Swallow vigilantes

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    Investigate the investigator while his office investigates?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    June 22, 2013 11:47 p.m.

    Legions of reputable people have testified to misconduct of the current POTUS, his administration, the IRS, and the State Dept under him.

    John Swallow has 2 convicted criminals testifying against him.

    So should we spend more effort investigating charges made by non-criminals or criminals? Who is more likely to be telling the truth? (This isn't a trick question)

    Any cry for equal treatment from the left seems disingenuous, because what they really mean by equal treatment is give their guy special treatment and look the other way when he is misbehaving. "Nothing to see here," and they believe it, because they don't look.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 22, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    I could support this letter writer IF he was willing to see justice as blind, fair, and EQUAL -- i.e., sending the exact same letter toward the POTUS.

    The sad fact of the matter is,
    those like Jerry, Mike Richards and others show a complete and utter lack of integrity with views filled with hypocrisy...rather than standing for truth and honesty, they pander merely for political bias and posturing.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2013 5:14 p.m.


    Drink the Obama kool-aid. Tell us that Benghazi was caused by a "movie". Tell us that "Fast and Furious" is a figment of our imagination. Tell us that the IRS did not grant special privileges to Democrats and deny those same privileges for Republicans. Tell us that Obama's brother did not receive a back-dated exemption for his non-profit organization named "Barack H Obama". Tell us that the Obama administration did not spy on the AP and that it does not spy on you and me. Tell us that Obama has fulfilled his duty to build a 700 mile long fence. Tell us why Hillary was taken out of the "spotlight". Tell us why the head of the IRS took the 5th. Tell us why Obama tried to divert attention from all of this by threatening war against Syria.

    How big a list do you want? How many people who have testified against Obama will it take to convince you that Obama is lying to us and that he and his administration cannot be trusted.

    Compare that with the allegations made against John Swallow. What has he DONE while in office?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 22, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    Mike Mike Mike...

    As you say, "in this country you are innocent until proven guilty."

    If you would like to take Obama to court and prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of those offenses which you cite, then go right on ahead. But as you have said, until that happens, "Obama is as innocent as a newborn baby."

    Stop the witch hunt. Support America not ideology and petty partisan games

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    Let's see.

    - Obama's administration claimed a "movie" incited the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. Was calling that a "gossip"?

    - The Obama administration gave automatic weapons to gangs in Mexico. One border agent died because of that "policy". Was that "gossip"?

    - The Obama administration allowed the I.R.S. to be used improperly against Americans. Was that "gossip"?

    - The Obama administration allowed AP to be "spied" on. Was that "gossip"?

    - The Obama administration allowed government organizations to record the caller and the receiver of every cell-phone call and every email in America. Was that "gossip"?

    - The Obama administration has been bound by oath to build a 700 mile long fence between Mexico and the United States. Less than 50 miles has been built. Obama wants illegal aliens to be treated as American citizens before any barrier is erected. Is that "gossip"?

    John Swallow and Harry Reid were accused of taking bribes by a convicted felon. There is a tape that proves that John Swallow asked a question. Harry Reid denied the allegations. That was enough for the media. John Swallon denied the allegations. Why is the media hounding John Swallow?

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 22, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    A most interesting dynamic is unfolding before our very eyes.

    On one hand, you have folks who believe that the President is guilty of anything and everything he is ever accused of even without due process. And even after due process and the accusation has been thoroughly debunked, folks still persist in their erroneous beliefs.

    Yet, these very same people are the ones defending John Swallow. In fact, no matter WHAT is reported (even when it is from ultra-conservative sources like the Dnews) they resist in believing anything negative against him.

    It is just so interesting to see this "Protect My Team At All Costs" mentality.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 22, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    I have a question and would like an answer from someone. At the caucus meeting (Republicans only), there were only about ten extra chairs for observers who were not members of the party. Many people had been turned away because there "wasn't any room."

    Then Gayle Ruzika of the Utah Eagle Forum entered and was escorted to a prime spot where a folding chair was provided for her comfort.

    Why? What is the power of Ruzika and her extremist group that leads to such special privileges? This is something DN needs to cover.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    All of the statutes are fine, but this a political matter. Politics usually trumps due process.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 22, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    "This media circus shows that the media cannot be trusted when it allows itself to be used as a gossip column.."

    How funny this quote is considering its source. How even more ironic it is that this standard seems to have some partisan variable to it that applies to one group, and yet not another.

    Here is the big issue fro Swallow... just like Obama's Holder has.... the position both men hold required public trust taht they will perform their jobs without bias, in a trustworthy way. In both cases, it is completely possible for neither man to do anything wrong to the level of an actual crime, all the while still loosing public trust. In Swallow's case, ti seems that bar has been met - and likewise in Holder's case, it is easy to say that enough doubt persists that both men should do the honorable thing for their offices, and resign, allowing for the restoration of trust.

    Did either do anything wrong - it is safe to say literally the jury is still out on that. Has confidence and the integrity of their offices been damaged enough, I would say yes.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 22, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    I agree with the letter writer and with Utah_1.

    Part of the quote that he cited is: "The Governor and other State and Judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office".

    Impeachment is for wrongdoing while holding office. Is John Swallow guilty of misusing his office? If not, then why are people yelling about impeachment?

    Have we become a society that ignores the rights of a citizen to have the State prove his guilt in court where he can face his accusors and be convicted or acquitted by a jury of his peers?

    This media circus shows that the media cannot be trusted when it allows itself to be used as a gossip column for those who would lynch an elected official before he has been tried properly.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 22, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    @Utah_1 12:32 a.m. June 22, 2013

    If you recall, the House voted to INVESTIGATE to determine whether there is cause for impeachment, and has not yet voted to impeach. That's the right way to handle the issue -- discover then, if there is cause, act.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 22, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    Well... except this isn't just an issue about a guy who may (or may not) have committed a crime. It's about one of the key positions in the criminal justice system itself.

    This odd defense of Swallow we see day to day is kind of like accusations about a Catholic Priest soliciting favors from a member of the vice squad, in the red light district, and defenders of the Priest asserting it was the cop who spoke first.

    There's a larger issue at play.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 22, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    : why not let them finish their work before looking for the oak tree?

    Sounds like good advice.... except.... why should Swallow be granted any special treatment that other elected officials are not offered? Yeah, it would be great to have a conclusion of guilt before the media piles on.... but that hasn't been the way things have been done for a long time.... why start now?

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 22, 2013 12:32 a.m.

    Article VI, Section 19. [Officers liable for impeachment -- Judgment -- Prosecution by law.] The Governor and other State and Judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office; but judgment in such cases shall extend only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit in the State. The party, whether convicted or acquitted, shall, nevertheless, be liable to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.

    I want the House to honor the Oath of Office, which at this point is to verify that there is or is not reason to begin the impeachment process.