« Osama Offer | Main | The Pipes Are Calling »
April 15, 2004
Commission Conflicts
You've probably read about Ms. Gorelik's conflict of interest....being on a commission questioning the policies that she herself helped implement. But according to this morning's NYPost, there's a much more serious conflict.
As it turns out, the memo is just the tip of the iceberg concerning Gorelick's questionable fitness as a member of the panel.
That's because she's a litigation partner in one of Washington's most high-powered Democratic law firms - Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.
And that firm represents Prince Mohammed al-Faisal al-Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family and director of a key Saudi financial agency, against a lawsuit filed by a coalition of 600 Sept. 11 families.
The lawsuit, filed by Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, seeks "to cut off the pipeline that fueled the al Qaeda terrorists" - a pipeline in which the high-paying client represented by Gorelick's law firm reportedly played a central part.
The prince is chairman of Dar al-Maal al-Islami (DMI), which boasts $1 billion in assets.
One of its subsidiaries is the Al-Shamil Islamic Bank, whose directors include Osama bin Laden's half-brother and his brother-in-law.
According to congressional testimony last October by Jean-Charles Brisard, an international expert on terrorism financing, the Swiss-based DMI "is one of the central structures in Saudi Arabia's financing of international Islam," and is rooted in the House of Saud's "support for the radical Islamic cause."
DMI, according to published reports, was a major shareholder of a Bahamian Islamic bank that was shut down after Washington tabbed it a centerpiece of Osama bin Laden's financial network.
Though Gorelick may not be litigating the lawsuit, as a partner she profits from her firm's work for the Saudi prince.
The rule is if your law partner has a conflict, you have a conflict. But apparently the Dems don't think there's a problem with her sitting on the 9/11 commission.....or with her potentially being Kerry's A.G.
Ethics are not flexible when they're inconvienent. Wrong is wrong, no matter how you try to paint it.
And this is badly wrong.
Posted by Rita at April 15, 2004 07:09 AM
Comments
Since when has Conflict of Interest ever bothered anyone intent on damaging an administration?
Posted by: Da Goddess at April 16, 2004 03:16 AM
True. That she's apparently being considered for Kerry's AG with the ties she has is more disturbing to me than her seat on the commission. I never expected the commission to be anything more than what it is....a big circle jerk for grandstanding politicians.
Posted by: Rita at April 16, 2004 07:04 AM
No need to worry about competency or ethics in politics, right?
Posted by: Da Goddess at April 17, 2004 03:51 AM
Yeah, well, I think we're used to administrations with massive conflicts of interest (especially profit interests in the outcomes of current conflicts) by now.
Besides, explaining Gorlik's conflict of interest sounds like a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon -- it's pretty attenuated. Explaining the current administration's conflict of interest only takes one word: "Oil." Well, maybe two words -- "Oil" and "Daddy."
Posted by: Aaron at April 17, 2004 01:42 PM
Nice red herring Aaron. Was it expensive or did you pick it up for free over at the D.U.?
Even if what you are alluding to were true, two wrongs do not make a right.
Posted by: Rita at April 18, 2004 07:34 AM