Ethics group denies Grossberg’s motion to dismiss inquiry, but he tries again
The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission on Tuesday denied a request to dismiss an inquiry into alleged violations of the state ethics code by Louisville Democratic Rep. Daniel Grossberg.
Grossberg and his lawyers had argued in the Aug. 18 request that the attorney contracted by the commission to investigate was not properly authorized.
But that wasn’t the end of Grossberg’s attempt to stop the ethics commission inquiry.
Grossberg’s attorney, Anna Whites, told commission members Tuesday morning she had just filed another motion to dismiss the commission’s inquiry into her client’s behavior, arguing that two of Grossberg’s former Democratic colleagues who asked for his conduct to be investigated in the first place violated procedures required when filing a complaint.
“As we look deeper, and finally publicly, into this case, we will find, top to bottom that it was a political hit job,” Whites said Tuesday, claiming again that Grossberg had been a victim of an “abuse of process,” “retaliation,” and “political misconduct.”
Tuesday’s request is at least the third attempt on the part of Grossberg and his attorneys to block the ethics probe from advancing.
In June, before the first hearing, Grossberg filed a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court asking for a judge to intervene; that request was denied. The motion to dismiss filed Aug. 18 was denied following an executive session of the commission Tuesday. The second motion was brand new to many in the room at the meeting Tuesday, having just been filed earlier that morning.
It’s the latest chapter in an ethics saga dating back to the summer of 2024 and hitting a crescendo this July when the commission found probable cause that Grossberg had violated the state ethics code on three different counts.
Those counts include an incident when he invited a young woman to his legislative office, asked her sexually intimate questions and offered her alcohol; made intimidating statements and actions toward a private business; and attempted to obtain contributions in exchange for possible state catering business. An evidentiary public hearing in the case is scheduled for November.
Scrutiny into Grossberg’s behavior began when the Legislative Research Commission investigated him following accusations of inappropriate interactions with multiple women in mid-2024. The Herald-Leader later reported the stories of several women in politics who claimed Grossberg harassed them, as well as an incident at a Louisville strip club where he threatened the business after he was kicked out and permanently banned for inappropriately touching a dancer.
Grossberg and his legal team have consistently denied serious wrongdoing and have argued that he was bullied by members of Democratic House leadership for his Jewish faith and neurodivergence.
Grossberg and his team said they’d file a similar suit in federal court to the one that was dismissed in Franklin Circuit Court, but have yet to do so.
On Tuesday, Whites said she had deposed former House Democratic legislative leaders Rachel Roberts and Cherlynn Stevenson last week, two of the people who filed the formal complaints against Grossberg with the commission. She spoke of the deposition transcripts as if they invalidated their complaints against him. The Herald-Leader has not seen the transcripts.
“They based it on anonymous assertions, on rumor, on gossip, maybe on a newspaper article in some cases,” Whites said, adding that “there was no merit to it, (and) the complainants mismanaged their office in a way that is shocking and appalling and should completely invalidate any allegations they made under oath.”
Whites also claimed in her client’s Aug. 18 motion to dismiss that since the Legislative Ethics Commission’s contract with Jenkins, an outside attorney who has been representing the body during its inquiry, had not been approved by the legislature’s Government Contract Review Committee, the matter should be dismissed.
“The government contract was not applied for in the manner required by statute or regulation,” Whites claimed, saying it was a “big concern,” since all of the evidence, witness testimony and deliberation in the case has been confidential so far.
The Government Contract Review Committee voted to reject the contract in early July, with the committee’s two Democratic members voting against the motion to disapprove. However, the contract, $100,000 for legal services covering the entire current fiscal year from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026, was retroactively approved during a meeting on Tuesday, according to commission member Christopher Lilly.
Jenkins, who sat next to Whites as she made her case Tuesday, called the cases Whites cited to back up her argument “not appropriate and/or not on point.”
He said he informed the commission of the Government Contract Review Committee’s vote prior to a preliminary hearing into Grossberg’s conduct and he “was told to proceed.”
As for Whites’ characterization of the transcript of the deposition of Stevenson and Roberts, Jenkins said it was “to a large extent, mischaracterized.”
