Comments about ‘Decades-old allegations are hard to prove, law professor says’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 14 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anonymous

Absolutely not!

wrong victim

The person that should be prosecuted, but the statute of limitations have run against the looney woman and her estranged husband who extorted $$. Garn should have turned them in then, at least letterman did that. And to come back purportedly for more money, bc the lady's husband is dumping her smells bad. For all i know Garn is a decent man who made a mistake 25 yrs ago, had made amends, and then this lady raises her snakey head. Sad, sad, for Garn and his family.

John Charity Spring

This article has missed the point. The point is not that this crime would be hard to prosecute in a court of law, the point is that it never should have occurred in the first place. There has been an epidemic of immorality among our politicians in the last twenty to thirty years. Too many politicians have accepted the modern view that chastity is a concept that is outdated. Modern politicians have apparently forgotten that this Country was founded upon the principle that in order to become and remain stron, a nation must practice moderation, prudence, chastity, and honesty.

Clark Sanders

It was 25-years ago! WHATEVER. She got $150,000 and signed a non-closure agreement. If anything, she should be held liable for breach of contract. She was just trying to shake him down for more money. A sad situation.

Baloney

In the midst of his campaign in 2002 he paid her a bribe to keep her quiet. Of that there is NO question, and the statute of limitations hasn't run out on that.

Leislative Ethics, an oxymoron

Whether or not the allegations could be prosecuted the fact remains that there was an exchange of $150,000. This was for alleged help in allowing a minor to become an adult without problems in return for quietude. That alone raises issues that could become a problem.

So it may have been a bribe or just hush money; he admitedly paid it. Why?

Where did the money come from? Was it diverted from campaign funds? Or did it come from a personal fortune; and, did Mrs. Garn know of that expenditure?

Was it a gift, except admittedly there were strings attached?

Who paid the taxes on that money? Was there a 1099 or W2 issued with the check?

No, I do not think that Garn deserves the ovation that the Legislative nit wits gave him. They may want a pass for him but I think he should let us have answers to these and many other questions.

Hard to prove?

No one is denying this. He said it happened. She said it happened. His money said he was really worried about the details coming out. His calls to the Deseret News said he was really worried about the details. The details that he could be charged with is disputable, but both parties say it happened. And now the world knows.

Trowe

@Wrong Victim-

She was 15, he was 30. He was the perp, she was the victim. The law does not even allow for the possibility of her being at fault. She was a minor, and he a married ADULT. Hence, he was the victim. As to the extortion- she went to the Dnews and Trib, told her story. They held the story, called her and offered to buy her silence. That's not extortion. Now, she did ask for more money, which might be extortion, but it sounds like he intitiated the money discussion, so I have a hard time seeing him as a victim in that, too. If she had taken him to civil court she could have gotten a much bigger settlement.

Also, please stop calling this a mistake. This was wanton criminal behavior. He took a 15 year old to a private hot tub, with alcohol (according to her), and got her clothes off. He should be looking at a class A misdemeanor sexual abuse, which doesn't require any contact, although I believe it probably took place. There is no statute of limitations. UTCode 76-5-401.

Trowe

@Clark Sanders,

I haven't seen any reports that she asked for more money, from either the Garn camp or her. I've only heard her statements that she felt she couldn't heal until this was out in the open. Do you have info that she did demand more money?

And to your other point, I have a daughter nearing 15. If I found out in 25 years that someone had violated done this to her, I would still be piping hot mad. She was a kid. He was married. Time doesn't change that.

Obviously no-one is perfect. And maybe he got has since been a model citizen. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held responsible for what he did to this girl. Especially considering that this was a months long relationship, not a spur of the moment, I was drunk and made one mistake (which I could understand, except for that fact that she was only 15).

P.

You know what. Regardless of how long ago this happened, if any business owner or politician or adult persuaded or seduced a child to do something that would later haunt them for years because of their religious upbringing, well, in my book the persuader is at fault, not the child or younger person. Especially if the older adult persuader is of the same faith. He was twice her age, of the same faith, he swayed her to betray her faith.

Stop excusing the behavior. There may be blame enough for both, but the scale should tip in Garns direction as far as who was responsible.

Anonymous

I do believe the Garns contradicted their story, in one report the pay off happened after the 2002 election, in another it was before.

So, REAL investigative reporters who want the truth for our country, find out which it was, before or after.

Justice for all

What ever he and her did in the hot tub and beyond, only they will ever know. He paid to hush her up which is obstruction of justice to a felony. I hope the laws he put in place will apply to him as they do the rest of us. No one is above the law and just because he's rich and famous, he should be treated the same way. He already publically admitted being with her, naked in a hot tub and paid her to keep quiet. Two huge mistakes that deserve to be reprimanded. She and her former husband should be prosecuted for extortion then everyone will be even and it will be over in the public scrutiny.

Anonymous

Quote:
"Modern politicians have apparently forgotten that this Country was founded upon the principle that in order to become and remain stron, a nation must practice moderation, prudence, chastity, and honesty."

Is that in the Constitution somewhere? I must have missed it! How many mulatto childen did Thomas Jefferson sire? How many other other founding fathers were founding philanderers? We'll never know will we? Hypocrisy and immorality and stupidity and cover-ups are not an invention of "modern politicians"!

Anonymous

What the heck is up with the blame the victim mentality here in Utah? It's almost as if it is a culture founded upon that mindset.

Anonymous

When she was 15, she was a victim.

When she demanded and received $150,000 she was an adult. Perhaps the $20,000 was understandable, as it was to pay for counseling. The other $130,000? She and her husband were extortionists. When David Letterman went to the police, perhaps he could have been accused of sexual harrassment because the woman worked for him, but the extortionist did not. The extortionists in this case did not work for him. The husband has no excuse whatsoever. She could be excused for the $20,000 for healing. The rest is pure extortion. Who is the victim?

Now? She is an adult who has broken a contract. Who is the victim?

Should be Done Now

He has resigned. He should no longer be a public figure. She got her day in the media and $150,000.
It should end now.

He has paid a huge price, maybe not prison but he will be in his own prison for a long time. Not sure what she will get now. Peace of mind, hopefully, that is enough. I don't think there is a book in the making.

I am glad she came forward, he should not be in the house of reps. She is another story though. She was a victim back then, but she was not a victim in 2002. It's kind of hard to say "go and punish him now", after taking money and signing documents.

So, in the end, in my mind, they both committed offenses but it should now end. He is out of politics and she has her closure. Should be enough.

total1096

In consideration of a possible sexual abuse charge, the statute of limitations that would apply is what the law read at the time of occurrence, not how it reads today (meaning statute of limitations law not sexual abuse law)

This is just an article

the Deseret News wrote to try and cover the mistake they made by not reporting this mess in 2002 when they had the news. Now they are trying to make it sound like it is no bid deal. That it would be hard to prove, blah blah blah.

How about an article on the political reasons you did not run the story back then DN?

Doug G

I'd bet one or the other side of this exercise could produce the 'hush' documents that went along with the cash. I'd also bet that document would make for a pretty iron clad case even this long after the fact.

It is clear

That this woman is unstable and has curious intentions. But the fact remains that this guy, a married man at the time, provided alcohol to a minor and was nude with her in a hot tub, folks. Don't reflect the blame on the woman in order to excuse the man.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments