What about the actions of John Swallow? I have ignored the statements of Mr. Johnson. I have not ignored the statements from John Swallow and the documents and recording already released. From the recording, I have focused on just John Swallows statements.
Do I believe that I believe that John Swallow was part of a plot to bribe Sen. Reid? No.
Do I have concerns? Yes. (The following is my opinion. I am not a judge or an attorney, nor currently serving in the legislature.)
What about the apparent intentional hiding of a potential required disclosure of a conflict of interest, P Solutions LLC, (3) times, which has ties to Richard Rawle, and whose only revenue initially came from the same account that Johnson paid Rawle from? OK, I could believe that John Swallow just missed on March 9, 2012, but how do you explain the March 15, 2012 and January 10, 2013 forms with them not showing up, even under his wife? How do you explain the money being refunded by P Solutions LLC and being repaid by a different account less than 1 year from the filings?
As I stated before, 76-8-109 (4) doesn't have a penalty, as it is a protection from violating other subsections. I don't know if it could be proved he intentionally lied on the form. I have personally filled out that form several times and could give him a pass for missing something on the March 9, 2012 version, but I have not heard a defense on the other two versions.
Since that appears in this case not to have worked, (the incentive to fill out on the form all items required by 76-8-109 (4) ) IF I were still in the Utah Legislature, I would have pulled a bill file already to add the same coordinating clauses and penalty as the other required financial disclosure forms, and I would have requested the House Judiciary Standing Committee to put John Swallow on the witness stand, and depending on his answers to questions on the committee, decide if this, or the House Boat, 67-16-5 . or the reported Pay to Play Campaign Fundraising for Mark Shurtleff , 76-8-105 , reach to the point of impeachment. IF warranted, I would have a committee report read to the House recommending the Speaker poll the members to see if they have the required 2/3 to impeach. If not, John would be clear of the threat of impeachment.
I have not asked for John to step down, as I don't know all the answers to the above items.
I have seen the March 9, 2012 , March 15, 2012 , and January 10, 2013 forms and have discussed the state law section I have quoted with individuals that know more about it than I do. I thought someone, a member of the legislature, was going to run the bill, but I haven't see it yet, which means it would be more apt to be done during interim.
Depending on how the above possible scenario plays out, and the results of the answers provided John could be impeached before the end of the year or that threat would be extinguished. I have no clue what the senate would decide with those charges if they decided them to be valid.