Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah House creates committee to investigate Attorney General John Swallow’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 3 2013 4:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

"Denies any wrongdoing"???
We heard the tapes!

riverofsun
St.George, Utah

The wheels of justice seem to be awfully slow.
Lots of denial and head in sand behavior in Utah government regarding Swallow.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

An additional investigation that is estimated to cost another $3 million of taxpayer money! Crazy. Even if he was totally cleared, which at this point isn't likely, it's doubtful he could ever render that much value in service to Utah during his remaining term.

If Swallow's priorities were actually directed toward the good of the state of Utah, as opposed to personal ambitions, he would concede that he is just now to controversial and step down... before his likely impeachment. There is already too much evidence against him to ever completely clear his name and allow him to effectively serve in the AG office. There comes times in everyone's lives when they have to cast away personal pride, face reality, and know when to just walk away. For Swallow, one of those times is now.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Tators,

You stated, “There is already too much evidence against him to ever completely clear his name and allow him to effectively serve in the AG office.”

Just what is that evidence? Is it felonious? Has that evidence been validated by law enforcement investigators. Did it occur before he was elected Attorney General?

If the evidence indicates there was a felony committed by Swallow, then I agree – Swallow has a problem and should resign. If the evidence does not indicate there was felony committed, then I do not buy into the theory that Swallow is guilty before proven innocent.

Furthermore if the supposed non-felonious action occurred before he was elected, then he will not be convicted under the impeachment process.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ VST:

The recorded tapes unquestionably implicate Swallow with several different associations with convicted felons concerning business dealings that very much put into question his ethical conduct in regards to the requirements for serving as the state attorney general, which needs to be above any questionable behavior. Granted, it's a higher standard, but necessary in that regard. From what I've read in the paper, some of his own admissions have added to the ongoing controversy.
So whether of not he is ever found guilty of any felony (and yes, we all and should be innocent until proven guilty), there is already that nearly indisputable unethical conduct cloud over his head that will make it extremely difficult for him to function effectively in the near-term future in his current (very high personal ethics required) capacity.

stevo123
slc, ut

All of Mr Swallows energy is focused on remaining in office. The office of the A.G. suffers as a result.

Cincinnatus
Kearns, UT

You keep beating this drum VST, without looking at either the Utah or U.S. Constitutions or historical precedents.

"High crimes and misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office" does not mean, in the historical sense of the wording, that actual felonies or misdemeanors were committed. Those were terms to refer to breaches of ethics or public trust, though if he did commit felonies or misdemeanors, that would also qualify. The standard for judging what may have been done wrong is different than in a criminal court. Therefore, those "crimes" don't have to be validated by law enforcement.

The argument about whether he should be impeached for "crimes" before he was sworn into office is an interesting. If he actually committed felonies or misdemeanors before being elected, and is convicted of those, should we let him retain the office? The answer to that is no, but would still require impeachment to remove him.

The problem comes down to whether or not he committed ethical breaches before he was elected (which according to the evidence he admits to, I believe he did). Then what? We don't impeach because he's cleaned up his act and is not doing it now?

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Tators,

Much clearer perspective of what you initially were attempting to say and I appreciate it. It clearly puts in context your contention that Swallow’s previous actions puts “…into question his ethical conduct in regards to the requirements for serving as the state attorney general, which needs to be above any questionable behavior…” I agree that it is indeed an issue of adhering to a higher ethical standard and being able to be above reproach. The use of the word “evidence” in your earlier post results in a totally different trigger for me.

@Cincinnatus,

Tators had a much better/clearer answer than you did. Sorry, but your response would not have convinced me. Furthermore, you may have misunderstood me if you incorrectly concluded that that I have been solidly against impeachment of Swallow.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

The committee is right on one thing, only his time in office and election campaign from time he registered to seek the office of AG as was the original accusation.

Any events outside this time period are not to be investigated and information outside the time period is irrelevant and should be dismissed.

Why a panel of 9? People on trial for their life only get 6 jury members and this 9 is overkill and will do nothing but muddle the issue. I'm sure that is the intent of the democrats to bring up irrelevant issue to drag out this kangaroo court for months if not years.

In addition the panel should be sequestered with gag orders for them not to discuss this trail with the press or law enforcement departments. It is unconstitutional for this panel to invade the privacy and personal business records while Swallow was legal council for private citizens or businesses.

The plan for the purpose of this council is to smear and abuse the privileges of trust to violate privacy of lawyers and clients.

cns
St George, Utah

The impeachment process by the House is itself an investigation. So this special committee is going to investigate whether an investigation is warranted.

bill in af
American Fork, UT

John Swallow needs to "Swallow" his PRIDE and do what is best for the state of Utah. He can not be an effective AG at this point. We as a state cannot afford a 3 million dollar process in Swallow's behalf. I also disagree with the previous posts that it does not relate to previous actions prior to the election. Had the facts been known prior to the election, he would not have been elected in the first place. Former AG Mark Shurtleff is also to blame for helping to cover up the facts prior to the election.

let's roll
LEHI, UT

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.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

He thought he was the Chief Law enforcer and was even the Chief Deputy. Now, he has to deal with the people who make the laws that he is to enforce. He should have thought about his statement of actions he signed/affirmed/sworn to uphold at the Lieutenant Governor's office and at the swearing in as the Attorney General. He did not come clean with the voters prior to his election and what is even worse, that the prior AG didn't tell the voters that his Chief Deputy was full of ethical and potential lawful flaws of varying degrees. The Republicans need to do the house cleaning and it would appear that the prior AG had some questionable people working in his office taking home pretty hefty salaries. Those people were to defend our state and citizens but were involved, it appears in other than straight politics.

It is sad that the GOP and State will be put through something that will cost the taxpayers and citizens a lot of money and time for the legislators involved.

Hopefully, it won't be a protect the AG at all costs for our State which needs dollars.

Strider303
Salt Lake City, UT

Instead of the three million to investigate and probably have the committee look like inspector Clouseau clones, why not make a deal? Pay the rest of his salary, with benefits for the balance of his term, let him step down and call it square.

Maybe it would be cheaper to hire a private investigator and skip the nine member committee. The report could be presented to the legislature and they could deal with the report in a just and deliberate manor. Say during the last week of the legislature in 2014.

Just a thought.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

This was an elected office that he chose and volunteered to do when there were other eligible people in both parties that could have done the job without ethical hang-ups or other problems he CHOSE to do in his appointed and hired job as Chief Deputy Attorney General. He knows that QUID PRO QUO is against all elected and appointed offices. His predecessor, Mark Shurtleff, appears he was along for the ride as emeritus status and just thought his pushing for John Swallow until the end of his term would keep someone in office that would keep silent on Mark's activities.

As Chief enforces of the law, they know the law and the consequences that come from bending and violating the law. To say he didn't do those things when he was the Attorney General is absurd.

He acted for and on behalf of the Attorney General plenty of times as the CHIEF Deputy Attorney General and that is salient in this investigation. Even President Clinton got off in the politicking he did with those Senators. As an attorney and an elected Governor and President he knew "is" and consequences of relations with employees, moral and legally.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments