The Gapsters seem to be stretching—Time and materials figure is substantially higher for the other two consultants and materials costs seem more likely. Toensing has no reason to lie and wouldn’t. In the end it would be harmful to her client.
I note that the World Bank hired outside counsel (Dunn & Crutcher) to review the terms and like the ethics committee found no impropriety. With further regard to the Gapsters:”WASHINGTON - The Pentagon’s inspector general looked into the Defence Department’s 2003 order for a contractor to hire the girlfriend of then-Pentagon No 2 Paul Wolfowitz, but found no violation to warrant a deeper probe, defence officials said today.
A 2005 investigation by the inspector general found that Shaha Riza, Wolfowitz’s companion and a World Bank employee, was qualified to serve as an expert to carry out a study related to Iraq, investigation results show.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Wolfowitz may have recommended Riza for the job, but she was also recommended by others and was uniquely qualified.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10435186
I have a hard time believing Toensing would lie, too.