We ought to consider this dispassionately

I believe we have. When I read his testimony, when I read the articles, and when I when I read about his role described as "advised on a daily basis" I have to think that his participation in drafting the policy ought to be investigated. I believe that's all we're calling for here. ACross has stated that it's inappropriate to claim "Jack Knew." I agree with that position.

It's irresponsible to ignore the circumstances of his involvement in this tragedy because as you pointed out he was their general counsel.

It's funny that someone brought up the hypothetical of "what if he were an accountant?" Perhaps that person isn't familiar with Arthur Anderson and Enron.

EDIT: More alarmingly, maybe that person thought Arthur Anderson bore no blame for what happened with Enron. That is an incorrect position.