Attorney General John Swallow didn't delete emails to hide anything, lawyer says

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:13 p.m.

    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.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    @ Dante

    I 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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Salt Lake City, UT
    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.


    Let's see ---

    His Office Computer,
    His Home Computer,
    His Lap-Top,
    His cellphone,
    His PDA

    ALL just happened to "crash",
    All just happened to "delete" those records,
    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!

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    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.

  • PookyBear84010 KAYSVILLE, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    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.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    You 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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    I guess I'll just "swallow" this story hook, line and sinker. Not!

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    It's Reich's JOB to be 'dramatically suspicious".

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:01 a.m.


    C'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.

  • DraperUteFan Draper, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Dante Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    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?

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    The hard drive on his home computer crashed.
    That is, if "crashed" means "got beaten to bits with a sledgehammer", then crashed.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    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?"

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    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.

  • ray vaughn Ogden, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    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.

  • stevo123 slc, ut
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    No one else has had the data problems of John Swallow, no one. This does not bode well for the AG.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    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.

  • rbgntx Kaufman, TX
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    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

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    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.

  • BYR West Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    My error. Should WE believe him?

  • BYR West Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 7:17 p.m.

    Should be believe him?