Wait, was he shot with an assault rifle?
I’m fairly certain it’s not possible to slap the stupid out of someone. I’m willing to make the attempt with Missouri GOP leadership, though, for science.
I think it’s obviously ridiculous to blame George Soros for these events. However, I think we can’t exclude the idea that Claire McCaskill has made some sort of pact with Satan to ensure that whenever she’s up for election, there will be focus on grotesque behavior or opinions against women by various Missouri GOP figures.
Among the republican base it will be appreciated.
I wish federal crimes by a president were punished as swiftly as state level crimes against a governor.
I’m in Higher Ed in Missouri, so I’m not a fan. He seemed to be a big fan of the “Bleeding Kansas” theory of economic development.
It’s a SEALed indictment.
Does the governor of Missouri have self-pardon powers?
The governor seems to have the power to pardon for “all offenses” except treason, but only after conviction. And as in the federal constitution, pardons don’t affect impeachments.
Missouri has a weird impeachment process that isn’t purely political like in most states, so even if the legislature does want to get rid of him, that’s not sufficient by itself. The House of Representatives has the power of impeachment, but the trial of a governor is heard before a “special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the senate.”
Holy Fucking shit. I just figured out that Eric Greitens was the author of ‘the heart and the fist’. I read that book years ago (he talked about his humanitarian work overseas, and his eventual realization that you need to provide security first before humanitarian work can become effective so he joined the SEALs). No wonder his name is so familiar.
How did he become such a giant scumbag?
It’s not impossible that the charges against him are false. He is, after all, fighting it rather than just stepping down. But this seems to be Republicans’ strategy in general nowadays.
Think about this:
-
A married Republican governor is indicted for threatening to release naked, bondage photos of a lover.
-
The Republican Party of his state is defending him and blaming the Soros organization as a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
-
The governor is Jewish.
The party of Family Values, sure…
I have not seen any photographs,but if he was indicted they (it?) probably exist. I don’t know if an extramarital affair is a crime in Missouri, but if it is I doubt it is often prosecuted, so the photographs in themselves aren’t the issue, it’s the threats. And if the photographs were shared, the only defense would be that his partner agreed.
I will never buy that.
So is Paul Manafort with all the various charges against him. Plenty of people want to go down swinging and are heavily in denial or are convinced that even though they did it, prosecutors won’t be able to prove it at trial. Especially if the entire case can be couched as a political witch hunt and not a straight-forward criminal case.
Greitens already admitted many of the key facts - that he cheated on his wife (and implicitly confirmed that he cheated with the woman in this case given the timing and circumstances of his admission). The fact that he was married at the time of the affair and his later election as governor proves his prior political ambitions are also evidence that he would have a motive to try to blackmail the woman and pro-actively try to protect himself against her blackmailing him down the road. While evidence of a motive is almost never required to prove a crime, evidence of a motive can prove very persuasive to a jury to explain why certain actions were taken or not taken and to discredit any denials by an accused.
Deciding that killing people was easier than helping people was probably a step on that road, bookful of rationalization notwithstanding. (I’m not saying that the premise you describe is necessarily incorrect, just that it strikes me as rather self-serving, given the guy’s behavior.)
Pics or it didn’t happ… Oh, there are pictures? Well, never mind. I guess it happened.
I find it unlikely that he would get indicted if the pictures weren’t available to the prosecutor. Didn’t they get backed up to Google or something, and that’s part of the indictment? Something about the pictures having the possibility of getting out?
I am shocked, shocked, that this is on his website:
“PEOPLE OF FAITH ARE UNDER ATTACK.
I believe we must protect the religious liberties and the beliefs of all Missourians.”
His lawyer (who’s an extremely well respected st. Louis attorney) isn’t denying the charges. Instead he’s arguing that the Gov. didn’t violate the state’s Invasion of Privacy lawbecause the girlfriend couldn’t have expected privacy “where individuals involved were jointly participating in sexual activity.”
As a defense, this sounds as shaky as claiming I don’t have to pay income tax because Ohio didn’t become a state until 1953. But IANAL, and Greitens has gotten himself some pretty good ones.
Okay, I must be misunderstanding, but I read that as, she has no right to privacy when having sex.
Have they taken opposition to a woman’s control of her reproductive health that far?
Yeah that argument, at least as it is described here, doesn’t make any sense to me at all. That guy is really a respected lawyer?
Read the link. I swear, their argument is that the law was never intended to apply to people having (consensual) sex.
If you’re ever having sex in Missouri and you notice your partner has video monitors, a director and a videographer in the room with you, hey, you shouldn’t have said “Yes” back when you met him.
Of course it was. He’s trying to change the law by oral argument? He’s really willing to set such a nasty precedent to win one case?
Actually, I have no idea what the Missouri law is, and I haven’t ready the link because it’s the weekend. Please, don’t make me.