Kerik's Lawyer: Bernie Failed to Disclose Gifts
June 19, 2006
Former police commissioner Bernard Kerik failed to
disclose gifts he received to renovate his Bronx apartment, his lawyer
acknowledged yesterday.
The lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said for the first time
that the gifts — which Tacopina said Kerik did not report on his
financial disclosure forms, apparently in 2000 when Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
appointed him police commissioner — were “loans from friends.”
Tacopina declined to say which friends or how much
they had loaned, citing confidential grand jury matters.
A Bronx grand jury is investigating whether an allegedly
mob-connected company secretly paid for $200,000 in renovations to Kerik’s
apartment in return for Kerik’s help in gaining city business for
the company after Giuliani appointed Kerik Corrections Commissioner in
1999.
Tacopina added that there were “no bribes and
no ‘quo’” — adding that Kerik did nothing to help
the company, the Interstate Industrial Corporation.
Tacopina said that the Bronx District Attorney’s
office had made no offer of a deal whereby Kerik might plead guilty to
the relatively minor non-reporting offense in return for Johnson’s
dropping his investigation.
But Tacopina declined to say whether there have been
discussions about such a deal. “I am not going to deal in hypotheticals,”
he said, adding, “This case is all about Bernie’s reputation.
Steven Reed, a spokesman for Bronx District Attorney
Robert Johnson, declined comment.
Of equal concern to New Yorkers are the Department
of Investigation’s apparent lapses in vetting Kerik, first in 1999
when Giuliani appointed him Corrections Commissioner then in 2000 when
Giuliani selected him police commissioner over the 31-year department
veteran Joe Dunne and Kerik’s most salient qualification appeared
to be that he had served as Giuliani’s driver and bodyguard.
In both instances, DOI apparently ignored Kerik’s
financial and personal irregularities, including his prior bankruptcies
and an undisclosed marriage.
Said Tacopina: “The vetting process is not Bernie’s
responsibility.”
A former top police official put it another way:
“By law, such irregularities can’t be determiners but they
are indicators of character.”
Here now, says the police official, are the questions
let’s hope the grand jury has asked about that vetting process.
Question one: Who did the vetting for DOI in 1999?
Kerik’s credit problems were in the public domain long before. Didn’t
some of those signs surface then? If not, why not?
Question two: If they did surface, who slammed the
door? Did someone at DOI determine that the information was not worthy
to be brought to Giuliani’s attention? Or was everything that surfaced
about Kerik’s fiscal irresponsibility called to Giuliani’s
attention and he didn’t care?