Thank you for reading the MtDemocrat.com digital edition. In order to continue reading this story please choose one of the following options.
If you are a current subscriber and wish to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com, please select the Subscriber Verification option below. If you already have a login, please select "Login" at the lower right corner of this box.
Special Introductory Offer
For a short time we will be offering a discount to those who call us in order to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your print subscription. Our customer support team will be standing by Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm to assist you.
If you are not a current subscriber and wish not to take advantage of our special introductory offer, please select the $12 monthly option below to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your online subscription
I read in the Mountain Democrat that the trial of Supervisor Nutting is coming up, but in the article I read something made me wonder what is going on.
So far the articles in the Mountain Democrat have focused on the two sides of the conflict — the DA saying that he believes Mr. Nutting to be guilty of the crimes charged, and Mr. Nutting saying he is not guilty and that this is a political vendetta on the part of DA Vern Pierson and Auditor-Controller Joe Harn. The trial not having started yet and no evidence having been presented, I confess to being as ignorant as most others regarding where the truth lies between the two positions. What I don’t understand and what makes me wonder what is going on is the statement by prosecutor Clinchard that he intends to pursue the convening of a civil grand jury to remove Mr. Nutting from office even if he’s found to be innocent.
It seems to me that trying to remove one from office even if found not guilty of any wrongdoing is purely political. Mr. Clinchard’s remark makes me wonder if there is something to what Mr. Nutting has said in previous articles in the Mountain Democrat.