@Cincinnatus,There are two completely different things going on.
1. The voters looked at John Swallow, evaluated him and selected
him as the person whom they wanted in the office of attorney general. 2. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" after taking
office (at least on the Federal Level).What has John Swallow done
since taking office that is worthy of impeachment?What right does
any party or any part of any party have to remove a person from office whom the
people have selected? What right does any person in government have to infer
that we are stupid for electing John Swallow? Many of the
"allegations" were front page news before the general election. The
people made their choice. It's time to get over the witch hunt and let Mr.
Swallow do his job. If he has committed a felony, then let the court convict
him and we'll deal with that after the trial.
Maybe we should have a attorney general promote alleged felons projects?
Wrong Wasatch A1.It is to elect a Democrat, or Republican, or
Libertarian, or Independent (or whomever) who has shown their integrity and is
above reproach. It's not about parties. It's about individual.George Washington watched as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison battled it out, creating the first parties in our country, then
warned us in his farewell address:[I] "warn you in the most
solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party,
generally."No one person, no one party has all the right
answers. In this case, simply trading a Republican for a Democrat, is not the
answer and that attitude is what has gotten this state and country into the mess
Fourth way to return trust to the state AG office? Elect or appoint a Democrat.
VST,You need to listen to the Google+ Hangout recording of Speaker
of the House Lockhart and Rep. Cox. They specifically stated that impeachment
is a process, and IS "the investigative tool of the House of
Representatives." As they clearly stated, after having extensively studied
the impeachment process, if there is a vote for impeachment in the House, then a
committee is formed which INVESTIGATES the allegations and uses that
investigative process to write up the articles of impeachment- the actual
charges.Currently, they have chosen to convene a special
investigative committee, rather than formally start the investigative process
with impeachment. That is their choice. But, an actual vote for impeachment
would start the formal investigative process, culminating in the House with
article of impeachment, if they found there to be reason to write them.They Speaker Lockhart and Rep. Cox have been looking at this a lot harder than
you or me and I'm inclined to take their word on how the process works over
@2bitsHowever, when it comes to impeachment I think you might not
understand the procedure correctly. If he is brought up on articles of
impeachment it doesn't mean that he is automatically removed from office,
far from it. The way it works is a House committee investigates(like what is
happening now) if they decide to proceed it goes to the full body. If the full
body votes yes to impeach in a simple up/down vote it goes to the Senate for
trial. If the senate votes yes in a 2/3 majority to impeach then the official is
removed from office. PBS NewsHour has a good article on it. It's speaking
about the US constitution, but Utah's rules are identical so you can use
any info on the federal rules and apply it to the state as well.
@2BitsNo, it wasn't because of the R at all. It's because I met
Mr. Swallow when he was running for Jim Matheson's seat in the House
(2002?) I didn't like him then, I didn't like him when he was running
for AG. So maybe I did have a bias, but not because of his political
Actually I was for Impeaching Clinton because I was listening to Rush back
then.I grew up a lot when I turned off Rush.If there was
Anything on Obama besides opinuendo from the likes of Rush and his merry band of
misinformation miscreants, Id say yes, but I've yet to see anything of
substance.Besides you really don't know my voting habits, so
I'm not sure why you think a personal attack on my comment is going to help
you close personal friend buy some more time in office.
J Thompson-There are facts, beyond the allegations, that make me
question John Swallow's honesty, integrity and ethics. These facts make
the allegations worthy of more serious investigation (which is happening). The
first step in impeachment IS an investigative process. The difference here is
that an impeachment process is NOT a criminal proceeding. It takes away no
rights. It is designed to protect the integrity of the office from lack of
integrity of an officeholder.Holding an office is NOT a right. It
is a privilege. A privilege that you win by convincing people to elect you. A
privilege that can be lost if the voters and the legislature no longer trust you
because of your questionable actions.If Swallow is found ultimately
found guilty (by the Senate) of violating the public trust, he should be removed
from office. If he is ultimately found guilty of criminal actions (by the
courts) he should be punished accordingly. They are two separate paths.
@2 Bits--I think you have a mistaken notion of what impeachment entails. The
impeachment process IS an investigation, not a conviction. Impeaching someone
does not remove them from office, it merely launches an investigation into the
alleged misconduct. I don't mean to trivialize impeachment, but if Attorney
General Swallow is indeed innocent, the sooner the facts come to light the
better it is for him, for the AG's office and for the citizens of Utah.
Allegation vs evidence. What is the difference? Apparently there is no
difference when it comes to John Swallow. A felon makes an allegation and
suddenly that "allegation" is treated as evidence.Dan wants
to take away our right to elect someone for public office. It's a good
thing that he's not running for office this year or he'd be laughed
off the ballot. Just in case he missed class, maybe he'd better look up
"Boss Tweed" or the "Daley Machine". When someone has the
authority to appoint, corruption is just around the bend.Stop
spreading gossip, I.e., allegations, and present evidence that is worthy of
stripping someone of his rights as an American because that's what happens
when people are convicted.
The head of the Republican Party in Utah runs a payday loan scam, er business.
Fraudsters, rip off artists, and corrupt property developers own the state
government. It is indeed time to clean house. Too bad so many people refuse to
vote for a Democrat, leaving the corrupt in power.Get ready to be ripped off
again when the prison is moved. A few insiders will make a fortune, while the
rest of us pay for it. And you will keep voting for the people who rob you.
Happy Heretic,So it's NOT a party thing with you... Oh... I get it
now. You are real consistent. But if your consistent and party doesn't
matter... why are you with the "Hang him NOW" crowd for the Republican
Attorney General, but not with the "Impeach Obama" crowd? That's
FOR impeaching the "R" and AGAINST impeaching the "D". Is THAT
consistent? I'm AGAINST impeaching the "D" (because
it's not called for and I'm not a blind party partisan). And
I'm AGAINST impeaching the "R" (because it's not called for
until a REAL investigation is done). THAT's consistent.Lets
check your consistency...-Were you FOR impeaching Bill Clinton? Because
he ABSOLUTELY was guilty of the charges brought and was impeached and disbarred
because of them. But the Democrat controlled Senate decided it didn't
matter. But Swallow MUST be impeached without investigation?-Are
you FOR impeaching Eric Holder Attorney General, was held in Contempt of
Congress?-Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pled guilty-Laura
Richardson (D-CA) found guilty on seven counts of violating House rulesI'm out of words... not examples.
Mike Richards,You seem to ignore the realities of the situation (and
the article):Liljenquist was not specifically stating in this
article what should be done to Swallow. He was advocating what he thinks could
be done to protect the trust in the office of the AG, regardless of the occupant
(Shurtleff may have started this whole mess).You also have a
fixation on the "facts" of a convicts statements. The facts here go
beyond their statements. There are actual, substantiated facts that make most
Utahns questions Swallows ethics.The Justice department is
investigating the allegations of bribery- that includes whether or not Harry
Reid had any involvement. Reid is not our Senator and we can't do anything
to him directly from our state. Swallow on the other hand is our elected AG and
we have the right to deal with him as we see fit (exonerating him, censuring
him, or removing him from office).Impeachment proceedings ARE the
political way we have of deciding whether a politician is guilty of violating
the trust placed in them and their office. It is not a criminal trial- you seem
to have the two confused.
"He accepts as "fact" the statements of a convicted fellon,""based on sensationalized news coverage"Like the recording
of him asking "do they know about the boat?" or "Is there a paper
trail?"Or the receipts from his criminally paid vacation with his
signature on them?or the 2 others who are Not convicted of anything
substantiating what the "criminals" have said?all
speculation yep.If he were a democrat I would still be treating this
situation the same.But I know from the hang Obama team here on these
comments that a democrat would already have been gone.
Noodlekaboodle,Come on... be honest with yourself. We all know you
better than that. In your mind he was "Guilty" as soon as you saw the
"R" by his name.I'm not saying he's innocent.
I'm just saying "do the investigation so we KNOW"!Is that
really too much to ask?So many Democrats want him thrown out, based
on sensationalized news coverage and political polls.... I just don't get
that logic. Especially when they would NEVER apply that same standard to their
own people (throw them out first, there's no time to wait, investigate
later).This would be our first impeachment in Utah. If we start
doing that now... (throw them out now, it's too dangerous to wait for the
investigation).... I guarantee the same logic would be used against a Democrat
in the future, and you will complain.I'm just trying to bring
some sense to the breathless people how say "It's too dangerous to
wait... we have to throw him out NOW!!!". What's the big danger???
Why NOW? Why not let an independent investigation be done?
My concerns are that with the claim that Swallow's contact was prior to
joining the AG office is that he was associated with Johnson, accompanied
Shurtleff to California, and then shortly was appointed by Shurtleff to the AG
office as a "Chief Deputy" (one of three but broadly disseminated as
"The Chief Deputy" during the campaign) and preferred successor. Why
was an attorney that was apparently primarily a lobbyist for the previous
several years, who was associated with a potential criminal defendant, selected
by Shurtleff to become his Deputy and endorsed as his successor?
@2BitsIf he was a private attorney I might agree. But he was the Deputy
Attorney General at the time of these incidents. If you work for the AG's
office you work for the people of Utah, not people under investigation by the
AG. People who are being investigated by the AG's office do need an
attorney. It's just entirely inappropriate for that attorney to be employed
by the AG's office.
I would prefer this to be an appointed position. Sometimes things should be
elected, sometimes appointed. We elect the President but Secretary of State,
which requires specialized knowledge and skills, is appointed. I think the AG
falls into this category. This would open the position, as chief prosecutor or
lawyer, to the most qualified individual regardless of party. That person would
also have a direct supervisor who could dismiss him/her. Yes, you could say the
office has a boss with the people but unless there is a recall election or
impeachment, both arduous processes, this person can stay in office until the
next election. I do recognize that appointed positions also come with flaws. I
do feel there is just certain offices or roles in government that work best in
the appointed format and AG is one of them.
Irony,How does just removing him (without investigation results)
automagically restore trust?The guy before him was corruptible. HE
was corruptible. What insurance do we have that the NEXT guy WON'T be
corruptible? And don't say make sure he has a 'D' by his name,
because we already know that doesn't always work.My
understanding is that politicians are just people (not super human). And if
I'm corruptible, they probably are too. So with that understanding... I
just assume that politicians are as corruptible as every other human being, and
by the position their job puts them in, they have even MORE opportunities to be
corrupted and act on that weakness. So I don't expect politicians to be
perfect, that's why I think it's important to keep an eye on them, so
we can use what we learn about them when making our voting decision the next
election cycle.Problem is... to many people just vote for the
"R" or the "D" without looking at the individual they are voting
for. So we keep getting the same people. Since people are corruptible...
replacing them with new people frequently is a GOOD idea.
Dan forgot the fourth way to restore trust: remove Mr. Swallow from office.
I think he's totally trustworthy. The (R) and the other affiliation prove
I know this case has been well sensationalized in the news, but to get back to
what actually happened (as I understand just from what I've heard).His contact with the guy was before he was an elected official (When he
was an attorney). People blame him for being in contact with a person under
investigation. Isn't it an attorneys JOB to work with people with legal
problems? And to be paid by those people with legal problems?I
admit that trying to connect him with politicians that could possibly help was a
bad move. But remember that this all happened BEFORE he was an elected
official... When he was an attorney... who's supposed to try to do what
he can to help his clients.It was obviously bad judgement, and
I'm pretty sure he wishes he could go back and change it. But obviously
he can't. But we can be big about it and forgive him (IF we want) or we
can judge him with a critical eye and pretend if WE were an attorney in his
situation we would have just turned they guy away.
How about a 4th option?: Clean house.Let an impeachment today serve
as a lesson for tomorrow. Rid the A.G.'s office of this unscrupulous
pay-for-play (aka "quid pro quo campaign donation") mentality which has
become "business-as-usual", not only in the attorney general's
office, but in the entire Beehive state election process.Now THAT
might be a good first step in attempting to restore public trust.
@Mike RichardsAlthough the director of the Division of Consumer Protection
did file a complaint to the bar saying swallow should be disciplined.
I'm re-evaluating my preference for Dan Liljenquist as a Senator. He is
much too quick to be the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to John
Swallow. He accepts as "fact" the statements of a convicted fellon, but
he refuses to give John Swallow his day in court. If Mr. Liljenquist were a
Senator, he would be expected to protect the rights of the citizens, yet he is
stomping all over the rights of a citizen, John Swallow. Dan Liljenquist seems
to ignore that Harry Reid was named as a participant in the allegations. Why is
he not demanding sanctions against Harry Reid?We have a process in
America. That process requires that the "State" prove that a citizen is
guilty. If John Swallow is guilty, then let the "State" prove its case.
Unlike the "mountain" of evidence against the Obama administration from
people inside and outside the government, the only person claiming that Swallow
participated in criminal activity is a convicted fellon.
Typically appointing the AG is a bad idea. Do we really need our current
Governor to get enough power we lose him?