Giuliani’s Shag Fund Scandal Gets a Little Shaggier

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 3:00 PM on December 7, 2007.

This post, written by Steve Benen, originally appeared on The Carpetbagger Report

Last week, there was a stretch of several days in which new, damaging revelations about Rudy Giuliani's Shag Fund scandal kept emerging. Seven years ago, the then-mayor charged NYC taxpayers for romantic rendezvous weekends with his mistress, his mistress' security detail, and his mistress' chores (NYPD walked her dog), and then hid the costs in obscure mayoral budget accounts.

But by earlier this week, the well seemed to run dry. Giuliani had been caught misusing public funds to subsidize his adultery, and he'd been caught lying about the misuse of public funds to subsidize his adultery, but maybe there wasn't much more to learn.

Then again, maybe there is.

Judith Nathan got taxpayer-funded chauffeur services from the NYPD earlier than previously disclosed - even before her affair with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani was revealed, witnesses and sources tell the Daily News.

"It went on for months before the affair was public," said Lee Degenstein, 52, a retired Smith Barney vice president who formerly lived at 200 E. 94th St., Nathan's old building.

"It was going on longer than anybody thought," added Degenstein, who, along with others in the neighborhood, said they often saw Nathan hopping into unmarked NYPD cars in early 2000, before the affair was revealed that May.

Again, the controversy remains a two-track story for Giuliani: the money and the lies. In this case, the lies are pretty blatant.

According to Giuliani, he provided a security detail to his mistress starting in December 2000, in response to an alleged threat Judi Nathan received near her home. No one's sure if such a threat ever actually happened, but Bernie Kerik insisted in January 2001 that it had, and both he and the mayor argued that no one should ask any more questions about it. Ever.

When pressed by The News Thursday, aides to the Republican presidential hopeful conceded that Nathan got police protection "sporadically" before December 2000 - the previously acknowledged beginning of her taxpayer-funded detail. [...]

Thursday, Giuliani aides changed their story. They said Nathan had received previously undisclosed "threats" earlier in 2000, and that protection was provided at those times.

They refused to provide dates, describe the nature of the threats or confirm -- as witnesses and a law enforcement source now contend -- that the protection began before she was publicly identified as the married mayor's girlfriend in May 2000.

That would make the threat justification all the more puzzling, because she wasn't a public figure.

Precisely. Giuliani started providing a taxpayer-financed NYPD security detail to his mistress in May 2000 -- more than six months before the two were an extra-marital item -- allegedly because of "threats" she received. But that doesn't make any sense -- no one knew to threaten the mayor's girlfriend because no one knew she was his girlfriend.

But she got the security detail anyway, and before long, the taxpayers of New York City were paying the NYPD to, among other things, walk the mayor's mistress' dog, only to have the costs hidden in obscure mayoral accounts.

What's more, at least one New York Daily News source said this may go back even further.

A law enforcement source familiar with mayoral protection said Nathan got bodyguards as far back as 1999, shortly after the affair began.

"If she had to go shopping, errands, that's where you went," the source said.

Even if conservative, pro-family voters are willing to overlook the scandalous, prurient details, the lying alone should permanently undermine Giuliani's presidential campaign.

Tagged as: corruption, election08, giuliani, nyc, judith nathan

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.