December 4, 2025 • 12 mins
Last year, Governor Andy Beshear, Lt. Governor Jacqueline Coleman, and leaders of the Kentucky House and Senate Democratic Caucuses callled for Daniel Grossberg's resignation over allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior toward women.
Grossberg has maintained his innocence and refused to step down.
With 39 of 42 ethics charges now dismissed, Kentucky State Representative Daniel Grossberg (KY-30) announced that he will finally get to question his accusers in an ethics commission hearing in January.
Grossberg sat down with Terry Meiners on WHAS Radio to discuss his status and some basics of the remaining 3 claims.
Grossberg has maintained his innocence and refused to step down.
With 39 of 42 ethics charges now dismissed, Kentucky State Representative Daniel Grossberg (KY-30) announced that he will finally get to question his accusers in an ethics commission hearing in January.
Grossberg sat down with Terry Meiners on WHAS Radio to discuss his status and some basics of the remaining 3 claims.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're a news radio eight forty whs Terry miners here.
A couple of days ago, I tweeted a message from
state Representative Daniel Grosberg, who is in the studio with
me right now. Daniel, welcome back, go to see you.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
I want to read your statement on here from the
Representative Daniel Grosberg on the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission's decision
to finally schedule a hearing. After nearly two years, the
Legislative Ethics Commission has finally set a hearing where I
will have a chance to clear my name. The Commission
has ended its attorney's fishing expedition into my private medical
(00:38):
records and rejected attempts to block my ability to cross
examine witnesses. Well, this sounds pretty Harriet. Your story has
been interesting here in the last year. This was something
that I think first popped up in the Lexington Herald Leader.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yes, about ninety percent of the coverage has been that
one paper.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
And I read a piece today that says you're nowt
your hearings. So when is that going to happen?
Speaker 2 (01:02):
First off, it's supposed to be split between the end
of January and the beginning of February. It was actually
scheduled for last Tuesday, but the Enforcement Council, the equivalent
of a prosecutor, requested an extension so that he could
review my medical records, which are not relevant, and he
was denied access to my medical records, but still got
(01:22):
his extension for whatever reason.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
So interesting. Clearly, we all saw the evolution of this
story move along here. And there were like forty two
different claims made, but thirty nine of them were already
pushed aside, were they not?
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Yeah, thirty nine were dismissed as not having probable cause.
And probable cause just means that with the evidence presented
by itself and no defense presented, could a person reasonably
believe that it's true. So thirty nine out of the
forty two they thought, even without me defending myself, didn't
pass the basic sniff test.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
And it says the three counts here in the Herald
Leader I'm meeting you face in front of the Commission
include intimidation of a Louisville's strip club that banned you
for life, attempts to solicit a donation from a subway
restaurant owner in exchange for a benefit, and you were
conduct in twenty twenty three toward a Lexington City councilwoman.
(02:19):
So these are the three things that are left to
be addressed, and now you get to address the challenges.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Yeah, and most importantly, I get to present my own defense.
The enforcement council made this ridiculous motion in liminy, which
is a fancy term for blocking my defense, and he
requested twenty six or something things to be excluded where
I couldn't present any evidence or any testimony or any
witnesses on my own behalf something that would be unprecedented
(02:47):
in a real court. And he was denied that. So
now I'm going to be allowed the basic constitutional right
to defend myself.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I'm happy that you knew how to pronounce in lemony practice.
I think that's a character in Dickens play. But that's
what that is. That's someone trying to run blocking to
keep information from getting into a legal situation.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
And here are a few of the examples that are absurd.
So in the depositions, we learned by their own admission
that the complainants, the people who filed the complaints, did
not have any personal knowledge of anything that was in
the complaint. They admitted that what they did was they
gathered all the rumors they could find and to use
a direct quote through the kitchen sink at me their words,
(03:30):
no investigation, no reason to believe it was true. He
wanted to block us from presenting that. He also wanted
to block us from presenting what might be motivations, and
without us saying what the motivation was. He moved that
I couldn't present any evidence about religious discrimination or bullying
in the caucus. His words, very curious that he'd want
to try and stop that. He's also wanting to prevent
(03:53):
us from discussing the missing evidence. There's a lot of
documents and electronic evidence that he claimed existed that we
requested copies of that magically has since disappeared, and you know,
twenty or so other things that he's just trying to block.
And the Commission said he can't preemptively block my defense, but.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
He would have to produce things that he claimed exist.
If you get to this hearing, you get to demand those,
don't you correct?
Speaker 2 (04:20):
And we have demanded and he has failed to produce it,
and in some cases has admitted that it was a
bluff that those things existed, and they no longer do exist.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
I know you're already working on your next legislative session.
There are things we'll talk about here in a moment
or two. But there have been prominent Democrats who said
you should have stepped down. But now now that thirty
nine of the forty two claims have been pushed aside,
are they now reaching back out and saying, hey, Daniel,
maybe I was too quick to judge.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yes, but they characterize it as they were misled, because
that's what it was, is they were misled. You know
that happened when the thirty nine of the forty two
are pushed aside. And the longer this goes on and
the more that comes out, the more that I seeing
those overtures. I wouldn't say that it's universal, but I
have regular conversations with members of both parties. I'm working
(05:07):
on legislation with them. You know, I'm active in my committees,
active in the community itself. And more than anything, they're
asking me not to disclose certain things that came out
in the deposition. And in fact, my attorney made a
motion to protect some other legislators because in the depositions
the accusers not only admitted to very serious crimes that
(05:28):
they themselves were a party two. But they name names
of other legislators and I'm not interested in dragging other
legislators into this. But the whole thing, to quote the
vice chair of the Commission, if we don't put up
some guardrails, it'll be a zoo.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I don't want a zoo, but you released all the
animals after me. It's going to be a zoo, even
if I have to be the zookeeper. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Well, your job is obviously to look out for your
own interests. But other people could get dragged into the
daylight who don't want.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
To be there, correct, because they're neither the ones making
the complaints, nor are they the ones that come. Plants
are about and without giving specifics. And my attorneys have
warned me one of the very serious crimes, a felony
that could land me in prison that I was accused of.
One of the accusers said in the deposition, she ultimately
realized it wasn't me who committed the crime. It was
(06:17):
and then she inserted the name of another legislator.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Oh good, yes, wow, you say in your statement in
italics the commission or in bold face, actually the Commission
has stated there was no sexual harassment, and you say
the only allegations that remain involved minor issues related to
the interpretation of language. What do you mean by that
interpretation of languagees.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
First, if I could just very briefly read an excerpt
of the commission itself, go ahead. The Enforcement Council, Jenkins says,
the LRC sexual harassment policies are not at all relevant.
This has not been an investigation of sexual harassment. This
is investigation on whether respondent committed violations of the Code
of Ethics. Soer he asked for a clarification, saying, if
(07:02):
this is not about sexual harassment, we have a huge
problem because the newspapers and complainants and others keep saying
that's what's before the commission. He then interjects her and says, quote,
I've been very clear from the beginning what we've been
dealing with here is the Code of Ethics. That's it.
Council has raised isshes of sexual harassment. So, in other words,
gaslighting my attorney that you guys are the ones talking
(07:23):
about it. But what I mean by this is about
language is in the context of all three things, these
are the only ones that have even the most slight
nugget of truth an incident took place and what the
language was and what was meant by it. So I'm
going to use the least harmful of the three as
an example. I called the Subway sandwich shop owner on
(07:45):
behalf of the Democratic Caucus to request a five hundred
dollars contribution. He agreed to make the contribution and then said,
you know, I'd really left to cater an event at
the Capitol sometime. Do you know how I can go
about doing that? So I told him, I think there's
an official catering list. Let me find out how you
can apply to be an official caterer at the Capitol.
(08:06):
That's the version that he tells. I have documentary evidence
that I couldn't present at the preliminary hearing, you know,
the one several months ago that shows that that was
the conversation, but the game of telephone ten steps later,
it's Grosberg promised an exclusive catering contract to the Subway
sandwich shop owner, which is not the case, but the
interpretation of what does it mean when I say, let
(08:27):
me find out how you can get on the list
In the same conversation as thank you for your contribution,
but there's no quid pro qo.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
So that's an example. Are you going to challenge the
Lexington Herald Leader in court? Do you think that they've
been unfair? We've seen the President of the United States
challenge news organizations. Is that in your next chapter?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
No comment at this time? Okay, that's all good, Yes,
but they're aware of what they've done and there have
already been some changes there when.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
The legislature meets again. Then in January? Are you going
to be radioactive? Are you going to be the bubble
boy over in the corner that people stay away from?
Because I was talking to a state rep the other
day at the football game who was very much aligned
with you, saying that this was all overblown ridiculousness, and
(09:15):
so I know you have at least one person who's
on the other side of the aisle who is standing
up for you.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
I will note that there has not been a public
statement made against me by any member of the majority
party of either the House or Senate, and that a
majority of the Democrats as well have been silent. And
I'm not going to speak on behalf of every individual,
but I am in regular communication and contact with most
members of both parties. There has been a slow and
(09:46):
quiet normalization. I was immediately removed by the minority Caucus,
the Democrats from the caucus and the committees, but then
was immediately restored upon first opportunity by the Speaker. There
was some quiet pushback. Actually gotten elevated to much more
important committees than I'd been on, and I'm getting even
more work done. And I've had so many Republicans reach
(10:07):
out to me and exercise their belief that this is
a witch hunt and that this goes back to that
famous speech that I gave condemning Hamas for the terrorist
attacks in October seventh. There's contemporaneous documentation that this is
largely what that's about. And they agree with me on
that issue, even though they disagree on the others. And
they told me if I could only agree with them
(10:29):
on other social and political issues, maybe I could be
one of them. But I'm not going to give up
my core democratic beliefs. So sorry, guys, that's not happening.
I'm staying in a Democrat. But yeah, but how dare
you have your own thoughts?
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Correct? But you don't think religion came to play in
this there's not anti Semitism involved in some of these
bushes against you.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
There is significant evidence that there is. I'm not at
liberty to say more at this stage, but part of
the evidence that's being suppressed is that and one of
the people that was deposed indicated that it was, but
that they were trying to stop the anti semitism and
they felt really bad about what was going on.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Representative Daniel Grosberg is going to go back to work
with the state legislature, and maybe it's just going to
be like one of those impolite moments where you go
back into the room and everybody acts like nothing happened.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Right, I've had plenty of those moments in the last
two years.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Yes, I'm looking forward to see what happens when you
get back to work in the legislature. I am too,
And I know you wanted to focus on crime and
other issues that we have in community, and that's the
whole idea is to get the work in the legislature. However,
you have to deal with your Ethics Commission hearing during
the actual run of the legislature.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Which is odd because last year we begged for an
immediate preliminary hearing and they said that they would not
conduct the preliminary hearing during session because it would be
inappropriate and be a distraction. But now they've mysteriously scheduled
the regular hearing, the full hearing, to be two different
days in two different months during the session. But we
(12:02):
were begging for a hearing, and we were supposed to
have it before session. The prosecutor wasn't ready needed more time,
and maybe he'll eventually be ready by the end of January.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
We'll see. Curious to see who sits next to you
in the lunch room when you go back to work.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Well, you're welcome to come to Frankfort any day, Larry.
It's an open cafe here. Your tax is paid for.
Do they have fried maloney? Sampleyces will be over, Daniel Grosberg.
Appreciate your candor and telling me what you could there.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Appreciate it. We'll talk again soon, all right, thank you
back in a few on news radio. Wait forty whas
You're a news radio eight forty whs Terry miners here.
A couple of days ago, I tweeted a message from
state Representative Daniel Grosberg, who is in the studio with
me right now. Daniel, welcome back, go to see you.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
I want to read your statement on here from the
Representative Daniel Grosberg on the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission's decision
to finally schedule a hearing. After nearly two years, the
Legislative Ethics Commission has finally set a hearing where I
will have a chance to clear my name. The Commission
has ended its attorney's fishing expedition into my private medical
(00:38):
records and rejected attempts to block my ability to cross
examine witnesses. Well, this sounds pretty Harriet. Your story has
been interesting here in the last year. This was something
that I think first popped up in the Lexington Herald Leader.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yes, about ninety percent of the coverage has been that
one paper.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
And I read a piece today that says you're nowt
your hearings. So when is that going to happen?
Speaker 2 (01:02):
First off, it's supposed to be split between the end
of January and the beginning of February. It was actually
scheduled for last Tuesday, but the Enforcement Council, the equivalent
of a prosecutor, requested an extension so that he could
review my medical records, which are not relevant, and he
was denied access to my medical records, but still got
(01:22):
his extension for whatever reason.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
So interesting. Clearly, we all saw the evolution of this
story move along here. And there were like forty two
different claims made, but thirty nine of them were already
pushed aside, were they not?
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Yeah, thirty nine were dismissed as not having probable cause.
And probable cause just means that with the evidence presented
by itself and no defense presented, could a person reasonably
believe that it's true. So thirty nine out of the
forty two they thought, even without me defending myself, didn't
pass the basic sniff test.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
And it says the three counts here in the Herald
Leader I'm meeting you face in front of the Commission
include intimidation of a Louisville's strip club that banned you
for life, attempts to solicit a donation from a subway
restaurant owner in exchange for a benefit, and you were
conduct in twenty twenty three toward a Lexington City councilwoman.
(02:19):
So these are the three things that are left to
be addressed, and now you get to address the challenges.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Yeah, and most importantly, I get to present my own defense.
The enforcement council made this ridiculous motion in liminy, which
is a fancy term for blocking my defense, and he
requested twenty six or something things to be excluded where
I couldn't present any evidence or any testimony or any
witnesses on my own behalf something that would be unprecedented
(02:47):
in a real court. And he was denied that. So
now I'm going to be allowed the basic constitutional right
to defend myself.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I'm happy that you knew how to pronounce in lemony practice.
I think that's a character in Dickens play. But that's
what that is. That's someone trying to run blocking to
keep information from getting into a legal situation.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
And here are a few of the examples that are absurd.
So in the depositions, we learned by their own admission
that the complainants, the people who filed the complaints, did
not have any personal knowledge of anything that was in
the complaint. They admitted that what they did was they
gathered all the rumors they could find and to use
a direct quote through the kitchen sink at me their words,
(03:30):
no investigation, no reason to believe it was true. He
wanted to block us from presenting that. He also wanted
to block us from presenting what might be motivations, and
without us saying what the motivation was. He moved that
I couldn't present any evidence about religious discrimination or bullying
in the caucus. His words, very curious that he'd want
to try and stop that. He's also wanting to prevent
(03:53):
us from discussing the missing evidence. There's a lot of
documents and electronic evidence that he claimed existed that we
requested copies of that magically has since disappeared, and you know,
twenty or so other things that he's just trying to block.
And the Commission said he can't preemptively block my defense, but.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
He would have to produce things that he claimed exist.
If you get to this hearing, you get to demand those,
don't you correct?
Speaker 2 (04:20):
And we have demanded and he has failed to produce it,
and in some cases has admitted that it was a
bluff that those things existed, and they no longer do exist.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
I know you're already working on your next legislative session.
There are things we'll talk about here in a moment
or two. But there have been prominent Democrats who said
you should have stepped down. But now now that thirty
nine of the forty two claims have been pushed aside,
are they now reaching back out and saying, hey, Daniel,
maybe I was too quick to judge.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yes, but they characterize it as they were misled, because
that's what it was, is they were misled. You know
that happened when the thirty nine of the forty two
are pushed aside. And the longer this goes on and
the more that comes out, the more that I seeing
those overtures. I wouldn't say that it's universal, but I
have regular conversations with members of both parties. I'm working
(05:07):
on legislation with them. You know, I'm active in my committees,
active in the community itself. And more than anything, they're
asking me not to disclose certain things that came out
in the deposition. And in fact, my attorney made a
motion to protect some other legislators because in the depositions
the accusers not only admitted to very serious crimes that
(05:28):
they themselves were a party two. But they name names
of other legislators and I'm not interested in dragging other
legislators into this. But the whole thing, to quote the
vice chair of the Commission, if we don't put up
some guardrails, it'll be a zoo.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I don't want a zoo, but you released all the
animals after me. It's going to be a zoo, even
if I have to be the zookeeper. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Well, your job is obviously to look out for your
own interests. But other people could get dragged into the
daylight who don't want.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
To be there, correct, because they're neither the ones making
the complaints, nor are they the ones that come. Plants
are about and without giving specifics. And my attorneys have
warned me one of the very serious crimes, a felony
that could land me in prison that I was accused of.
One of the accusers said in the deposition, she ultimately
realized it wasn't me who committed the crime. It was
(06:17):
and then she inserted the name of another legislator.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Oh good, yes, wow, you say in your statement in
italics the commission or in bold face, actually the Commission
has stated there was no sexual harassment, and you say
the only allegations that remain involved minor issues related to
the interpretation of language. What do you mean by that
interpretation of languagees.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
First, if I could just very briefly read an excerpt
of the commission itself, go ahead. The Enforcement Council, Jenkins says,
the LRC sexual harassment policies are not at all relevant.
This has not been an investigation of sexual harassment. This
is investigation on whether respondent committed violations of the Code
of Ethics. Soer he asked for a clarification, saying, if
(07:02):
this is not about sexual harassment, we have a huge
problem because the newspapers and complainants and others keep saying
that's what's before the commission. He then interjects her and says, quote,
I've been very clear from the beginning what we've been
dealing with here is the Code of Ethics. That's it.
Council has raised isshes of sexual harassment. So, in other words,
gaslighting my attorney that you guys are the ones talking
(07:23):
about it. But what I mean by this is about
language is in the context of all three things, these
are the only ones that have even the most slight
nugget of truth an incident took place and what the
language was and what was meant by it. So I'm
going to use the least harmful of the three as
an example. I called the Subway sandwich shop owner on
(07:45):
behalf of the Democratic Caucus to request a five hundred
dollars contribution. He agreed to make the contribution and then said,
you know, I'd really left to cater an event at
the Capitol sometime. Do you know how I can go
about doing that? So I told him, I think there's
an official catering list. Let me find out how you
can apply to be an official caterer at the Capitol.
(08:06):
That's the version that he tells. I have documentary evidence
that I couldn't present at the preliminary hearing, you know,
the one several months ago that shows that that was
the conversation, but the game of telephone ten steps later,
it's Grosberg promised an exclusive catering contract to the Subway
sandwich shop owner, which is not the case, but the
interpretation of what does it mean when I say, let
(08:27):
me find out how you can get on the list
In the same conversation as thank you for your contribution,
but there's no quid pro qo.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
So that's an example. Are you going to challenge the
Lexington Herald Leader in court? Do you think that they've
been unfair? We've seen the President of the United States
challenge news organizations. Is that in your next chapter?
Speaker 2 (08:46):
No comment at this time? Okay, that's all good, Yes,
but they're aware of what they've done and there have
already been some changes there when.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
The legislature meets again. Then in January? Are you going
to be radioactive? Are you going to be the bubble
boy over in the corner that people stay away from?
Because I was talking to a state rep the other
day at the football game who was very much aligned
with you, saying that this was all overblown ridiculousness, and
(09:15):
so I know you have at least one person who's
on the other side of the aisle who is standing
up for you.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
I will note that there has not been a public
statement made against me by any member of the majority
party of either the House or Senate, and that a
majority of the Democrats as well have been silent. And
I'm not going to speak on behalf of every individual,
but I am in regular communication and contact with most
members of both parties. There has been a slow and
(09:46):
quiet normalization. I was immediately removed by the minority Caucus,
the Democrats from the caucus and the committees, but then
was immediately restored upon first opportunity by the Speaker. There
was some quiet pushback. Actually gotten elevated to much more
important committees than I'd been on, and I'm getting even
more work done. And I've had so many Republicans reach
(10:07):
out to me and exercise their belief that this is
a witch hunt and that this goes back to that
famous speech that I gave condemning Hamas for the terrorist
attacks in October seventh. There's contemporaneous documentation that this is
largely what that's about. And they agree with me on
that issue, even though they disagree on the others. And
they told me if I could only agree with them
(10:29):
on other social and political issues, maybe I could be
one of them. But I'm not going to give up
my core democratic beliefs. So sorry, guys, that's not happening.
I'm staying in a Democrat. But yeah, but how dare
you have your own thoughts?
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Correct? But you don't think religion came to play in
this there's not anti Semitism involved in some of these
bushes against you.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
There is significant evidence that there is. I'm not at
liberty to say more at this stage, but part of
the evidence that's being suppressed is that and one of
the people that was deposed indicated that it was, but
that they were trying to stop the anti semitism and
they felt really bad about what was going on.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Representative Daniel Grosberg is going to go back to work
with the state legislature, and maybe it's just going to
be like one of those impolite moments where you go
back into the room and everybody acts like nothing happened.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Right, I've had plenty of those moments in the last
two years.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Yes, I'm looking forward to see what happens when you
get back to work in the legislature. I am too,
And I know you wanted to focus on crime and
other issues that we have in community, and that's the
whole idea is to get the work in the legislature. However,
you have to deal with your Ethics Commission hearing during
the actual run of the legislature.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Which is odd because last year we begged for an
immediate preliminary hearing and they said that they would not
conduct the preliminary hearing during session because it would be
inappropriate and be a distraction. But now they've mysteriously scheduled
the regular hearing, the full hearing, to be two different
days in two different months during the session. But we
(12:02):
were begging for a hearing, and we were supposed to
have it before session. The prosecutor wasn't ready needed more time,
and maybe he'll eventually be ready by the end of January.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
We'll see. Curious to see who sits next to you
in the lunch room when you go back to work.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Well, you're welcome to come to Frankfort any day, Larry.
It's an open cafe here. Your tax is paid for.
Do they have fried maloney? Sampleyces will be over, Daniel Grosberg.
Appreciate your candor and telling me what you could there.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Appreciate it. We'll talk again soon, all right, thank you
back in a few on news radio. Wait forty whas
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.