To Steve Earley, I think that you are a little extreme in your comments. Do you
personally know John Swallow as I do? My kids have been in Mr Swallow's
home and tell me that the Swallow's are very kind and generous people. The
Fed's recently dropped their investigation of Mr Swallow because there
there is no evidence of wrong doing. I suspect that the State's
investigation will probably find some impropriety, but nothing strong enough to
prosecute, as the guys pressing for Mr Swallow's actions are both felons,
so how can we believe them. Overall, Mr Swallow has probably made a few mistakes
in the way he conducted business, but for the most part he is trying to do
right. Before making accusations, lets' see what the investigation brings
Nice argument except your two ideas have nothing to do with each other. Greg
Bell is a good, likable guy and John Swallow is not as likable but we
don't know if Swallow is a good guy, the Feds say he is. We have been
taught our whole lives of innocent until proven guilty and that theory we have
all accepted should be allowed to work here. Be patient, the truth will
Maybe someone has an opinion about Steve Earley's character. It
doesn't matter if that opinion is true or false. All that matters is that
someone has an opinion and that he has a venue to express that opinion.After all the hoopla that has taken place, charges were dropped against John
Swallow. That doesn't satisfy John Swallow's detractors. They want
him tarred and feathered. They want him shamed. They want him to resign in
disgrace.For what? For being innocent of all of all charges that
would require him to resign. What has he done as Attorney General that would
cause him to be prosecuted? The voters "vetted" him and elected him in
spite of the claim by a felon that Mr. Swallow should be prosecuted. That
election is not good enough for those who continue to throw mud at Mr. Swallow.
They want blood, no matter the facts and no matter that the Federal Government
dropped the case.Maybe it's time that we started looking into
the lives of those who want Mr. Swallow out of office. If we look hard enough,
we'll surely find something embarrassing.
If you listened to the tape it's obvious to all, that Swallow was aware of
his questionable morals when he asked "do they know about the boat?" and
met at a doughnut shop far from his office. When a criminal records you because
they know there's a good possibility of you lying later, that say a lot
about your moral foundation.Please Mike, Daily you accuse Obama of
things for which you have zero evidence, but that's never stopped you from
wanting him tarred and feathered. You want him shamed. You want him to resign in
disgrace. Consistency would help your credibility which is more partisan
Prosecution vs Resign are two different things.Maybe there is
insufficient evidence for a criminal charge, but as attorney general, he has
certainly crossed the line. That much is obvious.Just like police
and school teachers, an Attorney General should be held to a higher standard in
order to keep their job.Do we want our elected officials to be just
above the "nothing technically illegal" benchmark?
If politicians talk the conservative talk, they get a pass.
On one hand we have a man that can't make ends meet with a salary at more
than twice the Utah average and on the other we have a man that has followed the
examples of Congress and the Legislature with legal or otherwise bribery. Things
like this are only acceptable with the ruling class.
Heretic,I don't know how things work in your house, but in my
house, we believe that a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. We believe
that if the government doesn't have sufficient evidence to prove its case,
that no prosecution should take place. The government failed to find sufficient
evidence that a crime had been committed to prosecute John Swallow. As far as
the government is concerned, John Swallow committed no crime.By the
way, Obama hasn't had his day in court - yet. The State has not dismissed
Bengahzi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the IRS scandal, the AP scandal, the NSA
scandal or any of the other scandals that he has been part of, no matter how he
tries to blame others instead of taking responsibility for his own actions. He
told us that the "buck" stops with him, but that was just another
"tall tale". The government hasn't even dismissed the "shady
dealings" in the transfer of property to him in Chicago. He's got a
long road ahead of him.
"Do they know about the boat?" Yes, we now know about the boat.
That's all we need to know.
Not again...Steve,The Feds decided he did nothing illegal.
The Utah investigation hasn't resulted in any charges yet. And yet you
think he should be removed because YOU want him out.How about we
give politicians the same due process the constitution provides all American
Citizens?Until he is charged with something... and found guilty by a
jury of his peers, he's innocent. That's how it works.You can say you don't LIKE him (or something he did). But just because
you don't like him or what he did doesn't mean he has to do as you say
and leave office just because you want him to. There's a process for this
(impeachment or wait till next election)If you can wait till the
next election, THEN you get to tell him to leave office because you don't
like him.That's the way it works in the United States.
We're not a banana republic, where we throw elected officials out of office
without charges or conviction.Until he's impeached... he has
every right to stay in office.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahI don't know how things
work in your house, but in my house, we believe that a citizen is innocent until
proven guilty. ======== In my house, Pres. Obama is
innocent until proven guilty.And your little court of public opinion is
run amok daily.And yes, John Swallow needs to resign based on his
loss of public confidence - regardless of legal findings.Richard
Nixon by comparison at least showed integrity.
Mike,If you had a daughter in high school and a male teacher had
inappropriate conversations with her, it could be very likely that no laws would
have been broken. (of course that would depend on the extent of the
inappropriate conversation)I can only assume that you would be
calling for this this teachers job.One does not always need to break
the law to be unfit for a job.
Mike said: "As far as the government is concerned, John Swallow committed no
crime."That's only one of several Government agencies
investigating multiple indiscretions by a ethically devoid Attorney General.Is Obama up on criminal charges for anything you mentioned? I
didn't think so.So your wild conspiracy theory's are not a
defense, on the other hand Swallow is up on charges in at least 3 other
cases.and yet you continue your rant against a man not even being charged,
It's easy to see how politics control your "moral stances" more
than actual facts.When John said "Do they know about the
boat" I'm sure he meant to write down that bribe, or at least if
they knew about it.
Happy Valley Heretic,RE his "Questionable morals"... and
people's "moral foundation"...You of all people harping
on "morals" and wanting to throw a politician out because of his
"questionably morals"...!And then you go on a rant about
people's "Consistency".Let's try a little
consistency check here...Were you for throwing President Clinton out
because of "questionable morals"?So... where's the
consistency?In your own words... "Consistency would help your
credibility which is more partisan than credible"
LDS Liberal,So... you think politicians should resign based on "loss
of public confidence"...? Let's see if that's true.What's President Obama's current approval rating?Answer: Most
recent Gallup poll had it at 45%. Should he resign?Where's the
consistency?At one time he had a 39% approval rating. Should he
have been out of office then?His term average is 49%. Should we
throw him out?---If truly he must resign due to
"loss of public confidence - regardless of legal findings"... Must everyone in Congress resign? They currently have a 14% approval rating.
That's probably lower than Swallow. At least THEY lost public approval
based on their performance in office (not because of something that happened
BEFORE they took office and hasn't affected their performance in office).
Liberal, Joe and Heritic,Following your scheme, the accused would be
beheaded at the first sign of misconduct and then apologies would be offered
when you were found to be in error.I don't know which country
you people are citizens of, but your ideas are totally foreign to America where
we are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Your strawman arguments make about as much
sense as your rush to judgement to convict Swallow. Your desire to
absolve Obama for high crimes and misdemeanors show nothing but contempt for the
office of President. You excuse him for what he has done, but history will show
that he and you thumbed your noses at America. You vilified Nixon and Bush for
doing much less than Obama has done, yet you turn a blind eye to Obama's
actions as you continue to disparage REPUBLICAN Presidents. Talk about
hypocrisy! There is no end to it when liberals support Obama without requiring
any responsiblity from him or from his administration.Charges
against Swallow have been dismissed. If you continue to demand that he be
removed from office, you will be showing comtempt for the American justice
Well, it is good to know that you would never "show nothing but contempt for
the office of president"
Internet slang: "A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by
starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory, extraneous or
off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the
deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."Now, of whom
does that remind you? You respond, he wins. Ignore him.
I apologize if I'm wrong in my assessment above, but I have trouble
believing that anyone so impervious to reason is sincere.
If John was having extramarital affairs I would care much, much, less as that is
a personal moral decision involving him and his.There were plenty of
things I thought Clinton messed up and should have been accountable to the
people for, Sex was not one of them.The Charges have not been
dismissed, one of at least 3 have, another half truth.You say I
excuse him (Obama) for what he has done" which is What exactly Mike, you see
I don't listen to radio entertainers for news and I haven't seen where
charges have been filed anywhere against him.
Mike Richards,I will agree with you that AG Swallow is innocent
until proven guilty. Though my opinion is that he should resign, that decision
is ultimately up to him.The Justice Department discontinued their
investigation of criminal acts. They did not "drop any charges,"
because he hadn't been brought up on any. The allegations they were
investigating proved either untrue, or, ultimately unprovable in court.But...He is still being investigated by the Lt. Governor's
office for possibly violating Utah election laws.He is still being
investigated by the Utah Bar Association for possible breaches of professional
conduct.He is still being investigated by the Utah House Committee
for conduct that could cause a lack of trust in an official.A man is
innocent until proven guilty- but, there needs to be an investigation in order
to determine if there is sufficient evidence to charge him. Simply dropping all
investigations because one was dropped is unrealistic. They are all looking at
different things.A man is innocent until proven guilty- yet almost
daily you come on these boards and castigate President Obama. Perhaps YOU
should wait until the investigations are done.
@Mike Richards..... you said "The State has not dismissed Bengahzi, Fast and
Furious, Solyndra, the IRS scandal, the AP scandal, the NSA scandal"...Pardon me, but are there legal proceeding going on for any of these
events that you claim Obama had personal and direct criminal involvement in. In
order to "dismiss" something, there needs to be a criminal charge. Are
you telling us that criminal charges have been raised against the President of
the United States for these events?You see, as you say, in my house,
we don't go around making up accusations, and we making claims of criminal
indictment - when there are none. You may not like what happened in these
events. I think the one regarding the IRS is one f the more worrisome. But Solyndra was no more criminal than was the rescue of Chrysler some
two decades ago. You may not like government funding of startups - its a
debatable point - but it has been done for over 150 years, and isn't
illegal.Your sense of innocent unless proven guilty seems to be very
Mike -- Nice rant again about "innocent until PROVEN guilty",
etc.. etc..So, I'll ask - again --What
"crimes" has Pres. Obama been found guilty of?BTW -- This is the very same met and measure you are defending John Swallow with.
Regardless of Swallow's guilt or innocence, the allegations against him
will never allow him to have the credibility his position as chief law enforcer
of the state deserves.