Bumped, because the more we learn about this "lawsuit," the more apparent it is what Rossi supporters are up against as the status quo fights back through any and all means possible. Read through to the end and get to work. - Eric
Last night I said tomorrow's deposition of Dino Rossi in an Evergreen Progress-funded lawsuit is "judicially enforced political theater."
We have more proof that's the case. From today's Seattle Times coverage of the story:
Knoll Lowney, a lawyer for the two [Gregoire supporting] former justices, said he expects to question Rossi for up to four hours, starting at 10 a.m. Wednesday.[snip]
Lowney wants to invite the media and plans to provide a transcript of Rossi's testimony as quickly as possible. "The judge made it pretty clear this is about public information. Consistent with that, we think it should be public," he said.
An email from Lowney' side to Rossi's representatives confirms their insistence that the press be invited into the deposition. Somewhere along the way someone took a common sense pill and that isn't going to happen, though Rossi is going to speak to the media of his own accord before and after the deposition.
Nevertheless, as anyone who has ever worked on a competitive campaign for major elected office can tell you, 4+ hours of the candidate's time a week before Election Day is invaluable, thus making the partisan, political nature of this judicial stunt even more obvious - overall antics that produced this skeptical post from the P-I's Chris McGann.
Meanwhile, GOP legal heavyweights Slade Gorton and Mike McKay weighed in with a statement this afternoon:
"A judge should insure fairness for a candidate who is the victim of an obviously political lawsuit. Sadly, that is not the case here. Yesterday, a King County judge gave these political attorneys license to abuse the court system. Adding insult to injury, the judge stated that a deposition will allow Rossi to "confirm -- or dispel -- the allegations before the election." Any judge knows that a deposition taken by a hostile lawyer won't prove the truth of anything [emphasis added]. We have never seen a judge issue an order for immediate depositions in any other case of this nature."This isn't law - this is partisan politics and it stinks."
Pretty much. I had a regular reader email me this today, which also says a lot:
So imagine this scenario: a Republican activist lawyer, with a history of suing [Democratic] candidates for office shortly before election day, sues ACORN and has as his clients, two former judges who are major conservatives and Republican donors. They ask a judge - who was appointed by a Republican - in the closing week of the campaign to allow the lawyer to subpoena Barack Obama, shut down his campaign for a day, and come in and take his deposition regarding whether he coordinated with ACORN - based on evidence that suggests that he spoke to members of another group, separate from ACORN, 6 months before Obama decided to run for President.How do you suppose this story would be covered?
Probably in a way that would make the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth look like fine, upstanding contributors to the public discourse.
There is only one reasonable way for Rossi supporters to respond: fight back. If you're not already volunteering for get-out-the-vote activity, here's your one-stop shop for information on where to go and who to call to get involved.
If that doesn't work for you, email your friends, family, and circle of contacts...whoever you're comfortable communicating with...telling them why you're voting for Rossi. Never underestimate the power of person-to-person contact such as this. Just remember, positive messages work better than negative ones.
Not that you'd know that from the left-of-center Establishment doing everything it can to protect the status quo in Olympia.
UPDATE: A clarification based on some comments: Lowney & company wanted the media in the deposition. The judge said no. Rossi will speak to the media before and after the festivities. And as Chris McGann's post linked above indicates, Fuse was certainly pushing journalists to stake out the place anyway.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 29, 2008 07:17 AM | Email ThisI admit, I know little about Washington State Civil Procedure, but it strikes me as very unusual that the petitioning party can unilaterally invite the media to a deposition of the responding party. My gut reaction would be that it would be flatly illegal. If it's not, it should be.
Posted by: Cliff on October 28, 2008 07:19 PMAnd a judge can't just sign off on allowing a depo to be given to the press, especially sight unseen. The judge would first have to review it, and then release only those portions that would have no impact on a later trial.
The whole point is to protect the rights and privacy of both parties to the civil action. Something that is leaked or prematurely disclosed might damage a person's life or reputation beyond repair.
This is how it works in Georgia, and it might be very different in Washington.
(Disclosure: I worked for a court reporter as his office manager from 1994 to 2000.)
Posted by: David M. Hartzell on October 28, 2008 07:47 PMSadly- I doubt this will be the last of several desperate moves.
Posted by: Andy on October 28, 2008 08:40 PMIf Mr. Rossi had not played so fast and so loose with so many campaign-finance laws for so long, he might not be facing this lawsuit. (Oh, by the way, the metaphor is not the Swift Boat Liars for Bush, but the Paula Jones lawsuit. Please quote a Republican who condemned that political stunt.)
Posted by: tensor on October 28, 2008 09:02 PMI received a phone call today at my office, from a guy by the name of Joshua. He said he was calling from the Governors' office and wanted to talk to, and named my boss by his first name.
Of course I put the call through.
It was her office alright, her local campaign office wanting him to volunteer.
Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 28, 2008 09:02 PMThere are no judges in a deposition, so if anyone but Rossi and the two lawyers are in the room, his lawyer and Rossi should walk the F out.
Id rather be in contemp of this bastard judge then allow this to be a 3 ring Gregoire circus.
Not going to happen!
Posted by: gs on October 28, 2008 09:09 PMAny proof to offer, or are you just going to throw out accusations and lies?
Posted by: David on October 28, 2008 09:13 PMWow, ten cents... I'm sure you'd feel the same way about this if Queen Chrissy - the Tribal Ho, were the one getting shafted... right?
Posted by: Hinton on October 28, 2008 10:04 PMWhat's to condemn? Was Clinton or Kerry deposed a few days before their elections?
Of course not, idiot. There's nop connection between any of these things and this situation... so please; step away from the bong BEFORE you post, OK?
Posted by: Hinton on October 28, 2008 10:11 PMPerjury is (a) lying under oath, in (b) a matter material to the case. The judge ruled that Ms. Lewinsky, and all testimony from and about her, was immaterial to the case of Jones vs. Clinton. Therefore, nothing Ms. Lewinsky said, and nothing Mr. Clinton said about her, could ever possibly be used in a perjury case against either of them.
But your blithering wrongness, as always, goes much further, Hinton. Clinton never lied under oath. In the civil case of Jones vs. Clinton, Paula Jones' lawyers presented Mr. Clinton with a list of activities, which they defined as "sex". Nowhere on that list appeared the activities in which Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky had consensually engaged. Therefore, his claim to not having had sex with her was correct, based on the definition provided to him. As a former professor of law at an Ivy League school, Mr. Clinton knew that no defendant ever has an obligation to aid his persecutors, and so he did not correct their inadequate definition. (That conservatives have such foolish and bizarre definitions of sex is not the fault of us liberals.)
Posted by: tensor on October 28, 2008 10:34 PMClinton admitted that he "Misled the American people" which indicates deception...ergo...A lie. Clinton's other repeated lies during this time were ones of omission rather than commission, but lies nonetheless.
Nice try though, Tensor.
I wasn't going to announce before I had some support lined up behind me and then to do that I had to explain to the supporters why I wanted to run, how much I needed and so forth. Until the very last minute I was thinking of backing out.
tensor, how does that fit your definition? That was what Rossi was doing. Those on this board never really knew for certain Rossi was running, but yet, we strongly thought it. There could have been circumstances where Rossi could have seen Gregoire was doing a fairly good job and he couldn't win, but under your and the socialist party game, he should have already declared his candidacy.
This may be above your pay grade, but at least I have given you a shot at explaining.
Posted by: swatter on October 29, 2008 07:10 AMEric Earling has spent a lot of time complaining about the timing and procedure involved in the deposition. And I would have to agree that have the media present would not be appropriate. But the basic factual issue is important. Did Rossi really solicit funds for an "independent" expenditure to benefit his campaign for Governor?
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 29, 2008 07:32 AM
Oh puhleeze. Are you going to now ask us what the definition of "IS" is??????
No, it isn't important enough that it couldn't wait till after the election if you still felt you needed an answer. Pope, there are a lot of other stuff that goes on every day in State government that you don't seem upset about. These translate to billions of dollars of waste, and yet, you seem obsessed with following the D mantra to keep a defective governor in her selected position.
Hey, here is an idea for you, why don't you go after the convicted McDermott for the illegal tape he got in his possession and released it? Want me to go on?
Posted by: swatter on October 29, 2008 08:04 AMIt's just that you do all of those things so very, very, badly.
In 1854, in some minor court case or another, some court ruled that slavery was legal.
Apparently, in your bizarro world, because a court "ruled" it makes it perfectly OK.
Well, the courts have also ruled that Jim "Yeah, I'm a communist scumbag, what about it?" McDermott DID break the law... and I have yet to see you condemn him... or Jefferson... or Franks... or Studds... or Rostenkowski... or Mel "The Monkey Spanker" Reynolds for their activities.
So, we get that the BDS double-standard is in full play with you.
Pity that really doesn't excuse a thing, does it? Nor does it have anything to do with Stevens, who should resign post haste.
When have you called for a leftist lawmaker to resign when THEY break the law?
Never?
Of course not. Why would I even bother to ask.
Posted by: Hinton on October 29, 2008 09:32 AMLet's see Rossi is illegally colluding with the BIAW.
Uncle Ted is convicted of corruption.
Princess Palin has already been cited for unethical abuse of the public trust.
Ted Young - not yet guilty as charged, but on his way.
Yup, Abramoff, DeLay, Safavian, Vitter, Mark (pedophile) Foley, Larry (wide stance) Craig.
No need to go back 30 years for republican corruption - it all so recent.
Glad to see you guys are defending the corruption. Now I know where your values lie or should I say what your lying values are..
Posted by: correctnotright on October 29, 2008 11:54 AMGuilty of what? Rossi isn't under investigation here.
I sure hope his wins again for the 4th time.
Posted by: Uncle Steve on October 29, 2008 01:16 PM- The tribes help pay for the third recount and then Gregoire waves the state's cut in the expanding gambling she authorizes.
- Gregoire signs a law forcing all state employees into the AFSCME union, creating thousands of new union members instantly and forcing them to pay $75/month in "dues" which is actually used to buy all of the anti-Rossi advertisement you see on TV.
- Gregoire signs a law making her negotiations with the public employee's union a state secret beyond the reach of public disclosure requests. And now she's receiving millions in compaign spending from them while in the middle of negotiating new contracts. Hrm...conflict of interest?
Shall I go on?
Posted by: blindman on October 29, 2008 03:26 PMWrong, o glue sniffing one...U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.
"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.
You're not only wrong, you're d@mn wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/
Posted by: Das Baron Von Zippee on November 4, 2008 11:56 AM