The standard exists of innocent until proven guilty. We should all relax take a
deep breath and let the facts come. If he is guilty so be it but if he is
exonerated this has been an expensive witch hunt.
@ DanteI agree with you to a point BUT you are not an attorney, THE
Attorney General of the State of Utah.If I was in his position, every
scrap of paper that could be evidence to show I had faithfully fulfilled my
obligations and been honest in my dealings would be saved for a minimum of 5
years.If I was in the same mold of Richard Milhouse Nixon, I'd
destroy as much evidence as I could as fast as I could.I'm a nobody
but I have a business and nothing is destroyed for at least 5 years and in some
cases it's stored for 10 years just in case.Have I been sued? Yes and
that very evidence that I had saved and stored ended that lawsuit in the first
hearing in front of a Judge.Is AG Swallow innocent of any wrong doing?
Maybe, but he is demonstrating that he is guilty by his actions.I
personally hope he is blameless for the sake of his family.
DanteSalt Lake City, UTI'm no fan of John Swallow. His actions
may, or may not be criminal, but he has acted unethically and stupidly. Still,
attacking him because he hasn't preserved all his emails on his home or
office computer seems extreme. ============ Let's
see --- His Office Computer, His Home Computer,His
Lap-Top,His cellphone, andHis PDAALL just happened
to "crash", All just happened to "delete" those records,
and ALL just happened at the same time?Only a shifty
crooked Lawyer who is trying to hide something he did he KNEW was wrong or
against the LAW would be smart to know everything that an Investgation would be
looking at would be smart enough to do all that!
Considering there was (or obviously would be) an investigation, Swallow had
every incentive to preserve all his communication records... IF he was innocent.
The only reason he had for deleting such huge amounts of possibly
incriminating evidence is if he is indeed guilty. He knew that deleting the info
might look bad, but at least there was still a question mark at the end of the
sentence instead of an exclamation point. At this point, John, there
has been way too much incriminating evidence brought to light for you to ever
serve effectively in your current political position. I'm a Republican and
would like to believe you are innocent. But I can't deny the obvious. Even
if you get off on a technicality, a dark cloud of suspicion will forever hang
over your head causing most voters to never trust you again. Before
this gets any worse, your best option would be to immediately resign and get
back into private business again... away from the media eye in order to begin
the process of getting this behind you. At this point of the game, the cards are
stacked too heavily against you.
Listening to John Swallow on Doug Right's show this morning, he claims that
IT deletes its backups of emails after 30 days. If that's true, maybe the
IT department needs a new policy.
Mr. Swallow wants us to believe he is qualified to continue to serve as AG, both
because he is competent and ethical.I'm willing to wait until
all the evidence is in before I decide on the issue of his ethics, but as an
attorney with litigation experience I've seen enough to conclude he's
incompetent.Someone who is as anxious as Mr. Swallow says he is to
have all the fact come out so his name can be cleared would surely protect all
of the information that now seems to have been "lost." A
first year lawyer understands litigation holds and how to safeguard and protect
information that might be discoverable. An attorney with Mr. Swallow's
experience not only knows those things but expects those his office investigates
and prosecutes to protect and produce such information. That he has
failed to do so can only be explained by one of two things: 1)his incompetence;
or 2) his conscious efforts to hide/destroy facts. The first is
beyond dispute at this point, regardless of whether the second is ever proved.
@DanteYou deleting e-mails from your personal account is far different
from the standard for business. It is literally against the law to delete most
corporate e-mail traffic.And the standard for the Attorney General of the
state is just as high. If Swallow allowed that to happen there had better be all
sorts of paper correspondence at the time the first files were lost. Otherwise,
there is an ethical problem for the AGs Office where they lacked controls over
documents in their possession.For this pattern of loss to go on over a
long period of time is inexcusable.
I guess I'll just "swallow" this story hook, line and sinker. Not!
It's Reich's JOB to be 'dramatically suspicious".
@DanteC'mon! ALL the files deleted on EVERY device he has? All
during the same time period?You really believe that this is just an
natural everyday occurrence?Dang RIGHT it's like the Magna
Carta...when the AG is caught on camera in a donut shop fretting over a possible
paper trail that would connect him to illicit deeds, and any evidence that could
bury him has systematically vanished, Reich is doing exactly right. I like that
he is emphatic, serious, and full of business, unlike Swallow.And
the other side of the coin...that the State has NO back-up mechanism for backing
up all of IT'S, not Swallow's-- communiques is positively pathetic.But Reich is doing the job we are paying him to do.
This is sounding more and more like Nixon who told the American people on
television..."I am not a crook." We saw it again with
Clinton who did not have relations with that woman.I want to see
someone draw a political cartoon of John Swallow saying "I'm
innocent" with smoking guns sticking out of his mouth pointing in every
direction.He and his attorney's denials would be comical if it
weren't for the fact that this is costing the taxpayers of Utah millions.
I'm no fan of John Swallow. His actions may, or may not be criminal, but he
has acted unethically and stupidly. Still, attacking him because he hasn't
preserved all his emails on his home or office computer seems extreme. I delete
dozens, often hundreds, of emails every day.Watching this Steve
Reich lawyer on television, he seemed dramatically suspicious about the matter,
as if Swallow had destroyed an extant copy of the Magna Carta. Reich's
manner reminded me of a scoutmaster telling scary stories to 12 year-olds around
the glowing embers of a dying camp fire. His eyes widened as he hit the scary
parts; all he lacked was a flashlight under his chin.Doesn't
the AG's office have a main email server that holds all the old emails
Swallow sent, received, and deleted while working there? Didn't
Swallow's accusers, like Jeremy Johnson, save the texts and emails they
received from Swallow?
The hard drive on his home computer crashed.That is, if "crashed"
means "got beaten to bits with a sledgehammer", then yes...it crashed.
It is amazing that allegedly the team on both sides cannot get or access the
e-mails from the various devices that he had assigned to him. The other part is
the addresses of the people the e-mails were sent and received from. I suppose
they are all gone also. The State of Utah IT and the Attorney General is
supposed to have archive copies of the files that were sent through their
system, also. There is more to the story to follow and not just from his
attorney of where there are many in the AG.
Of COURSE he says that. And he continues to delay the inevitable while racking
up $700 per hour in a losing cause.What did you expect Swallow's
lawyer to say..."He did it on purpose to hide evidence?"
Some lawyers have no problem waking up every morning and "going after
people" They tear people's lives apart and go home at night and sleep
well. Mr Swallow is getting a little of his own medicine. It's all about
either money or power.
if John Swallow was the type of individual who would try to violate the law in
any form the neighborhood caucus would not have detected the problem.
No one else has had the data problems of John Swallow, no one. This does not
bode well for the AG.
His lawyer said it so it must be true, right? Right.....There is
just too much surrounding this matter that looks bad. Thing after thing. The
AG needs to go.
His lawyer left himself an escape hatch when he prefaced his statement with
"to my knowledge". When it turns out his client did deliberately erase
all this information the attorney will have plausible deniability. Call me
skeptical that all of this was some how a mysterious accident.
From the article:"To my knowledge, the attorney general never deleted
any emails with the purpose of trying to cover anything up or trying to hide
anything," Rod Snow said.That statement says nothing. It is full of
holes.For example, "To my knowledge..." means that the lawyer
never saw Swallow do it and/or Swallow never confessed doing it to his
lawyer.Then there is the, "with the purpose of trying to cover
anything up..." means that maybe he deleted things for other reasons.In short, the statement by the lawyer tells us nothing at all. He's
parsed all the meat out of his statement.Methinks Lawyer Snow should
change professions. Perhaps he could make Swiss cheese.
Best line from the article:"The question I would ask the
attorney general is, 'Would you believe this story if one of the people you
were investigating claimed this accidental mass loss?'" Jowers said.
"I think the attorney general's office would treat this story with a
lot of skepticism."I believe that wraps it up
We should never depend on lawyers to tell us what is wrong or what is right
because they actually don't know. Knowing the difference has been programed
out of their system.
My error. Should WE believe him?
Should be believe him?