Quit being pansies, and just impeach him.
What's the big issue? WVC Police kill a little unarmed 21-year old gal on
November 2, 2012, and the SL County Attorney (Sim Gill) is STILL waiting for WVC
to complete its "investigation" of itself. Doesn't seem to be a
lot of outrage over that one. Seems to me that the unexplained death of
someone's child might be slightly more important (at least to some people)
than something like John Swallow is being accused of these days.
This is like the fox guarding the henhouse and try to push it through in
one-day. This is not well thought out if the Lieutenant
Governor's office is involved. These two elected officials, the top in
their positions, are both being scrutinized and they want to make it an internal
investigation. If it was someone lower in the hierarchy that was being
investigated but to have it within the same agency is ridiculous. Utahn's
elected a State Auditor that doesn't know how to audit since he is attached
to the Speaker of the House. A CPA has fiduciary knowledge and ability to
scrutinize but this man isn't. We are in a world that seems to allow the
inner workings of Utah government be a trust factor when over the years we know
you can't trust these people in power and authority. It is sad when people
strive for fame and glory instead of doing their job without being influenced by
outside parties. I agree with the NCAACP lady from Utah yesterday,
"What is happening to the people in Utah." To pass a law in one day
should bring an uproar from citizens.
The legislature wants to look like they didn't just sweep the John Swallow
issue under the rug. Actually they did sweep it under the rug and will never do
anything about it.
I'm not sure everyone read and/or comprehended the point of the article.
The new law being proposed is not to allow the AG to investigate himself, but to
make it so an independent investigator is appointed to that responsibility when
the AG is involved. Therefore, pushing it through immediately has some merit.That said, the wording of one paragraph does raise a concern.
"Lawmakers have drafted a bill, SB289, that would allow the lieutenant
governor to appoint special counsel to investigate elections complaints
"when and only when" the allegations involve the attorney general. The
bill would make the law retroactive."Would ALLOW? Seems to me it
should require independent counsel. But then, this IS Utah...
It seems very odd that the Speaker of the House would say that she can get it
passed through the House today, the last day of the Legislature, when she said,
"The members of the House are going to understand the urgency of this and
the need to clarify this." She said legislative leaders only
found out about the loophole Tuesday."Frankly, we weren't
aware of what the statute said. It was brought to our attention by the
lieutenant governor. We all kind of went, 'Oh, wow. We need to fix
this,'" she said.Yesterday, she didn't know what the
statute said, but is fully aware in a day of all the implications of a bill that
the sponsor was given, it appears, by the Lieutenant Governor. Citizens in Nixon's timeframe didn't like Attorney General John
Mitchell making some very important decisions after the Watergate break-in and
cover-up. However, John Mitchell did have a golf course prison location at
Maxwell Air Force Base and subjected to that kind of at home, almost place.The State Auditor wrote the GRAMA HB477 wanted government not to be
open. Now as state auditor, he doesn't .
I remember the days when the Nixon administration was investigating itself. No
matter who it is or what party is involved, or what level of government, there
needs to always be oversight of public officials. And it usually begins with a
free press. Remember, it is usually the coverup that becomes worse than the
crime. I won't bring up how disappointed I am at the national media for
their lack of critical coverage of certain national politicians.
Doesn 't making this new law retroactive violate the U.S.
Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws?
No, it doesn't violate the U.S. constitution, because it does not direct
how the attorney general is to be punished criminally. If this did, the same
rule would require that if the responsibilities of the IRS were ever moved, that
you would have to keep something called the IRS around until all current cases
against it were done. Just silly.