[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I understand what you are saying but I think you don't understand what was happening in this deposition. I don't mean that as a smart alecky remark but I just don't think you get it. If an attorney asks you "Are you aware of a conversation on such and such a date, between Joe Blow, VP of whatever at company xyz (one of your many subsidiaries) and John Dow at company abc regarding this or that?", you may think you are being asked one question but you are really being asked about your awareness of the conversation itself, the correct title of the person involved, the correct legal name of the entity that person is associated with, whether the conversation you think you might recall was actually on that date, and on and on.

Well, I am an attorney, and if I was deposing Rick Scott and he was handing me a bunch of "I don't knows" I would naturally assume he was being purposely evasive.

There is always an instruction at the beginning: If you need clarification, ask for it. Which he does when necessary. If a question is truly badly formed, Scott's attorney should have been making objections to the form of that "bad" question.

Originally Posted by bbrontson

That was why there were so many I don't knows. If you watched the full deposition, there were numerous questons where he was asked things in relation to Florida counties which he did not know so he repeatedly had to say I don't know and ask the attorney to ask a better question.

You sound like Rick Scott's Public Relations person at this point with all the rationalization and excuse making. Which, I'm sure these days is NOT a position anyone would want.

Originally Posted by bbronston

You know, legal questions must have proper foundation and must ask the right questions of the right individual and, at least in this deposition, the questions almost required an I don't know or I can't recall or answer the question responsibly. That was the attorney's fault, not Scott's.

Questioning during a deposition is a lot less restricted than at trial.

With the level of corruption at his company, it's actually worse for him to "not know" as much as he "doesn't know" than for him to have had some inkling about what's going on.

Doesn't say alot about leadership ability if you "don't know" your company is perpetrating one of the largest fleecings of government run healthcare on your watch.

Originally Posted by bbronston

I would really love to see the deposition where he used the fifth over and over as has been described in these threads. I thought I found one but it was a comedy sketch. Anyone have a link?

Not all depositions are taped. A transcript would probably be easier to find somewhere.

[Maggi07]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

You sound like Rick Scott's Public Relations person at this point with all the rationalization and excuse making. Which, I'm sure these days is NOT a position anyone would want.

I'm starting to wonder......

[bbronston]

LOL....uh, no...not on the Scott team but I do have a natural tendency to see both sides of most arguments and, when I see only one side discussed, I find myself jumping in to make sure both sides are presented. Honestly, folks...just trying to be sure that there are two sides for consideration. The only thing Scott has done that I like is the rail thing. Other than that, I don't particularly like him or his style--believe me or not...I don't really care.

TriMT7, I agree with what you wrote and what you wrote is exactly what you see throughout the video. His attorneys object to the questions (which even I as a non-attorney can understand) and he then goes on to answer the questions he can answer. Maybe you can answer this, though. It seemed to me that I could have gotten better answers from him by asking better questions and I could form the better questions in my head as I listened. My first thought was that the attorney doing the deposition was incompetent but then I thought maybe it was done with a purpose knowing that Scott as an attorney wouldn't be dumb enough to answer questions which appear to answer one question but actually confirm other facts that had not yet been established. Does that happen sometimes as a technique?

Anyone have a link to the transcript with all the 5ths? The political videos I've seen are useless. There's no context.

[Maggi07]

I just found it: Rick Scott Deposition

I did not read it yet, and I won't have time to in the near future, but I will when I can set time aside.

[bbronston]

Thanks, Maggi07, but don't bother. I don't know what suit the deposition was for (appears to have something to do with telecommunications and software, not medicare) but, from the very beginning, Scott's attorney explains that he won't be answering any questions because the company was being investigated at the time for criminal activity. No attorney, I would hope, would ever allow their client to say anything that might put themselves in a compromised position, whether justified or not and that's exactly what you'll read here. Yes, I'm sure to some that is the same thing as being a mobster refusing to testify in court but it is not and I hope TriMT7 will confirm what I am saying. BTW, the attorney deliberately points out that using one's 5th amendment right is, according to the US supreme court, a right of the innocent contrary to the claims of many here. Doesn't mean he's not a weasel but it DOES NOT prove that he is and some of the "close minded" around here just can't grasp this fact.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

But, you really shouldn't plead the fifth unless you have something to hide, or because your answer could result in criminal liability.

Hey TriMT7, I just realized that it was you who already mentioned that the transcript with all the "5ths" was about a contract dispute. Unfortunately, I think most of the one-sided thinkers around here don't understand that this was not related to the big question that everyone points to, the medicare fraud question. Are you aware of any transcripts where he is being questioned or tried on the medicare fraud question where he refuses to testify? To me, that is the only situation that is germaine to all of these anti-Scott discussions.

Regarding your description of the 5th, you wrote: "you really shouldn't plead the fifth unless you have something to hide, or because your answer could result in criminal liability." Your take seems a bit prejudicial.

I looked it up and found this:
The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." This last sentence says what I was trying to say in a much more concise way. You disagree?