seemed to be following her children, two business associates of Regan's told me yesterday.
One associate, who has not seen or spoken to Regan in a year and a half, said, "She had me in her office one day, raving about how he was stalking her." That was in late 2002, long before Kerik came this close to leading Homeland Security.
"He's insane!" Regan told the associate.
more…
NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/36586.htm)
Now we've got these penny-stocks and a business affiliation that Kerik was hastily unloading (http://www.nypost.com/business/32731.htm) in the lead-up to his nomination. And he was somehow the chaperone for a marriage between that company and another one whose owner is going to be arraigned tomorrow for ripping off the city with padded contracts. And on Kerik's watch the NYPD bought a bunch of security doors they didn't have any use for from that same guy who's about to be sentenced. And if you're already having a hard time keeping up, fasten your seatbelts because another guy who's in business with the guy who's about to sentenced is Lawrence Ray, Kerik's 'financial benefactor' who worked for the allegedly mobbed up Jersey construction company and later got indicted for a mob-run stock scam.
So, without belaboring the point, let's just stipulate that there were probably some problems coming down the pike for Kerik's nomination even if he hadn't had this nanny problem come up.
And now we find out from the Times (and, truthfully, from the force of logic (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_12_12.php#004226)) that the nanny story, which has been the White House's first, second and third talking point all week, is probably totally bogus.
The Times found no evidence that such a woman ever existed. And even when pressed by people who suspect he made the whole story up, Kerik remains adamant in his refusal to provide any details whatsoever. It's very hard to read the Times story and not conclude that the whole nanny thing was a con.
So what's the White House's story? Did they just take Kerik's word for it, not ask for even the most perfunctory details and then repeat the nanny story from the press room lectern for days on end as gospel truth? Or were they in on the con too?
What's the story?