It’s Not About The Attorney General

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s about adhering to constitutional law, and in Utah, a conservative Attorney General is in the cross fire.

Are you experiencing similar challenges against conservatives in your state?

Utah’s Attorney General is under FBI investigation for alleged wrong-doing, unethical associations and even criminal acts. This is not about whether he is innocent or guilty. It’s about giving him, and everyone to follow, a fair process. Here’s more background.

Take Action Utah!

If you live in Utah, we are asking you to read the following information and send an email or make a phone call to your representative before Wednesday, July 3, 2013. Here’s the contact list.  For background and main points, read on:

Political opponents and disgruntled criminals now facing prison time have charged Utah’s Attorney General John Swallow with criminal wrongdoing and impeachable actions. As the Court of Public Opinion began weighing in, the progressive Alliance for a Better Utah and Democrats put pressure on Republicans fearful of guilt by association, to launch an impeachment: a perfect strategy for destroying the super-majority of conservative Republicans in the Utah State Legislature.

Naturally some Republicans in leadership and Democrats alike who have political aspirations have found this to be an opportunity to score at the expense of a colleague that is perhaps too conservative for their liking, whether it is the defense of Utah’s marriage amendment to protecting the state from gambling or to curtail illegal immigration, all controversial issues in this traditionally conservative state.

During the Utah legislative interim session on June 19, the House wisely voted to investigate further by setting up a committee before launching impeachment proceedings.

Here is the letter I sent to members of the Utah State Legislature today (cc’d to the Senate):


To: Members of the Utah State House of Representatives
From: Cherilyn Eagar, American Leadership Fund
Re: Resolution and Documentation Regarding Forming a Special Investigating Committee

Dear Representative,

Today I found new information online to share with you that I urge you to read before Wednesday’s special session.

The first is a proposed resolution to set the rules for a House Special Investigative Committee. To view, click on the link below:


The second file is an additional letter to your legal counsel with a copy of three cases brought before the Utah Supreme Court that document the Court’s interpretation of impeachment. To view it, click on the link below:

Fellows 6-25-13 (00392814)

I am urging you to do three things at the special session.

  1. Read these documents before your special session Wednesday, July 3, 2013;
  2. Support a motion to postpone this proposed resolution for one month and,
  3. Hire independent counsel to provide a second opinion.

Here are the reasons for this request:

You will notice in the documents citing case law that the Utah Supreme Court defines the terms of impeachment far differently from your in-house legislative counsel, who is hired (or fired) by the same person that appoints the investigative committee, the Speaker of the House. That puts your in-house counsel at a disadvantage, if not under pressure to accommodate his employer.

As such, your in-house counsel erroneously claims that the Utah Supreme Court’s findings do not apply to the Legislature. During your caucus on June 19, 2013, he attempted to distinguish between a legislative impeachment and a judicial removal, yet the language is identical in case law.

The Utah Supreme Court clearly says the House cannot impeach for any acts – or even felony convictions – that occurred in a prior term as well as in the current term. It does not define as impeachable any acts that precede the elected term of office.

Meanwhile, with the position the House legal counsel has taken, your legal counsel also presumes that the legislative branch is more powerful than the judicial branch and that it has the authority to ignore the interpretation of the Court.

By so doing, he also presumes that the Utah Supreme Court will admit it ruled incorrectly as charged when this case makes its way to Utah’s highest Court. That presumption is short-sighted at best, if not constitutionally naive.

To support actions that would put the system of checks and balances out of balance is a dangerous precedent to set. It could also prove embarrassing and damaging to you and your colleagues to go down such a path.

In light of this information, I find that your in-house counsel may have a conflict of interest, and I strongly urge you to take action to require a second opinion through an independent counsel. As you know, independent counsel has been used routinely at the federal level. It seems to be a prudent decision at this juncture.

For me, the question being considered has never been about whether the Attorney General (or his predecessor) is guilty or innocent. In fact it’s not really about the Attorney General himself at all.

It’s about the Constitutional process, respecting the definition of impeachment under case law, and the Constitutional scope of the investigation, to the exclusion of political gain or fallout.

In short, it’s about you and what process you want to set forth for yourself, should such a charge be levied against you or those to follow.

Put another way: How you define fairness today for the Attorney General will also decide fairness for you tomorrow. Some elected officials unfortunately do live in glass houses.

Do you want to risk removing your own constitutional protections in order to pass this ill-conceived resolution today should you one day find yourselves the rightfully or falsely-accused target? Please do not follow the example of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. If you have not done so yet, take time to carefully read the proposed resolution as well as the document containing three separate citations of Utah case law set forth by the Utah Supreme Court.

In conclusion, I am asking members of the Utah State House of Representatives to read carefully these documents, to support a motion to postpone this resolution for a month, and to hire outside counsel to provide a second opinion to the legislature.

Thank you for your consideration.


Cherilyn Eagar
American Leadership Fund

Take Action Utah! Contact your state representative today.

6 thoughts on “It’s Not About The Attorney General”

  1. Excellent review:  Thank you–great research and action plan. Might we thank the “honest with pure intent” media for creating “news” to make a sale.
     (While the legislature is meeting might they create a council to bring charges against media individuals or groups who distort in order to sell news?)  The Court of Public Opinion is really unchecked editors and writers. 

    1. No offense, but your assertion that the Democrats and liberals in Utah have any kind of power to push for an impeachment is laughable at best. Nothing happens in Utah unless the Utah GOP gives the go ahead and the information coming out about Swallow from many sources is so revolting that not even the Utah GOP can sit back and do nothing anymore. There are plenty of legal opinions in Utah that the steps being taken by the legislature are entirely in line with the Utah constitution. Please stop trying to protect a politician just because he supposedly plays for your team. Besides, the legislature isn’t even at the point of impeachment yet and this process is already moving much too slowly for the citizens of Utah.

  2. The ONLY things that recommend Swallow to be the AG of Utah is that he’s a Mormon, a returned missionary and he has a degree from BYU.

    ONLY in Utah can such a total lack of demonstrated excellence and accomplishment and judgment and ethics get a person elected to state office.

Comments are closed.