GOP state senators want information about impeachment process, Swallow investigation

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    another name for it is influence peddling. Its something the top attorney in the state or anyone in the AG's office should not be doing. Clearly the "moral compass" is not pointing true north.

    I have always thought that the AGs office should be non political. I guess I was wrong, as I understand the invitations to the lobbyists and legislature have already gone out for a fund raiser for Swallow's reelection. Nice time at the Canyons for a mere $500 donation.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    The Utah Senate response appears to be reflective and deliberative as the public interest would dictate.

  • Harley Rider Small Town, CT
    Jan. 16, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    Swallow acted inappropriately and now has to pay the price . Will any major changes come about because of this - No

    But when the economic collapse hits the fan - there where be some massive unbelievable changes

  • cah orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    @John Jackson. "What is a lobbyist even doing in the picture? To me, we should be as concerned about this as we are we are about whether Swallow broke any law."

    I totally agree. At the very least Swallow should resign or be removed from office. The Utah AG office should be governed by the law not lobbyists. Whether he broke any laws is another issue all together.

  • John Jackson Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    What is a lobbyist even doing in the picture? To me, we should be as concerned about this as we are we are about whether Swallow broke any law. How do we make this fair to everyone? For not everyone can afford a lobbyist. If lobbyists are part of our system of justice, perhaps when Miranda Rights are read to the accused, "You have the right to a court-appointed lobbyist" should be included.

  • cah orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    @John Jackson. I agree with you. The Utah AG office should not be for sale. "Justice swayed and decided by the amount of money you throw forward is not my idea of justice."

    Based on what Swallow has admitted we already know he believes lobbying is an acceptable part of our justice system. Anyone who believes that should not be part of Utah's justice system.

  • cah orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    I would like to see the Utah republican party take the position that "lobbying" has no place in our justice system. Our justice system is guided by the law. It is administered by impartial investigations, prosecutions, courts, and juries. Person's with money to hire lobbyists don't get special treatment.

  • John Jackson Sandy, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 1:48 a.m.

    Why did John Swallow refer Jeremy Johnson to a lobbyist? Why is this an acceptable thing, to pay lobbyists to use their influence to get a person out of legal troubles? Yes, we pay lawyers, but lawyers use the law to help their clients, or so I suppose. What can a lobbyist do that a lawyer cannot? Why would you refer someone to a lobbyist and not to a good lawyer? If you are going to the FTC and asking it to not charge someone with a crime, how is it that being a lobbyist will make the FTC listen to you? Why would the FTC even grant you an appointment? So, why-oh-why should Swallow have been referring Johnson to a lobbyist in the first place? Do we have a legal system where those who have enough money to hire lobbyists might make cases against them go away? Hmm, I'm wondering, can those too poor to hire their own get the court to appoint them a lobbyist, a court-appointed lobbyist? Justice swayed and decided by the amount of money you throw forward is not my idea of justice.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    Utah Art. VI
    Sec. 17, Impeachment by House,
    Sec. 18, Trail of impeachment by Senate,
    Sec. 19, Officers liable for impeachment - Judgement - Prosecution by law,
    Sec. 20, Service of articles of impeachment,
    Sec. 21, Removal of officers.

    There are at least 10 days notice after articles of impeachment are drawn up and delivered and trial by the senate. Between those dates the person can't function in office until acquitted.

    OK, what did I miss? Oh, yes, finding out if there is a reason for the House to convene and a poll by the speaker indicates two-thirds have agreed to convene.

    Let's see what the US AG's office has. At this point we have someone that should be treated innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't be proven guilty. He may well be telling the truth.

    I may have missed something, but based on my understanding, I don't see any action the Senate should be doing at this time. It would be the House that should be monitoring the investigation that has been called for.

    If John Swallow is cleared, everything should be fine. If he is not, I would believe he would step down at that point.

  • Scott Farcus Beaver, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 8:12 p.m.

    The truth sometimes is a hard pill to Swallow