.

Letter to the Editor: My Husband, Mark Mullet, Has Never Given Anyone Reason to Doubt His Word

Sabath Mullet writes that she believes her husband's track record shows he is the superior candidate for the 5th District Senate seat.

Dear Editor,

Question: What do these quotes have in common? 

  1. “[Attn. Honorable Judge Nault] …the specific identity of the defendant is unclear…I, to the best of my understanding, have never known or come into contact with the plaintiff, but share a name with the defendant…”
  2. “A graduate of Seattle Pacific University”;  “…holds an executive degree in finance from the University of Washington.”
  3. “I will not impugn the character of other candidates…I will publicly disavow ads from other sources that impugn the integrity of a candidate for office.”

Answer: They all belong to Brad Toft, are all publicly documented, and are all verifiable fabrications.  He is the defendant in question, he has no degree of any kind, and have you seen the attack ads about my husband, Mark Mullet?

Toft’s Response:

To #1: “I wasn’t saying it wasn’t me.”

To #2: “On our website I stated I had a ‘Program Degree’ for the UW” (Untrue)

To #3:  He hasn’t disavowed a single attack ad and impugns Mark’s character regularly.

The Tofts implore you not to believe what you hear about Brad’s sordid past.  So are the reams of court and jail records lying?  They insist his past is irrelevant.  The above fabrications were all made in the last six months – is his present irrelevant too? 

According to Toft: Mark secretly promised “party bosses” he’d help raise taxes; Mark conspired with Governor Gregoire to rig the election; Mark paid for illegal polling.  Gosh, that all sounds really damning.  Any minute now, we’ll be provided with documents, receipts, or affidavits to prove these claims…  Oh no, wait – Toft just wants us to take his word for it.

Past actions are the best indicator of future behavior.  If a person has an astonishingly dodgy track record already, how do you think they’ll behave in office? 

My husband has a past and present of which he can be exceedingly proud.  His academic, professional, and civil records are spotless.  Mark is – and always has been - forthcoming, hard working, and honorable. That’s why his endorsement list is comprised of individuals of all stripes, who work and/or speak with him regularly.  

Most importantly, Mark Mullet has never given anyone reason to doubt his word.

Sabath Mullet

Editor's note: Sabath Mullet sent the attached PDF files to support her assertions in this letter.

Danny Chapman October 22, 2012 at 03:04 PM
I think it's great that you are standing by your husband - though Jill Toft did the same for Brad a few weeks ago. You can see her video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4smwuiiAc3Q And I think it's great you are saying good things about your husband, but are you not slinging a lot of mud toward Brad? In your letter you use words like, "dodgy", "lying" and "sordid" - all pointed towards Brad Toft. In my opinion, you, your husband and the Democratic Party that's bankrolling him are all guilty of running a dirty and sordid campaign (witness your own letter above filled with personal attacks.) Instead of running a campaign on ISSUES, you and your Party follow the example of Chicago Democrats and impune the character of your opponent. In conclusion, your letter shows that you, your husband and his campaign care little about the issues of Education, Taxes, the Budget or Jobs. These are the things that matter in this election. In from what I see above, Brad Toft wins hands down.
Terry J. LaBrue October 22, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Danny Chapman is absolutely correct. We are pleased that you are standing by your man. But, the facts just don't support your contention that you husband "Has Never Given Anyone Reason to Doubt His Word." Many people in Washington politics doubt his non-involvement in one of the biggest political scandals of the decade as reported by the Washington Wire. He is certainly benefiting from the Gov. Gregoire/Sen. Pflug bribery scandal. And then has the chutzpah to feature Pflug in his TV commercials. I doubt his innocence. Your husband is taking more than $150,000 from union bosses for his political campaign. He says it won't affect any of his votes. I doubt any elected official could be so naîve. Mark says he doesn't have an opinion on charter schools. After cozying up with the teacher's union and other employee unions so they could help his campaign, I doubt he doesn't have an opinion. He's just waiting until it's politically expedient to express his opposition. Further, I doubt Mark was candid with the voters when he said he didn't support new taxes after he said he would support the King County Democratic Platform that calls for a state income tax, corporate income tax and a inheritance tax. This ambivalence makes me doubt his word all the more. With these significant examples of Mark Mullet's deplorable duplicity, you Sabath, have plenty to doubt.
Randall October 22, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Hi Danny, I think that Sabath's letter was meant as a response to the mud slinging from the Toft campaign, not as a letter outlining campaign issues. I suspect that it would be hard as a spouse to sit idly and watch your husband's name get dragged through the mud. That being said, if you want more information about the issues of education, taxes, the budget, and jobs, these candidates do have different opinions and platforms. I suggest reading up on the issues that matter the most to you and forming an informed opinion that way. Socially I'm liberal, and based on the views of the two candidates (Toft is anti gay marriage, anti environmental protection, and anti Obamacare), Mullet is the clear choice for me. As a business owner, I also appreciate Mr. Mullet's conservative views toward the budget and business in general.
jared October 22, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Danny, i find your angle paradoxical. The first two things i want to see in an elected official are honesty and integrity. i do not see these characteristics emanating from the republican candidate. his actions are quite the opposite, and that speaks volumes. what makes me think he will suddenly gain these qualities upon election? If you want to talk issues, Mark's views on job creation, public schools, and health care are, and have always been quite clear and consistent. however, mr toft has problems speaking to these topics in public forum, many times not answering the questions asked. again, i ask how would election garner him clarity on these matters? hands down, i question your position.
L.J. October 23, 2012 at 01:33 AM
As a wife and a mother, there is no way I would be able to stand idly by while people attacked a member of my family with lies. And I don’t think I would be as nice about fighting back as Sabath Mullet was – she backed up everything she said with fact and did not make it personal. Is it impossible for people to believe that someone could benefit from something that they had nothing to do with? Sure, Mark Mullet benefited from the Sen. Pflug resignation, but that doesn’t mean he played a part in orchestrating it! Sometimes good things happen to good people. I believe Mark Mullet is a good person and have yet to have anyone show me proof to the contrary of any lie, deceit or duplicity. I can’t say the same for Brad Toft, as there are many documented examples of his lies and deceit of our community. It saddens me to think of Brad Toft representing our district at the state level. Until someone can prove to me otherwise, I agree with Sabath Mullet – Mark Mullet has never given anyone reason to doubt his word.
Sabath Mullet October 23, 2012 at 04:58 AM
Thanks for your opinion, Danny. With respect, I disagree. I am not slinging mud. The above is 100% verifiable fact, not a smear. Allow me to defend my word choices: "Sordid" - how else to characterize being taken to court 22 times and jailed twice?; "Dodgy" - when someone gets caught fabricating, embellishing, and yes - outright lying, how else would you describe this pattern of behavior?; "Lying" - again, Brad Toft has lied and that is provable. Every single quote in my letter was taken from openly public documents. I have no interest in rumors or hearsay - only in what can be born out by evidence. And let me ask you this: if my husband was the one who had been in and out of court, booked into jail, caught numerous times during the campaign making false statements, do you think the Republicans wouldn't be pouncing? Yes, policy matters. Mark has repeatedly and eloquently proven to have informed policy insight and a fundamental grasp of the issues. But before you can even get to policy issues and beyond noting what party a candidate belongs to - it is my firm belief that character and integrity are of paramount importance. If all that matters is party, then we may as well all give our ballots to Kirby Wilbur and Dwight Pelz to fill out on our behalf. If it's a matter of which candidate has the most integrity, Mark Mullet wins hands down.
Sabath Mullet October 23, 2012 at 05:06 AM
You’ve answered my letter by listing your theories, your accusations and your innuendoes. So, now – where is your proof? Because what it boils down to, Terry, is that it doesn’t matter in the least what “your doubts” are; you are Brad’s campaign manager, not some random member of the voting public. To rattle off a catalog of speculation without providing explicit proof of a single item is intellectually sloppy and cheapens the discourse. And bandying about the allegation that my husband is involved in a bribe with the highest office in the state is not only impugning his character but is verging on libelous. You’ll note that I provided the editor of this news outlet with several PDF files. One file is a press release, on “Brad Toft” letterhead, containing your direct contact information, sent from Brad Toft’s email account. In this press release is a blatant lie about Brad having a degree from UW. If you’re willing to lie so boldly in a press release, about important biographical information, you’ve lost all credibility on matters of ethics. The fact is, you can’t name a single instance in which my husband has broken the rules – either during his academic career, his time working in international finance, his time on city council, or while managing his restaurant businesses. Hence the ending of my letter – he’s never given anyone a reason to doubt his word.
Janice Martin Carle October 23, 2012 at 05:49 AM
Sabath, I am impressed with your comments which are at once highly logical, carefully worded, and impassioned. I'm proud to have contributed to Mark's campaign. I met Mark one morning at the bus stop. I'm pretty suspicious of politicians and blew off Mark's initial safe comments, instead immediately quizzed him on the most important issue to me personally. He didnt hesitate to share a clearly unrehearsed conversation that left me with a very positive sense of him. I've contributed funds to his campaign, and will deliver three votes from my household.
Jason Graves October 23, 2012 at 07:40 PM
Brad‘s been my closest friend for over 20 years. He and Jill are our children's Godparents and we served as a groomsman in each other’s weddings. So, surely I cannot be totally unbiased here. But I can uniquely vouch for Brad’s character because his imperfection and indiscretions are not really the point here. More importantly, the good of this man's life FAR outweighs the bad: I’ve seen countless times where Brad has given to others. Specifically, I’m talking about hundreds and hundreds of hours volunteering for those in need of shelter, faith and the hope that those bring. And these go beyond institutional applications: when I was a struggling college student and he was newly-married and barely thriving himself, Brad and Jill gave me a bed and bought me a new mattress for it. Needless to say, I was humbled and blown away by that kind of personal generosity. I could go on about Brad’s heart for those who'd been displaced by the floods a few years ago, willing to bring complete strangers into his home-a model of sacrificial, personal service to others in a very selfless way. So all this to say, I'm satisfied that he's taken care of his personal business and done all the law has required, providing sufficient information to us as necessary therein. And I’m sure your husband is of similar high character and would much rather hear from you about examples of these, Sabath—I’m hopeful if we stick to this kind of positivity it will go better for us all.
Sabath Mullet October 25, 2012 at 05:54 AM
Hi Jason – I applaud you for thoughtfully and respectfully sticking up for your close buddy, which I feel is a mark of good character – and I mean that very sincerely. Thank you for not being combative. Let me say that I have a great deal of empathy and respect for Jill Toft; I’d reckon she and I have far more in common than we do differences. Everything you need to know about the source of my frustrations can be found in Terry LaBrue’s response, just above. Directly from the person who is running Brad’s campaign comes a whole host of unfounded accusations, which overtly assail my husband’s good name - no positivity there. It is exasperating (to say the least) that their campaign team has chosen a strategy of simply making stuff up. I truly believe in the notion of redemption. I certainly would never diminish the charitable acts in which Brad has engaged. Here's the unfortunate reality: when one makes a series of bad choices, one then has the added burden of proving that their reformation is real and sincere. It’s hard to deny that Brad has made many misstatements during the course of this campaign, which, I feel, is cause for concern. At the end of the day, I was compelled to speak out about what I see as a hypocrisy. I wasn't trying to comment on Brad's life as a whole - I would never suggest that he wasn't a good dad, husband or provider. I just think he's not the best candidate. (Of course, that opinion is anything but objective.)
Jason Graves October 25, 2012 at 06:29 PM
Charlie, While I understand what you're trying to ask and appreciate your concern, I think your ethos is all off: you might want to remember that you're talking to a lady and talking about her husband. Perhaps you'll consider deleting your comment in favor of something a bit more respectful and helpful. Sorry, Sabath: no one deserves that kind of rudeness.
Jeanne Gustafson October 25, 2012 at 06:53 PM
Thanks for your comment, Jason. Charlie's comment has been deleted because it contains a link to a paid political ad.
Terry J. LaBrue October 25, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Sabath, give it a rest. From your impassioned comments, it certainly appears that good judgment is in short supply at the Mullet household. If you want to blindly support your husband, that is certainly your choice. But, if you want to accuse me of running Brad's campaign with a "whole host of unfounded accusations," you are wrong. I am not the campaign manager. I am a communications consultant working and living in the 5th District. And, you have to look no further than the Seattle Times, the Washington Wire, The Olympia Report, KPLU Radio and your fellow Democrat, David Spring, who have all questioned the cozy political connection between the governor, former senator Pflug and your husband, Mark. I agree with them. My opinion is this convenient Gregoire/Pflug/Mullet connection will become the biggest bribery scandal in years. No one has ever doubted Mark's word? I think it's time for an update on that statement.
Jason Graves October 25, 2012 at 08:41 PM
To Terry's point, Sabath, if Mark is in the clear on the Pflug appointment issue, why isn't he coming out against it and distancing himself from her endorsement? I guess I don't understand that one.
Jeanne Gustafson October 25, 2012 at 09:06 PM
A note of clarification for Patch users, who may be confused: Terry LaBrue is a communications consultant in Issaquah, who has been working on communications for Brad Toft's campaign and for other local candidates as well, including Chad Magendanz. He's also a Precinct Committee Officer in the 5th District Republicans' Klahanie/Lakes area.
Kate Coffman October 25, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Terry, You are linking Mark Mullet to a bribery scandal with no proof. As a communications expert you should understand the definitions of libel and slander. Tread carefully. And your comment that good judgment is in short supply at the Mullet' household is disappointing. Stick to issues, stick to facts, provide proof. If you want people to vote for your candidate give them solid evidence as to why they should--as the Mullet campaign has done.
SHIC October 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Terry, you're like an irate monkey flinging feces in the desperate hope it'll stick to something. First and foremost, that which can be asserted without proof can be denied without proof. I thought we were done with this whole "why won't you dignify my baseless accusations with a denial?!" nonsense when they took Glenn Beck and his tinfoil hat off the air; sad to see it having a resurgence in local politics. Toft's ostensible point in all this conspiracy theorizing is that Mullet conspired to create a race in which he'd face a laughably beatable candidate--Toft. Man, if I were him I'd be so insulted by what I've been implying about my fitness for office. If your man's got something substantial to run on, have him run on it. If not, wash that monkey feces off your hands and do something constructive with your time like brushing up on the rules of English-language capitalization or taking some classes on the basics of international finance.
Maria Gonzalez October 26, 2012 at 04:34 AM
Terry, As a party member who focuses on Rules, it is disheartening that you dismiss a candidate's wife's comments as well as focus on targeting bribery without any proof. I was in support of your candidate until I read your retort and then looked into the allegations. Rather than focus on speculation your role should be on focusing on the your candidates strengths.
David Kirkpatrick October 28, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Sabbath, If your husband is indeed as honest as you describe him as, then it looks as though he may be very blind to the coincidences that are unfolding around him. I encourage you to take a look at this article in the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019535027_tom5th27m.html Senator Rodney Tom (D) suggests that he is suspicious of how the whole scenario played out. On May 10 Pflug told Rodney Tom that he should "enjoy working with Mark Mullet." This happened 11 days before Pflug's Job was announced. Pflug said she only found out about the appointment a half hour before, on May 21st. So if she did not know about her appointment on the 10th, was she planning on losing her Senate race to Mullet and that is why Senator Tom would enjoy working with him? It seems a little suspicious to me that Pflug would suggest Mark Mullet would be elected when she was still planning to run against him and had no idea that she would receive the appointment.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something