December 1, 2007
-
Rudy and His Mistress
Rudy Giuliani is coming under fire for allowing his mistress to use a security detail while he was mayor.
Rudy was married at the time to Donna Hanover. He was concerned about the safety of his mistress Judith Nathan. So she was given police protection and was escorted around town. Rudy is now married to Judith. Here is the link: Link Rudy will not answer questions about the situation but claims it is only natural that Judith would received police protection.
Do you think it was inappropriate for Rudy’s mistress to receive police protection?
Comments (53)
hahahaha. that sucks.
Meh. And watch direshark say something smart and everyone can agree with…when we all know he stole the commentery from another blog/site. Face!
No – that’s tax-payer money paying for his messing around.
well…i want to say yes, but so many people are so unfaithful i dont see why someone important to guiliani shouldnt recieve his care, even if it does mean using the taxpayers money…
reality sucks, doesnt it?
Bahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!
If the question is while he was married, NO. It was inappropriate for Rudy to have a mistress while married. The mistress had no business even being on the scene, much less being protected by police because she was involved with him. I couldn’t get the link to come up, so I don’t know what it says. This is just my answer to what your question seemed to ask.
Of course it’s inappropriate! Unless, of course, he is using his own personal funds to pay for the escorts for her. In that case, whatever. But he certainly shouldn’t be using public funding to do that.
If he pays out of his own purse, then I don’t give a flying crap.
they both shouldn’t have it
Funny. They don’t mention what the threat was about. It happened once. And how hard is it to find out someone’s name? Not very.
It does sound like she abuse the priviledge. And in turn that means Guliani did.
There you go.
Idk. :/
Ouch
hahaha
i forget, which number wife is rudy on now?
I don’t think it is inappropriate-
But even more so, I don’t care (apparently enough to comment, though)
mostly because it is public money being spent on a private concern; less so because it’s his mistress and “that’s bad.”
Goddamn, I hate Guiliani.
BRING BACK THE KOCH
Ed Koch rocked.
can i have police protection?
um, yes
If something happened to her, he would be impaired; since he has a government position, he needs to be at his best.
Who the hell would be Giuliani’s mistress?
Yep.
Hahaha@Tallon5′s answer.
Yes!
Part of a police’s job is to protect people. But having a mistress is not right at all.
YES! What was he thinking?
I didn’t read the article (I’m too tired) but it doesn’t really sound lke a legit thing to do. I love Giuliani though, so I guess I’m a little more wling to forgive, heh. To Tallon5 — me! =) Haha — just kidding ..
What’s with all the prudity? I only saw two “yes” there. Well, there’s another one. Of course police protection should be available for anyone. If you are in potential danger because of association with a threatened public figure, then of course one should be protected. What has the actual type of association have to do with it?
I’m totally with Rudy on this and the “mistress” is hot.
actually, I think that’s really funny….
It’s absolutely inappropriate.
Yes.
Nope. He’s not the first politician to do something like that and the only reason we care is because he’s running for office. There are far worse things than wanting to make sure your girlfriend is safe.
1. he has a mistress (had) and that goes against Gods own Word. 2. The taxpayers were paying for it. Hmmmmmm, sounds like a lawsuit to me!
No…. she’s a human being and if she needed police protection for any reason then she deserves to have it. Seriously, they give police protection to criminals to keep them safe, why would this woman be any different? If the question was about the affair, there would be a different answer.
I just think he’s dumb, either way
Yes, there is no reason she should need police protection. Nor want such protection.
Your new video ad thingy is kinda cool this time
no
Totally inappropriate. He should never have had a mistress, but then to use public funds and public police for her protection is really outrageous. Such an egregious abuse of power from a man running for president?
I cannot believe that a man who wants to run the country would do either of those things. If he felt she needed protection, he should have hired private body guards paid by his own money.
How immoral can you get! This is absolutely astounding! What a totally ridiculous and callous abuse of power. Using police as body guards for a mistress!
Didn’t some corporate CEO’s get hauled into court for those kinds of abuses of privileges and power and money of their corporations. I think he ought to be held accountable for this. Using public funds for his own hanky panky is absolutely ridiculous when New York citizens need all the resources they can muster. Absolutely crazy.
Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for protection for his friends, only his family. However, I don’t doubt that it was necessary. He should probably payed for it privately. He isn’t exactly a poor man.
Of course she also appears to have treated them like hired help, which is a violation of the public trust. That also should never have been allowed.
I don’t think so. I mean if he were worried all the time that something would happen to her, his job performance would be affected. So I don’t really think it’s inappropriate.
ewwww to both of them
Umm…….. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a married man to have a mistress that would need police protection.
Whatever.
Yes, it was highly inappropriate! Not because he had a mistress – I don’t give a damn about that. It was because he shouldn’t be wasting taxpayer’s money on it! If she’s family (his wife), that’s one thing… but just someone he’s sleeping with on the side? How many of those were there? gah.
Ew, you have a global warming vid on your site, and it’s all emotional appeals!
Yes, it was inappropriate.
It would be as bad if Clinton had assiged a full Secret Service detail to Monica Lewinski. Not only would it be immoral, but also shows a lack of descretion
shouldn’t we be questioning if having a mistress is appropriate?
well, no. just because it was inappropriate for him to have a mistress in the first place doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be protected.
yep
if she was a witness or in some kind of danger it is ok… just to have it no