I'm reading the words [paraphrasing] "harder to pass down sentences" and "President interfering with the judiical process" and thinking: Didn't Hitler in effect do the same: Make the judicial system irrelevant; and intimidate judges from enforcing the law.

Sample document: These things cannot be protected as a "state secret" when they organize illgeal activity:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/hossbach.htm

The comparisons between Bush and Hitler are more solid. First the President
- defies the law in waging illegal warfare; then
- retaliates against others for daring to discsuss war crimes evidence (that there was no imminent threat; and the Niger Yellow Cake was bogus); and then Bush
- destroys the sentence.

I recall the many decrees Hitler passed making the State subservient to the leadership, and the corruption of the government process: I hope others see the same is happening here. This commutation undermines US goernment law enforcement; and emboldens US government offiicals to vioalte the law.

I read these words thinking, isn't the President's action interfering with the Judicical branch "Walton's scratching his head over Bush's move to remove the incarceration portion of the sentence while retaining the two-year period of supervised release which was to follow Libby's jail time, something not technically possible. He's asked both sides to weigh in on what should be done."

Once the President lowers the sentence to something that is technically "not possible," the judicial branch would have the power to strike down the commutation is just that: Impossible, therefore unconstitutional.

I finally figured out what's meant by W being a 'Compassionate Conservative' -- he's compassionate towards conservatives!

The idiocy continues unfettered...thumbs up from POTUS means "lame duck" in your face.

Law and Order/fiscal conservative/no nation building....what political party WAS that?

Is it possible that Judge Walton could resentence Scooter? His case is still pending in the judicial system, and if he is really still on probation (questionable under the law, but the Decider has declared that he is, so who is Scooter to argue?), then I would think the argument could be made that he could be returned to court for consideration of a "nonexcessive" incarceration sentence.

George

Nicely done. This will keep everyone distracted while I keep shredding and my Haliburton options keep rising.

Bush one:
Wouldn't be Prudent
Bush two:
Mustn’t be Excessive

The truth is Libby was doing exactly what he was told to do, he lied to protect his bosses, and now he will be taken care of.
A meaningless fine and probation is Harsh!!! This from a guy when Governor of Texas signed 113 death warrants and 1 clemency.
Hang em high, George.

I intend to use this "excessive" argument every time I go to court from now on.

I don't get why anyone would "scratch their head" over Bush's actions. He thinks and acts like George III.

If Bush holding his middle finger high and proud at Congress, the law, the Constitution and the Americna people does not constitute a pattern of impeachable offenses, then nothing does. We either use the damned statute or do away with it and stop pretending we have a say in our government.

“Unitary executive” is simply a neocon term for “Führerprinzip.”

For elaboration, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip

Oh, and remember the first two counts in the verdicts delivered by the Nuremberg Tribunal on October 1, 1947 (the seventieth anniversary is approaching):

(1) Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

(2) Crimes Against Peace, including the launching of an aggressive war

Hook, line and sinker. Your going to feel so stupid.

Anon:

I don't think we need an Amendment to ban Presidential Pardons.

P.S. -- I have no problem with Democrats conducting hearings about the pardon (and less-included commutation) power -- as long as they come to the same conclusion they did with Clinton.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 12:25 PM

Again, liar: the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress -- not the Democrats -- reviewed Clinton's pardons, despite the fact that the pardon power is unreviewable, and despite the fact that the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress claimed "We never do wrong," and FOUND NOTHING.

But that REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress established the precedent: it is acceptable, to REPUBLICANS, to review pardons, therefore it is acceptable for DEMOCRATS to review pardons.

Or commutations -- which are not the same as pardons.

And let's keep in mind the relevant distinction: a misuse of the pardon power to cover up crimes is prosecutable/impeachable, the disposition of the relevant commutation/pardon being a separate issue. But, based upon existing precedent, it appears such a commutation/pardon could be nullified because based upon or in pursuit of an illegality.

Everyone here knows you are a constant liar, so your pretense that you have something credible to say is an additional lie.

don't get why anyone would "scratch their head" over Bush's actions. He thinks and acts like George III.

If Bush holding his middle finger high and proud at Congress, the law, the Constitution and the Americna people does not constitute a pattern of impeachable offenses, then nothing does. We either use the damned statute or do away with it and stop pretending we have a say in our government.

Posted by: gcs
Date: July 5, 2007 12:37 PM

To which "statute" do you refer, Constitutional illiterate?

If anyone has an actual case cite that Presidential pardons or (as I said, lesser-included) commutations can be "nullified" I would be very interested in obtaining that info. Thanks in advance.

Jake,

Here's a list of case law relating to Presidential Pardons. There's nothing to suggest that a pardon can be nullified. It looks like the only check on when a President can issue a pardon or commutation is in the case of impeachment. On the plus side it doesn't look like Scooter will be successful in maintaining his law license even if a full pardon comes his way later on. See the Noonan and Abrams cases.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons4.htm

I think congress is barking up the wrong tree here.
Like it or not, W's commutation of Libby's sentence is legal. Congress should investigate and impeach W for the countless ILLEGAL things he's done.

I'm a public defender, and I rarely agree with George Bush, but he may be right that the sentence was "excessive". But it's not just Libby's setence that was excessive; it's our whole system of insane sentencing guidelines. I'm really hoping this commutation raises the public's awareness of just how long we send our citizens to prison and provokes a nationwide discussion of current guidelines.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 1:24 PM

If a Pardon were to aid an comfort an enemy -- amounting to treason -- would that not make the Pardon unconstitutional?

Wha 'zat sound? Shit hitting the fan.

phil jones:

Which "one serious vote" is that? Why don't you think the Vice President losing his Chief of Staff, DoJ losing a dozen top attorneys, and the President's approval rating in the toilet are serious consequences? You want to bring back the guillotine?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:10 PM

You asked for a citation: If the Pardon results in the destruction of the Constitution, is it Constitutional?

No.

Your case cited fails to consider the issue: The _court_ says it cannot review. However, _Congress_ through impeachment; and _Grand Jury_ through prosecution _can_ review the Pardon: Especially if the Congress and/or Grand Jury conclude that the President's use of his power _resulted in the destruction, nullification of the Constitution_. That is not permissible.

It is up for the Grand Jury and Congress to decide, and the Court may choose to be silent or say it is "not reviewable". If it was "not reviewable" we wouldn't have this discussion. Let the review of Bush's power continue. He can be impeached and/or prosecuted for any reason the Congress and/or Grand Jury chooses. It's up to Congress and the Grand Jury to decide if the President's assertion of his power resulted in the nullification of the Constitution; the President has no input to this decision by Congress and/or the Grand Jury.

None of the case law says, "Nobody can review something which results in the destruction of the Constitution." The Grand Jury and Congress can decide -- outside Executive review -- what is or is not "destruction" or "nullification" of the Constitution. By refusing to enforce the law and permit retaliation against others for truthful reports, the President -- with this commutation -- has made the Constitution null and void. That is unconstitutional, illegal, and impermissible. The above is for the Congress and Grand Jury to decide.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:44 PM

Looking for a legal argument you will agree has merit. No sense giving you a citation to a legal argument you've rejected. Let's start with the arguments first.

You haven't said which argument you would or would not support as a basis to conclude the Pardon was or was not reviewable, null, or was illegal. If you don't buy the legal theory, you're not going to buy the case or the citation. Let's start with what you might agree; then we'll work on something else.

You asked for a citation, but refuse to comment on the legal theory. We're not having a conversation. You're not being helpful to answering your _own_ question.

Libby is off the hook, the President did have the power to commute the sentence, ans will have the power to pardon eventually.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the President isn’t also guilty of obstruction of justice. He couldn’t be impeached for the pardon, but he could be for the cover-up it facilitates.

Further, our pathetic congress should give Scooter immunity then haul his sorry ass before one of their useless hearings and require him to commit perjury a second time. Future lies to the FBI or Congress are new crimes, I’m fairly certain the President has no authority to pardon a criminal prospectively.

"If a Pardon were to aid an comfort an enemy -- amounting to treason -- would that not make the Pardon unconstitutional?"

The pardon itself would still be constitutional, but the President would be guilty of the separate crime of treason. The President does not immunize himself from other crimes when he abuses the power; he only immunizes the beneficiary of the pardon."

In other words, he has an unlimited right to grant the pardon, not much dispute about that. He does not have an unlimited right to commit treason through the use of the pardon.

"Congress should not side step the issue, . . . ."

Wake up and pay attention: Congress isn't sidestepping the issue. How about trying this: if you've got nothing truthful to say -- especially about Congress -- STFU.

"Posted by: tbhull
Date: July 5, 2007 12:12 PM"

Jake,

Here's a list of case law relating to Presidential Pardons. There's nothing to suggest that a pardon can be nullified. It looks like the only check on when a President can issue a pardon or commutation is in the case of impeachment. On the plus side it doesn't look like Scooter will be successful in maintaining his law license even if a full pardon comes his way later on. See the Noonan and Abrams cases.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons4.htm

Posted by: BJL
Date: July 5, 2007 1:50 PM

Not all precdents concerning the pardon power are in case law. As example, the "We never do wrong" Republican-controlled Congress reviewed Clinton's pardons, even thought the pardon power is unreviewable. And they reviewed them with an eye to at minimum continuing their fraudulent smear campaign against Clinton, but also in hopes of finding something they could claim was a violation of law. They found nothing.

However, they did establish the precedent of reviewing presidential pardons; that now can be used by Congress against the AWOL cocaine-burnout dry-drunk war criminal Bushit.

Congress will be increasingly tightening the screws. Don't be surprised if in a few months proposals to cut off funding of the Executive here and there in order to compell compliance with the subpoenas are supported by sufficient Republicans to make them stick.

There is also additional history on the issue of impeachment, an interesting instance being that of Federal Judge Pickering (discussed in a thread on "Balkinization").

JNagarya, The statute to which I refer is Article II, Section 4 that can be found in a little document known as the U.S. Constitution:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Like I said, we either use it or stop pretending we have a say in our government. Now sit down and shut the hell up, shitwad.

Posted by: gcs
Date: July 5, 2007 1:58 PM

The Constitution is not a statute. Constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, which are collectively known, as concerns the US Constitution, as the US Code.

Got that, "shitwad"?

As well, the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach, ass -- the requirements governing which also appear in the Constitution. Politics is the art of the _possible_. So demanding the impossible is just plain stoopid.

Democrats in Congress can continue to buzz around the Bush Administration like gnats around a flyfisherman if that makes them happy. But short of impeachment, there will be absolutely no serious consequences. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzo and now Scooter, can and will continue to give Congress and the American people the finger-- something they seem to take to with such exuberant gusto, until January 2009. (Tony Snow would probably be willing to admit that if the question is put to him properly.) Why? Because the Republican Bush-enablers in Congress will continue to kill any serious vote. Please note, since Bush grabbed office in 2000 there has been only one serious vote.

Posted by: phil james
Date: July 5, 2007 2:02 PM

Ass: do the math: the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach. the reason? Foot-dragging by the Republicans.

Stop demanding the impossible -- you won't get it; and then you'll look for someone to blame, instead of getting your head on straight.

phil jones:

Which "one serious vote" is that? Why don't you think the Vice President losing his Chief of Staff, DoJ losing a dozen top attorneys, and the President's approval rating in the toilet are serious consequences? You want to bring back the guillotine?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:13 PM

The traditional penalty for treason is execution. The only debate is over the means to that end.

In addition, one of the penalties in the Federal prohibition against torture -- which cannot be made legal, even by use of "sighing statement" -- is death.

This country -- especially Republicans -- was once serious and sincere about complying with and enforcing of the rule of law. Thus torture is a capitol offense.

Want to keep playing around in areas in which you are unqualified, "Jake," solely to engage in smearing Democrats -- Clinton -- and defending Republicans, even when the actions by each are are identical?

". . . a sitting President cannot be indicted via grand jury . . . ."

Not according to the Rehnquist court. Then again, in this instance, you are referring to a Republican pretend-president, not to Clinton.

". . . . of course, Bush can be impeached for no reason whatsoever (another example of an "unreviewable" exclusive power). . . ."

What in hell are you talking about? Congress, too, can abuse its powers -- as it did with the Clinton impeachment, which was based upon nothing illegal, nothing other than politics. Impeachment is correctly described as a political process; but it must also include legitimate LEGAL issues. Again, ass: law, and politics, are not the same thing.

"I am also unaware of any authority that hold the President's pardon power is limited to everyone except himself."

Of course not: you reject ethics, beginning in this instance with conflict-of-interest.

"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:49 PM"

For the record, I am unaware of ANY limitation on the President's power to pardon -- that is indeed my "legal theory" but I can't very well prove a negative -- so, if someone is aware of a case or maybe some Constitutional Amendment I've missed, for instance, that holds the President has no authority to pardon a criminal prospectively, please let me know that as well.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 3:31 PM

Asshole -- and you know this, liar -- the issue is not the pardon power, which is essentially unlimited. The issue is the abuse of it, as is clearly the fact in Bushit's commutation of Libby's jail-time -- against all the facts of the case, the facts of the law, and contrary even to the position of "his" DOJ. And throw in contradiction of his own word on the issue -- not thast his weord is worth anything to begin with. Torture is a war crime. We have the memoes signed by Bushit authorizing that war crime.

Wanna test his sincerity on the issue? Ask if he'll be cummuting the sentences of, or pardoning those, who were sentenced to 30 or more months for perjury and obstuction of justice. His answer will be (as it already has been via Tony Snow) "No". Rather, Bushit is endeavoring to make the sentencing guidline sentences even more draconian -- er, "harsh" -- for others than members of his criminal enterprise.

And what was his "reason" for commuting Libby's jail-time? Convicted criminal Libby's family "suffered" as result of his being a convicted criminal. The truth caused them "pain".

Meanwhile, neither Bushit, nor anyone else in his criminal enterprise, has done anything -- let alone apologize -- for the victim of convicted criminal Libby. Let's pardon the child-molester, and say "fuck you!" to his victim: that's the quality of Bushit's sincerity in this (and every other) issue.

Thus Bushit has used the pardon power to protect enemies of the US, including himself, against the US, and against Constitution and rule of law. To cover up and further the crime of obstruction of justice. The pardon power is essentially unlimited; but it is not a license or legal means to commit crimes, including the High Crime of treason.

What Rehnquist Court decision held that a sitting President can be indicted on criminal charges?!

The Constitution is not a statute. Constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, which are collectively known, as concerns the US Constitution, as the US Code.

Got that, "shitwad"?

As well, the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach, ass -- the requirements governing which also appear in the Constitution. Politics is the art of the _possible_. So demanding the impossible is just plain stoopid.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 4:36 PM

-------------------------------

Joe,

I think the issue was, in general: "Was there authority . . ." If you're arguing the Constitution is not a statute, you're correct; if someone else is saying it is authority they are also correct.

I would hope that the language and tone of your remarks might consider that people on here are attepting to civilly discuss these issues. I would hope that by your legal background and training you may remember that some use different terms to essentially respond with the same spirit: To provide a contribution. I think with your leadership you can provie the example that you would expect of others.

Thank you.

------------------------

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 5:19 PM

From what I gather, Joe is not an attorney, but he has had some legal education. Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed.

I see; not only am I "lying" but so is President Bush "lying" about his reasons for pardoning Libby -- thanks for clearing that up, JNagarya -- have a nice life.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 4:38 PM

We've already repeatedly shown you to be a liar. The only person attempting to deny that obvious fact is the liar "Jake".

Yes, Bushit is lying about his reasons for the commutation of Libby's deserved jail-time. Will he do the same for everyone else sentenced to 30 -- or more -- months for perjury and obstruction of justice? No. In fact, he iws endeavoring to increase the penalties in the Federal sentencing guidelines.

He also acted directly opposite not only the SC's very recent decision directly on point, but also the position of "his" DOJ. And he couldn't care less about the dmage done the victims of that illegal leak, and Libby's direct role in it, and Libby perjuring himelf and obstructing justice as "substitute" for giving a damn about the damage they did also to the national security.

Bushit -- like O'Reilly -- has been repeatedly shown to be a serial liar. Lying about that fact, "Jake," won't change or obscure it; it only makes you morally complicit in the crimes and treasons about which you lie.

Why do you hate your country, "Jake"?

The Constitution is not a statute. Constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, which are collectively known, as concerns the US Constitution, as the US Code.

Got that, "shitwad"?

As well, the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach, ass -- the requirements governing which also appear in the Constitution. Politics is the art of the _possible_. So demanding the impossible is just plain stoopid.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 4:36 PM

-------------------------------

"Joe,

I think the issue was, in general: "Was there authority . . .""

What has that vaguery got to do with anything?

"If you're arguing the Constitution is not a statute, you're correct; . . . ."

I'm not "arguing" anything; I'm stating a simple fact. And I don't need you irrelevant "affirmation" of that fact: it isn't a fact exclusive to me, or owned by me.

". . . if someone else is saying it is authority they are also correct."

What in hell are you talking about? What is "it"?

"I would hope that the language and tone of your remarks might consider that people on here are attepting to civilly discuss these issues."

I don't allow others to dictate to me how I use my voice, or in what terms I express my views or objective facts.

"I would hope that by your legal background and training you may remember that some use different terms to essentially respond with the same spirit: To provide a contribution. . . ."

And there are those who endeavor to support their "legal" opinions by quoting from the non-law and notoriously unreliable Wikipedia. Or by quoting from general dictionaries, when in law there are terms of art -- words and phrases which, through centuries of legal interpretation, have accreted different meanings in law than they have in non-law discourse.

"I think with your leadership you can provie the example that you would expect of others.

"Thank you."

I have no interest in "leading" anything.

------------------------

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 5:19 PM

"From what I gather, Joe is not an attorney, but he has had some legal education."

I have an education in law.

"Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed."

You're not qualified to make any such judgments.

I am a legal professional. There is a broad range of legal professionals, only one category of which is "attorney" -- a fact of which you are clearly ignorant.

Posted by:
Date: July 5, 2007 5:43 PM

"Impeachment is correctly described as a political process; but it must also include legitimate LEGAL issues. Again, ass: law, and politics, are not the same thing."
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:15 PM
=========================
Substantiate.

1. Congress does not _have_ to do anything;
2. There is nothing in the constitution that tells Congress _how_ to impeach; thus there is no binding rule, only advisories which Congress may choose to ignore at whim;
3. Congress -- because it wants to -- can impeach for any reason; whether that reasoning is supported is one for the Senate to decide, and the voters to evaluate.
4. It is up to the Voters -- not you -- to decide whether that impeachment decision in the House was or was not correct;
5. One of the political goals of impeachment is to justify to the voters that the impeachment decision was correct, but this is not a legal requirement
6. Even if the voters reject the impeachment decision, or the impeachment is invalid, there is nothing that says how the impeachment "must" be carried out; or what standards.

7. Congress can invent any standard it chooses to impeach.

8. The only issue is whether the Senate -- through whatever means it wants -- agrees to convict the President of that charge. How the Senate convicts, what method, and what standards, are for the _Senate_ to decide: The criteria can be, but are not required to be, lawful.

9. As with the House, the _political_ goal of conviction in the Senate is to satisfy the voter: To show the voters that their senator made the right decision. Again, this is not required; and the Senate may vote to convict/remove, even if the Voters oppose this. Voter agreement is not required. How the voters react, or might react, does not need to be considered by the Senate. It may. there is no rule saying how the Senate _must_ do anything: It can, at any time, change a rule, and ignore precedent. The basis for conviction is for the Senate to decide, and they are not bound to anything _unless the Senate agrees_ to be bound. Like a Grand Jury, the Senate may choose to find the President's conduct unacceptable and remove him arbitrary; or they can do the opposite and choose to do nothing, despite Genocide. Whether than decision is lawful is a separate issue.

POLITICS VS. LEGAL

"Impeachment is correctly described as a political process; but it must also include legitimate LEGAL issues. Again, ass: law, and politics, are not the same thing."

Impeachment is one _legal_ option, other than prosecution, to punish the President. The President may be prosecuted by a grand jury, or impeached by the House. It is not correct to say that impeachment is _only_ a political process, but it _is_ a legal process, when compared with the prosecutions. It is a type of legal proceeding which is _not_ a normal legal/procuring. It is more correct to say it is a _legislative_ process that is _lawfully_ used.

==================

You are correct: Law and politics are not the same; but they are also not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 6:01 PM

The States are not required to honor what the OLC has said: "regardless of Turley's or even Ashcroft's opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (upon whom the DoJ would turn to in any such attempted prosecution) has concluded repeatedly that a sitting President cannot be indicted. "

1. Untested: Its time to challenge in court the OLC position on prosecution.. To paraphrase you in re House/Pelosi/impeachment, but rewording it in re OLC, "Just because OLC doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's not available."

2. Executive Staff position, not a binding legal conclusion: OLC is an adversarial position and not the final word. Game on for prosecuting a sitting President. I understand you do not agree; but Ashcroft and others have left the option open. OLC is not a judicial-final-word, so I take the OLC position as jut that: An untested position.

I understand what you are saying, but disagree that the OLC "position" is binding. It may be challenged in court by the States. It is their view which remains to be tested. I grant you that they have a view. So do their opponents pushing for prosecution of a sitting President.

"Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed."
You're not qualified to make any such judgements.

I am a legal professional. There is a broad range of legal professionals, only one category of which is "attorney" -- a fact of which you are clearly ignorant.
Posted by:
Date: July 5, 2007 5:43 PM

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:59 PM
==============================

You have no authority to prevent others from communicating their views, judgements, and opinions. Once you make a public comment, your comment is reviewable.

1. DEFINITIONS
"legal professional" has a different meaning than "attorney" or "licensed to practice law."You know this.

2. QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION

The issue turns on: Whether, in asserting one is a "legal professional" they re misleading others to believe they are legally qualified to make legal, binding opinions. Not, repeat NOT saying you are misrepresenting anything. You may be, but that's not, repeat NOT the assertion. We can have beliefs and opinions about your conduct and views. "Legal professional" when contrasted with ones online conduct may raise questions about what "professional" really means. I do not find it fitting for someone to assert that they are a professional, yet they use derogatory language.

You may have a low opinion of others, but "professional" conduct will let others conduct speak for itself without the derogatory language. In that spirit, those who assert they are a "professional" yet engage in derogatory language warrant review: What is going on, is this person a professional, and if this "profession" acts like this, how does this undermine public confidence in the "legal profession." Anyone may contrast [a] their definition with [b] your conduct and arrive, after [c] a review a [d] conclusion about you, the merits of your statements, and the validity of your arguments. You may be legally correct on issues, but that does not mean the public, after a review, cannot choose to find another source, seek other counsel, or discuss the issues with someone else. Your conduct, because you assert you are a "legal professional" does not attach only to you but the "wider profession". The public has other options, especially after a review; or an attempted review is dissuaded. There are various auditing standards that apply to performance management which are relevant here.

3. REVIEW ONGOING

It is problematic to say, "You're not qualified to make any such judgments." in re "Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed.": In no way can prevent anyone from discussing whether the comments can or cannot be forwarded for review. You have no legal authority to dissuade others from discussing whether the online conduct can or cannot be reviewed. Online professional conduct can be reviewed. Look: We're reviewing it. Is this not a review: Examination. How that review results, or what happens in re standards of conduct applicable is a secondary issue.

However, if one is a "legal professional" but not an attorney, one cannot have it both ways: Arguing for deference, but then saying, "But I'm not an attorney, so you can't hold me to the attorney disciplinary standards." If there are no standards applicable to the generic "legal profession", then there is no basis to assert one is a "legal professional" as that means nothing other than: You have a law degree. So what. Without enforceable standards, there is nothing compelling you to be accountable. You may be accountable; or you may not be. Compliance or non-compliance with non-existent standards is a meaningless debate.

The same standards the pubic can apply to you during their ongoing review of your conduct, statements, and professionalism may be revoked, changed, or applied however the public chooses to apply. The same goes for Libby's conduct, the Preident's commutation, or whether outside counsel have or hae not done all they should.