Dino Rossi's Buildergate deposition reveals little more than evasions
Dino Rossi's deposition in the lawsuit against the Building Industry Association for breaking Washington's public disclosure laws was a study in legal jostling and hostility, with the lawyer for the plaintiffs at one point accusing Rossi's counsel of harassment.
Representing the plaintiffs, retired Justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter, are attorneys Mike Withey and Knoll Lowney.
Rossi is represented by attorney Michael Patterson.
In his answers to the first round of questions, Rossi admitted to having a basic understanding of the state of Washington's campaign finance laws and that the public disclosure of campaign finances are in the public's best interest.
Gee, what a novel concept.
Attempts by Mr. Withey to get Rossi to answer even the simplest question were obstructed at every turn by Mr. Patterson, eventually leading Withey to call his behavior "the grossest obstruction he had ever seen," and declare that "I am going to call the judge." Rossi's attorney was evidently trying to run out the clock and obstruct as much as possible so Rossi could avoid having to say too much.
As Patterson observed and definitely contributed to, the tone of the participants in the testimony did little to counteract the public's negative perception of lawyers.
Rossi continued to assert that he was asked by BIAW leader Tom McCabe to intervene in a squabble between that organization and the Master Builders Association. The gist of the rift was over combining their resources in order to support "pro business candidates." At this time Rossi was "75 percent sure that I would never run for office again."
The issue of whether or not Rossi was legally a candidate at the time of his contact with MBA executives is central to Rossi's involvement in the lawsuit and Rossi stayed on message, repeating his 75 percent likelihood against his candidacy approximately twenty times during his testimony. Under state law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate their campaigns with political action committees working on their behalf.
Withey and Lowney's strategy appears to be to get Rossi to admit that he knew that the BIAW was fundraising on his behalf, even before he officially announced his candidacy on October 11, 2007.
Rossi repeatedly alluded to a 2007 Public Disclosure Commission investigation in which he was accused of trying to evade public disclosure rules, but was exonerated. At the end of today's interview, Withey asked Rossi if documents showing Rossi investigating the amount of support he would have as a candidate for governor, or information about his contact with the BIAW and the MBA before he declared his candidacy was given to the PDC during their investigation.
Basically, it turned out that those investigators didn't get all the facts and Rossi was ultimately let off the hook.
The lowdown: if you judged just from the testimony, Rossi doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and while that may be true, there was also a great deal of stonewalling and evasion going on made to look like ignorance. While Rossi was good at staying on message, after five campaigns and now two investigations, he's had far too much experience with campaign finance laws to be so slow at understanding them.
We look forward to the judgment of the court to determine if Rossi or the BIAW is guilty of evading Washington's campaign finance laws. I am glad that such laws exist to provide some measure of transparency in this often murky business of campaigning.
Representing the plaintiffs, retired Justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter, are attorneys Mike Withey and Knoll Lowney.
Rossi is represented by attorney Michael Patterson.
In his answers to the first round of questions, Rossi admitted to having a basic understanding of the state of Washington's campaign finance laws and that the public disclosure of campaign finances are in the public's best interest.
Gee, what a novel concept.
Attempts by Mr. Withey to get Rossi to answer even the simplest question were obstructed at every turn by Mr. Patterson, eventually leading Withey to call his behavior "the grossest obstruction he had ever seen," and declare that "I am going to call the judge." Rossi's attorney was evidently trying to run out the clock and obstruct as much as possible so Rossi could avoid having to say too much.
As Patterson observed and definitely contributed to, the tone of the participants in the testimony did little to counteract the public's negative perception of lawyers.
You don't have to stare at me in disdain. This is a process and we've already got a bad name, lawyers do, and lawsuits like this and your conduct during this deposition where you are staring at me in disdain...doesn't do anything with regard to the decorum of our profession.Rossi's attorney was more than happy to fill sheets of transcript with gems like this instead of allowing Withey to ask and receive answers to his questions. Rossi could have left the room for all the two warring lawyers would have noticed.
Rossi continued to assert that he was asked by BIAW leader Tom McCabe to intervene in a squabble between that organization and the Master Builders Association. The gist of the rift was over combining their resources in order to support "pro business candidates." At this time Rossi was "75 percent sure that I would never run for office again."
The issue of whether or not Rossi was legally a candidate at the time of his contact with MBA executives is central to Rossi's involvement in the lawsuit and Rossi stayed on message, repeating his 75 percent likelihood against his candidacy approximately twenty times during his testimony. Under state law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate their campaigns with political action committees working on their behalf.
Withey and Lowney's strategy appears to be to get Rossi to admit that he knew that the BIAW was fundraising on his behalf, even before he officially announced his candidacy on October 11, 2007.
Rossi repeatedly alluded to a 2007 Public Disclosure Commission investigation in which he was accused of trying to evade public disclosure rules, but was exonerated. At the end of today's interview, Withey asked Rossi if documents showing Rossi investigating the amount of support he would have as a candidate for governor, or information about his contact with the BIAW and the MBA before he declared his candidacy was given to the PDC during their investigation.
Basically, it turned out that those investigators didn't get all the facts and Rossi was ultimately let off the hook.
The lowdown: if you judged just from the testimony, Rossi doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and while that may be true, there was also a great deal of stonewalling and evasion going on made to look like ignorance. While Rossi was good at staying on message, after five campaigns and now two investigations, he's had far too much experience with campaign finance laws to be so slow at understanding them.
We look forward to the judgment of the court to determine if Rossi or the BIAW is guilty of evading Washington's campaign finance laws. I am glad that such laws exist to provide some measure of transparency in this often murky business of campaigning.
# Posted by Kathleen : 3:22 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment