Lawyers Representing Bush In 2000 Election Case Signed Off On Wolfowitz’s Compensation Package
Lawyers Representing Bush In 2000 Election Case Signed Off On Wolfowitz’s Compensation Package
Former head of the World Bank ethics committee, Ad Melkert, has stated that his panel was never consulted on, nor approved of, the hefty compensation package bank president Paul Wolfowitz arranged for his love interest, Shaha Riza.
But new documents released by a special committee of The World Bank Group show that a team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher did sign off on the deal. That team included President Bush’s former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Eugene Scalia, son of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Law.com reports:
Documents released by the bank show that Wolfowitz asked Gibson to review the deal in the summer of 2005. A Gibson Dunn team, including Theodore Olson and Eugene Scalia, concluded that the contract was “a reasonable resolution of the perceived underlying conflict of interest.”
Earlier this week, the Bank’s special committee investigating the scandal “concluded that the limited and after-the-fact review by Gibson ‘is squarely at odds with the high degree of … concern for the interests of’ the World Bank.”
Both Scalia and Olson are solid Bush loyalists, and it’s no surprise that they signed off on Wolfowitz’s arrangement. Some highlights of their career defending the Bush administration:
Eugene Scalia: Facing rejection from the Senate, in Jan. 2002, Bush gave Scalia a controversial recess appoint to become solicitor at the Department of Labor. Gibson, Scalia’s law firm, also represented Bush in the 2000 Supreme Court case that gave Bush the presidency. Even though Scalia benefited from the case, his father refused to recuse himself, as federal statute requires.
Ted Olson: Olson personally represented Bush in the 2000 Supreme Court case, and was then awarded the position of Solicitor General. Olson also provided “assistance” to the Paula Jones legal team in her case against former President Clinton, and “was a public supporter of his longtime friend, Kenneth Starr” during Whitewater.
But even Scalia and Olson weren’t willing to fully embrace Wolfowitz’s compensation package. They added a caveat to their conclusion that the arrangement was “a reasonable resolution”: “Our review has been limited,” Gibson Dunn partner Douglas Cox wrote in an Aug. 31 memo to Wolfowitz. “The key elements of the contract had been accepted and agreed to by all parties to the contract before we were retained.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
45 Responses to “Lawyers Representing Bush In 2000 Election Case Signed Off On Wolfowitz’s Compensation Package”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
The son of Anton Scalia can’t be corrupt can he? Say it isn’t so.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pmThe Democrats can’t be sore losers, can they? Filibustering a low level appointment to the Dept of Labor because of the guy’s last name?
May 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pmWhat if the guy was a neo Nazi named Hitler. This is a NeoCon named Scalia. He should be filibustered. He is an American Nazi.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pmThe cronyism in this administration knows no bounds.
When is the media going to start holding this administration accountable for the wholsale highjacking of this country?
I agree with Romney when he says he wants to double the size of Gutmo for one reason and one reason only. That is the place we should be sending members and associates who have been complicit in destroying this countries crediability and stealing from our treasury.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pmSleazy, scummy BushCo lawyers. I’m shocked.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm#
The Democrats can’t be sore losers, can they? Filibustering a low level appointment to the Dept of Labor because of the guy’s last name?
Comment by m12 — May 16, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Sore losers, umm we took back Congress, and in ‘08 we’ll have the president, and even more congressional seats. Thanks to idiots like you!
May 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pmWhat if the guy was a neo Nazi named Hitler. This is a NeoCon named Scalia. He should be filibustered. He is an American Nazi.
The crimes of the father are the crimes of the son? Interesting progressive thought.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pmSore losers, umm we took back Congress, and in ‘08 we’ll have the president, and even more congressional seats. Thanks to idiots like you!
Scalia was filibustered in 2002, after the Dims lost the Senate due to that fool Jeffords’ bait and switch tactics duping the electorate.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:38 pmm12,
Jeffords made a principled decision based on his perception of an administration run amok with hubris.
It is called morals, not “bait and switch.”
May 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pmMost of the time yes and that doesn’t have anything to do with being progressive.
Take Bush and Bush for example. The first one is not nearly as bad as the young one, but Jr learned from Sr. Remember New World Order? Well, we do and we are going to stop it, while you try to keep it.
May 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pmTed Olson, what a surprise! His sticky fingers seem to be in every nasty pie this crowd cooks up. Has he been on MSNBC defending Wolfie yet?
May 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pmScumlia & Olsen?
…my what a tidy-Whitey scumselfservative little community the Bushites have…
…they’re EVERYWHERE in our government…
…metastisizing like Tony Snowflake’s cancer…
…America needs an operation…
…but the sorry a*sed CONNED’selfserving inbred Bushite hordes…
…won’t give the necessary permission…
…you know who they are:
YOUR family members
neighbors
friends
and co-workers
…they’ve sold their souls to the criminal Bushite junta…
…for what?
…for oblivion!
May 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pmSurprise, Surprise, Surprise!
May 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pmthe man prob. lost his marbles… his poor ex-wife crashed into the World Trade center right after she called him collect!
May 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pmJeffords made a principled decision based on his perception of an administration run amok with hubris.
It is called morals, not “bait and switch.â€
The voters elected a Republican. They wanted a Republican. Jeffords chose to dishonor this intention.
If he decided to have “morals”, why didn’t he switch a few months earlier before election day to give the voters a chance to decide what they wanted?
May 16th, 2007 at 7:13 pmthe loyal Bushies have never seen a conflict of interest they haven’t liked.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:14 pmAnd Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary, called himself independent and won with the Republican vote. Were ya okay with that?
May 16th, 2007 at 7:16 pmAnd Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary, called himself independent and won with the Republican vote. Were ya okay with that?
Absolutely. He did it before the election, did he not?
May 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pmTime has come to get rid of the whole crooked system
May 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pmI say the World Bank should give Wolfowitz a genuine golden paracute and toss him from an airplane.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pmdavid; forget the parachute, toss the bastard out of the plane without one over Baghdad.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pmBush Regime tried to pack the World Bank with loyal stooges, but the scam is unraveling before our eyes.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pmI posted a rather lengthy comment explaining how this particular story is factually inaccurate and unfair - unlike most of what I find on Think Progress. My comment complied with the terms of use, but was nonetheless deleted almost immediately.
Rather than repeat the entire comment, I’ll summarize:
1. Gibson Dunn lawyers did not “sign off” on Wolfowitz’s conduct. They had no authority to do so.
2. Wolfowitz went to Gibson to get advice, not a “sign off” that outside lawyers had no power to give. It looks like he got bad - or at least incomplete - advice. The article suggests some kind of whitewash by cronies, but that’s not what happened.
3. Eugene Scalia did not benefit from Ted Olson’s representation of Bush in Bush v. Gore. As has been extensively reported, the firm reduces his pay so that he gets no compensation from the Supreme Court work that the firm does.
4. Scalia’s refusal to recuse in Bush v. Gore was not a violation of the ethical rules, as a number of unbiased ethics experts opined at the time.
Please do better.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:59 pmm12 says “Scalia was filibustered in 2002, after the Dims lost the Senate due to that fool Jeffords’ bait and switch tactics duping the electorate.”
What alternate universe do you live in? Scalia was a Reagan appointee in 1986. What, you don’t know the difference between Scalia and Alito? That is forgivable, I guess. They are both right wing hacks.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:43 pmSorry Overkill, being the judge on a case your son is arguing, is unethical, and Scalia should have recused himeself.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:48 pmWhat alternate universe do you live in? Scalia was a Reagan appointee in 1986. What, you don’t know the difference between Scalia and Alito? That is forgivable, I guess. They are both right wing hacks.
Obviously, you’re either a complete fool or you didn’t know how to read. Educate yourself.
The Scalia in this case is not the Supreme Court Justice, it was his son Eugene, who the Democrats decided to filibuster due to his last name. Read about him here.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200301%5CNAT20030108a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scalia
May 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pmSorry Overkill, being the judge on a case your son is arguing, is unethical, and Scalia should have recused himeself.
Eugene Scalia did not participate in any way in the Bush v Gore case.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI apologize m12. I was wrong.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pmthey are still slimy…
May 16th, 2007 at 11:27 pmIt is bizarre to me that the Word Bank Board wants to avoid throwing out Wolfowitz for fear of the resulting confrontation with the Bush administration “at a time when the United States and Europe are struggling to cooperate on Iran sanctions, trade and other economic issues.” (NYT-5/17).
It’s the Bushies who should fear a confrontation for just this reason, but the Bushies will sacrifice all effective governance to the egos and pride of their inner circle.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:01 amM12 represents the typical type of simplistic ‘thinking’ so characteristic of the Bush/GOP defenders: He suggests that Scalia was filibustered “because of his name”. Perhaps you didn’t mean us to take you literally, m12? Frankly, given the conduct of InJustice Scalia, that *name* has been tarnished, however, m12 knows full well the real reason(s) Mini-me Scalia was opposed: From the link m12 provides: …Labor unions, allied with the Democrats, had long complained about Scalia’s opposition to workplace rules dealing with ergonomics.
Additionally from the same article that M12 provides: “He (Scalia) has worked to kill or weaken worker safety standards nationally, as well as in California, North Carolina, and Washington. In his personal writings, he has criticized the science underlying ergonomics as junk science par excellence and quackery,” said Sweeney.
Sweeney also said Scalia is “an individual whose extreme views on key worker protections place him outside the mainstream and make him unsuited to hold this important position. Eugene Scalia is simply the wrong person for the job.”
Yeah, m12, it was JUST the name the ‘dims’ objected to! It had *nothing* to do with the the man’s performance record.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:41 amNonsense. The voters elected Jim Jeffords, not a label. Jim is not exactly an unknown quantity in Vermont.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:42 amAnother day another dollar, a crime family at work.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:39 amSeems to me that Al Capone and Meyer Lansky were angels compared to this bunch of ZioNazi crooks!
May 17th, 2007 at 8:51 amRepublicans would think that the Jews at Buchenwald were “sore losers”. These little right-wing monsters have never gotten beyond fifth grade. There is another game we can play, since they tried to destroy the constitution. let’s just pick up these traitors and put them in Leavenworth.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:55 amJohn, good idea. Actually I have a better place for them then Leavenworth. Crime family Bush has certainly caused the country and Constitution exponentially more damage than Osama been Forgotten. I’d send them on an around the world rendition tour experiencing the joys of our offshore facilities and have them end up at Gitmo where they can enjoy real water boardings not the sanitized version released to the public.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:32 amThe obvious republicans who responded to this post are so pathetic. This article is solid evidence that those who participated in the Bush election stealers coup d’etat in 2000 are still profiting from their helping to end democracy in America. That’s disgusting Overthrowing the government as the Bush election stealers did in 2000 was always called treason when I was in school. This country wouldn’t now be in the disaster it’s in if democracy still existed in America because Bush would’ve spent the last 6 years back in Texas where we the people voted for him to be. Hitler didn’t believe in counting the peoples votes and neither do the Bush election stealers. It’s amazing how the republicans who responded to this posting are in denial to the point that they’re trying to re-write the ugly history of the Bush election stealers. That’s what the former Soviet Union did to try to cover up the bad things they’d done.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:34 amIf Justice Scabia did not by Federal Statutes recuse himself, since his (mob son Anton Scabia Jr, benefited from the case that Dad Consigliere Anton Scabia Sr) then the Supreme Case outcome was null and void? Or the outcome may have played out differently? Since the contempt for conflicts of interest corrupt Judge Scabia should have been recused. The 2000 outcome was void and illegal since Federal law was broken.
Impeach Justice Scalia, Bush, Cheney and Gonzales :)
May 17th, 2007 at 10:41 amWe are being held hostage by a mob of scum, worse than that of the “Family Soprano!” Why won’t the Democrats grow a spine and IMPEACH?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:13 amWe are being held hostage by a mob of scum, worse than that of the “Family Soprano!†Why won’t the Democrats grow a spine and IMPEACH?
Comment by krose — May 17, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Because half of the Senate are still members of that crime family.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:54 amIf Scalia must have been DQ’d from the Bush lawsuit, then so should have Justice Blackmun from Roe v. Wade. The author of the Roe v. Wade opinion has since gone public about his improper consulting of his feminist daughter on what the outcome should be (he wouldn’t decide the end result first and work his way backward into legal justification first, would he?). So insofar as the author suggests impropriety on the part of Justice Scalia, just remember who invented it.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pmSenator Jeffords left the Rethugnican Party because he said the Bush Administration was not committed to protecting the environment. Jeffords disagreed over policy with the pro-business nutcase Senator Inhofe who chaired the Senate committee on the environment in 2001.
By becoming an independent and voting with the Dems, Jeffords replaced Inhofe as chairman.
Here’s another thought. If Jeffords was “wrong” by renouncing his Rethugnican affiliation wasn’t it just as “treasonous” when several mostly southern Dem congressmen switched sides in 1994? At least Jeffords became an independent.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pmRegarding Comment #1
Not only did Scalia NOT recuse himself. He wrote the final opinion on Gore Vs. Bush. Read all about it in “The Betrayal of a Nation”–all about how the supreme court circumvented the constitution and the will of a nation, by Vincent (Helter Skelter) Bugliosi. I may be wrong here, but I believe that after Scalia wrote the majority opinion, NOT ONE of the “justices” signed it, (first time that has ever happened?). So, let’s look back and see how the dots connect for me:
1.) 2000 stolen presidency.
2.) 9/11
3.) No investigation of 9/11 required by the Bush administration.
4.) We invade 2 SOVEREIGN nations, (WITH NO DIRECT TIES TO 9/11), so as to engage in illegal wars without end, neither country was directly involved with 9/11. 15 of the 19 highjackers involved are from Saudi Arabia, NOT invaded. The complicit media beats the war drums, while quoting verbatim, white house talking points, perpetuating the myth of the so-called liberal-media ALL THE WHILE.
5.) Widespread voter disenfranchisement, becoming more apparent in 2002 mid-terms. Voters fucked in Florida by Jeb Bush’s own Katherine Harris, (mostly black/other minorities), STILL cannot vote.
6.) ANOTHER stolen presidential election in 2004, this time Ohio, thanks to bushman Kenneth Blackwell.
7.) Now the Bushies and the garbage MSM start beating the war drums for MORE war in Iran.
8.) 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Rumsfeld, Plame-Gate, Scooter Libby, Prosecutor-Gate, George Tenet, Jessica Lynch/Pat Tillman, Medicare RX fiasco, Walter Reed, NEW ORLEANS, Mike Brown, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.
WHAT DOES BUSH HAVE TO DO TO BE IMPEACHED? Ass-rape a protected species, murder a child, etc., on prime-time television?
May 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pmRead ” The Betrayal of a Nation” by Vincent Bugliosi. Scalia WROTE the paper, (on the majority opinion of the Supreme Court), that I believe NONE of the “justices” signed, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!!!!
May 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pmThis brings up flashbacks to the Scalia-Cheney love affair, too. Let’s go hunting together so we can discuss how to vote on the cases against our great leadership. Of course there is no need to recuse. Excuse me, but as a Supreme biggie, I need not answer to anyone.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:23 amDon’t forget direct-desposit to that account in the Canaries.
Thank you, Godfather.