I think something DN Subscriber said is so very, very important and telling.
"Meanwhile, being subject of several investigation, he is
limited in what he can say in his defense."This couldn't be
further from the truth. The accused can always tell their side of the story,
unless a judge has put a gag order in place. What does keep someone from
explaining their side, is when their attorneys are worried what they have to say
might hurt their position. To the innocent, the full truth will not hurt their
position. The only reason to withhold information while being investigated, is
if you don't want that information known.
2 bits,It's not worth the gamble because of the possible
additional harm he could do with more time in office, should the allegations
prove to be true. If he is innocent, it's still better to investigate and
clear his name, both for his sake and so that the State can get back to its
Swallow: "I came close to the line, but I didn't actually cross
it."And from that, Mr Swallow, we may presume intent and
calculation, and an uncomely arrogance. Moral judgment does not arise from the
text of ethics codes, which are meant only to be guidelines. Again, you were
taught all this stuff in law school, but you are ignoring that. Shame on you,
and you are digging an ever-deepening pit for yourself. Resigning to avoid the
appearance of impropriety, or to allow your office to conduct its service to the
public out from under the burden this controversy imposes on it, are not
admissions of guilt. You were also taught that in law school but have chosen to
ignore that as well. The course you have taken is one from which you will not
be able to recover, ever.
So the right decision Mr. Swallow thought at 7am was to delay and not have the
House investigate but after 3pm Mr. Swallow thought it was the right decision to
have the House investigate now?Thanks for printing both stories.
This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, it's an issue of a person who
should be trustworthy and honest and forthcoming in his actions and he is not.
I'm with the lib/dem/freeloaders on this one, impeach Swallow before he can
do any more damage.
DN Subscriber 2-You apparently don't understand impeachment.
Speaker of the House Lockhart gave a great explanation of what the entire
process is and what it's for on a Google Hangout the other day.Beginning the impeachment proceedings begins with a legislative investigation.
As she explained, "high crimes and misdemeanors or malfeasance" does
NOT mean a crime (felony or misdemeanor) as we think of them today. This is the
difference in the constitutional language- it really means a loss of public
trust. He showed poor judgement. He walked the ethical line. Maybe he broke
criminal law. The impeachment PROCESS is NOT a criminal trial. It is to
protect the integrity of the office.And quit the "lynch mob"
garbage. No one is dragging him through the streets to the tall oak tree and
carrying out vigilante justice. Again, impeachment is a PROCESS, not an single
action. There are plenty of facts that show his lack of judgement and ethics.
The legislature can look at those and decide he has embarrassed the office and
write up articles of impeachment and send them onto the Senate for an
We must hurry to lynch him before the investigations come out with the truth?So far, there does not seem to be anything approaching a specific
"high crime or misdemeanor" to charge against him. People may not like
him, think he showed poor judgement or hung around with shady characters, but
those are not impeachable offenses. You need to wait until have have something
specific.Meanwhile, being subject of several investigation, he is
limited in what he can say in his defense.Utahns should be more
ashamed of the rabid lynch mob the media (and Democrats) have whipped into a
frenzy than of anything Swallow is alleged to have done.Facts,
people, facts. Then you can decide if he has done anything to be punished for.
My... such high and self-righteous standards from the Left today. I wonder if
they will be happy when these same standards are applied to all Democrats.Happy Valley Heretic:Lack of "Moral" fortitude is cause
for removal. Do you want the Moral-Right to define "Moral"
fortitude for you? So why do you do it?Brave Sir Robin:"if you have to explain what you were doing or why you were doing it, you
were in the wrong."So... President Obama and many Democrats are having
to explain what they were going in Washington today... should they all be gone?
Why the double-standard?Beaver Native:"It's not
worth the gamble to delay"Why would it be bad to delay? Afraid
waiting for some FACTS may blunt the current political blood-lust? What REAL
damage does waiting for an investigation to be done really do?goducks:"even the appearance of unethical behavior" should be
enough. So if even a few people think something's
"UN-Ethical" it's enough? I guess Obama's gone. And Al
Sharpton, His son, the Congressman from NY (who Democrats agreed did unethical
things but should stay in office).
Swallow doesn't want anyone to rush to judgment, wants us to let the
investigations run their course and allow him due process. I'm
all for due process as part of any criminal prosecution but what Swallow seems
to be ignoring is that this is more than a case of whether he deserves to go to
jail.This is also about whether he should be the AG. He seems to be
saying if I'm not a criminal there's no reason I should leave office.
But that can't be the standard. If he's lost the
confidence of the citizens of Utah, whom he was elected to serve and/or lost the
moral authority to lead his office, he can't be effective in his position
and should resign. I don't see him addressing those questions,
nor do I see him providing any credible evidence he can continue to operate
effectively as the AG. The fact that he's meeting with his personal
lawyers to plan his defense and meeting with legislators to try to talk them out
of impeachment demonstrates he's spending his time on personal matters, not
serving the people of Utah.
Mr Swallow, I've heard enough of "your side of the story." I'm
only disappointed that the REST of your story will probably not be told from
within a prison cell, along with fellow cellmate Mark Shurtleff, but instead,
most likely, from behind the desk at a secondhand law firm where you'll no
doubt land after your impeachment.
"Of all the people who deserve the benefit of due process, it's the
attorney general." hmm... or 'Of all the people that should have the
absolute highest level of integrity and ethics, and who should remain as far
away from even the appearance of unethical behavior, it's the attorney
Legislature: "Mr. Swallow, can you please explain the actions that have
brought you here today."Mr. Swallow: "Here's my side
of things- I did hang out with convicted criminals, people being investigated
for crimes, and other questionable individuals. I did use some personal
property, a houseboat, of one of these individuals and forgot to disclose it.
But, I did that later. I took trips with Mark Shurtleff to Newport Beach to
hang out with a convicted criminal and charged a bunch of stuff to his accounts.
I forgot to divulge my interest in P-Solutions after I handed the company over
to my wife, but we amended the filings later. I've studied all the ethical
statutes, and I can tell you, unequivocally, I came close to the line, but I
didn't actually cross it."
Delaying a State investigation until a Federal investigation concludes is
unwise. If guilty, it gives him time for more damage to be done to State
interests, since the State will still need to do their own investigation before
impeachment proceedings can begin. It's not worth the gamble to delay.
So, does Due Process means Stalling and hoping everyone forgets about this
enough to tolerate you being the AG?
I agree with those who feel the various investigations should conclude before
this man and his family are further crucified by those who are out for blood
regardless of the truth.
A wise person once told me "if you have to explain what you were doing or
why you were doing it, you were in the wrong." I think John Swallow would
do well to learn this.
I heard your side when you said "do they know about the boat?" You
obviously knew that it would not look "ethical" for you to be taking
"gifts" from certain people, but that never stopped you. You sir, do not have the "Moral" fortitude to be chief law enforcement
officer regardless of whether you technically broke the law. Your choosing the
low road "is there a paper trail" then refusing to admit your weakness
for gifts from criminals should be enough for a dignified gentleman to
withdraw.But I suspect they will have to drag you kicking and
screaming from the office you tainted and continue to disrespect.