"Something Swallow did in 2010-2011 while not a Career Service Employee was
completely legal within our system. "Aye, there's the rub.
What is clearly WRONG is not always illegal. This is not a R vs D thing.Partisans will defend a party member regardless. Swallow clearly has
ethical judgement issues. Clearly.
My2Cents makes an EXCELLENT argument!Let the Democrats pass a law
applicable to any democrat party member to make it a crime for their ethical
misconduct cause for their resignation from public service. If the democrats are
serious about their accusation then let them start with their own members
elected to representative positions.Until then, let the man have his
due process. No one in politics is without their history. Something Swallow did
in 2010-2011 while not a Career Service Employee was completely legal within our
system. You don't like it - elect someone to change it. Until then, he did
We can't fault anyone for allowing due process to run its course before
passing judgment and harsh punishment against Swallow. There is nothing wrong
with allowing him to remain innocent until proven guilty regarding a claim he
adamantly denies. If every politician were ran out of office when an accusation
is made against them, no one would hold a political office for any amount of
Could John Swallow and his fellow Republicans be so out of touch to believe this
scandal will go away if they simply refuse to talk about it?A great
message to their constituents, isn't it?
I would not be granting his office more money. I do not know that all of Rep.
King's questions to him were within that domain, but feel King should have
been allowed to inquire about how money is made by those working in the
A.G.'s office, including on the side. Nor do I find it wrong to wonder if
those in the office might get by on less, not more. If some end up taking other
jobs, competent people can be found to take their places. Money not spent on the
A.G.'s office is money that can be spent elsewhere.
This isn't about taking Swallow out of office, it is about ethics reform.
Those of you that see this as a chance to remove Swallow from office are like
vultures. Do not forget about the Constitution or Due Process. Let the
professionals do their job and quit with the peanut gallery tactics. "If there comes an impeachment process, we act as judges. For us today to
comment in any way upon the situation of the attorney general would be
inappropriate," the Senate president said. "We need to remain as
unbiased as possible if we're called on to do our constitutional duty. We
believe in due process and the presumption of innocence."
I for one believe in the Constitution. Clause 39 of Magna Carta provided:No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or
possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except
by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.Let
the man have his day in court before calling for his resignation. What if he
really is innocent?
Someone on another site posted something that really made sense: Too bad
we have a system where he must resign before he even has his day in court.
Doesn't the Bill of Rights promise a speedy and public trial? He might have
had a breach of conduct, but it still seems, if we are to treat him fairly, we
should not be doing this. And, it seems we should refashion our legal system to
fit with what the Constitution calls for.How is it just that he should
irreparably be held in public contempt without chance to clear his name? How is
it just that we demand he step down on basis of charges, alone, and before there
has been any finding of guilt? How is it just that voters went to the polls
while this was under wraps?
I believe in the constitution. Our right to due process and Clause 39 of Magna
Carta provided:No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of
his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in
any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do
so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
But . . . but . .. . Ethics?Let's see . . . . ethics . . ..
.we're looking . . . .. we're looking . . .. . Ethics?Hmmmmmmm.
Don't blame me. I voted Reyes and then Dem in the general election.
Absolute power has been going on in Utah for the last 40 years and is an
irrelevant time to bring this on to this mans back. Absolute power is rampant
and widespread in our legislature and city governments. That's what
indemnification is all about and written in to every worker and elected and
contracted and appointed government position in city, county, state, and federal
government.The push and mention of ethical government is merely the
Democrats way of posturing as they them selves will never agree to any such
legislation that would make them expose themselves to the same accusations they
are demanding against Swallow. Indemnification is a law that gives absolution
for controversial and ethical violation of trust and its applicable to any
elected person regardless of party affiliation.Let the Democrats
pass a law applicable to any democrat party member to make it a crime for their
ethical misconduct cause for their resignation from public service. If the
democrats are serious about their accusation then let them start with their own
members elected to representative positions.Its not likely there
will be any push for ethical reform by any party without first abolishing
indemnification in political services.
The chief law enforcement officer needs to resign..... Absolute power breeds
absolute corruption...... When are we going to go back to the 2 party
system?Utah is like Iran, Cuba and China .... they to are a one party