I don't have much confidence that the Legislature's investigation of
the AG will add any value. It will take them some time before they
start, since it will take some time to determine who will be on the committee
and they're already well behind the other investigations which started some
time ago. Seems more political, trying to appear like they're
doing something, when in fact, when the other investigations conclude, for good
or ill, it's likely the Legislature will conclude theirs without finishing,
after having spent time and money spinning their wheels. If they
want to add value, they should focus on applying pressure to conclude the
investigation that are already underway.The question the AG needs to
answer NOW is how the citizen of Utah can be confident that both he and his
office are able to continue to function in the best interest of the citizen of
Utah while he apparently spends the majority of his time on personal
matters--meeting with his personal attorneys and lobbying the legislature trying
to save his job. I am all ears Mr. Swallow, convince me.
2 bits- First, "high crimes and misdemeanors, or malfeasance in
office"- that is NOT Utah Code. That is the Utah Constitution- very
different things.Second, "high crimes and misdemeanors" in
the Utah Constitution, is modeled after the U.S. Constitution and does not
actually mean criminal acts, as in felonies or misdemeanors, in today's
language. The language being used by the Founders is taken from the British
legal code at the time which indicated unethical behaviors or breaches in the
public trust.Third, the phrase, "malfeasance in office"
occurs after a coma which then makes it a different part of the sentence.
Meaning, that "high crimes and misdemeanors" don't necessarily need
to have been committed by the officeholder while in office. IF he is found
guilty of criminal felonies prior to taking office, he would still have to be
impeached to remove him.Lastly, impeachment is a process. Not an
act. Impeachment begins with an investigation. In this case, the legislature
decided to start an investigation prior to a formal impeachment investigation.
Why? This gives them greater latitude in looking for wrongdoing (i.e.
Shurtleff, et. al.) rather than being Constitutionally focused on one person-
If guilty, the malfeasance in office would probably include his time as deputy
attorney general so that goes back considerably more than 8 months.
If only the Republicans in Congress had the same courage to investigate what was
going on at the White House during the reign of President Cheney and his little
IMO... Investigation is "good". The more investigation of government
officials the better. But this breathless, "Impeach him now"! "It
can't wait!" reaction... I don't get.Do all the
investigations you want, and do what is indicated by the findings. But keep it
legal. the Utah code outlining that grounds for impeachment
include “high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office.”
Period."High crimes and misdemeanors"... (No
"Criminal" accusation has been made yet)"Malfeasance in
office"... (These incidents happened YEARS before he was in office.
He's only been in office for 8 Months).If we are going rush to
impeach... at least be legal about it. Remember Democrats... what goes around
comes around in Politics. If you pursue this with blind ambition... the
precedence will be set and the same rush to judgement will probably happened to
you someday. We've never held an impeachment in Utah. I would NOT like
to see us become an impeachment-happy State where the political parties say,
"you impeached one of ours we're going to try to impeach one of
yours" type politics goes on.
If only the Democrats in Congress had the same courage to investigate what is
going on at the White House.
Come on Swallow, cowboy up or man up or surrender your tiara, but quit holding
the state hostage to your ethical shortcomings and shady behavior. Utah deserves
This is called excess baggage. He was an employee of the Attorney
General's office for several years, as the Chief Deputy of the Attorney
General. He acted in the place, at times, for the Attorney General. He
isn't a brand new guy such as the Auditor that didn't have a say in
the affairs and actions of the Attorney General. He was there, even on some of
the trips, it appears. He transferred as the Chief Deputy in a second to the
Attorney General when he was sworn in under oath as the Attorney General. Attorneys for an alleged guilty person will do anything they can and
will to get their client off the hook. That is their job. However, the
Attorney General, previous and current, Chief Deputy or not are sworn to uphold
the laws and be ethical in all their dealings. They can't say
they are to partially uphold and sustain the laws and ethics of their elected
and sworn office. I suppose these people can say they are honest in
all their dealings with people in and out of their office positions as they
indicated to the Lieutenant General's office.Integrity?
Whether or not these alleged misdeeds of Swallow were done before his taking the
office of AG or after is irrelevant.That he would have (if found guilty)
said and done the things that are alleged is not becoming of a supposedly good
and decent man, much less a high-end attorney with AG aspirations.There is enough of an awful odor here already....and it doesn't look too
sweet moving forward.