Gov. Greitens releases second statement after House report, says it’s “incomplete”

Gov. Greitens has released his second statement after the House Investigative Committee released their revealing report on his extra-marital affair.

You can read the entire statement below:

We told you yesterday afternoon that the House report would be incomplete. It was.

We told people that they needed to see all the evidence. And now, we have proof that Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner and her team hid evidence from the people of Missouri and from the Missouri House of Representatives–evidence that undermined the narrative pushed in the House report.

Kim Gardner hid a video that she knew directly contradicted allegations in the House report, and she allowed her lead investigator to lie about it, under oath.

Just last night–as false stories were being pushed to press–the prosecutor turned over a videotape of her interview with the woman. This was evidence that the prosecutor was legally required to turn over months ago. She purposefully kept it hidden until one hour after the false report was released.

The House report contained explosive, hurtful allegations of coercion, violence, and assault. They are false. Those allegations can be refuted with facts. Despite the Circuit Attorney’s attempts to keep it from the people of Missouri, we have video evidence that contains some of those facts.

In the video, the woman talks for almost two hours, and never once mentions any coercion. In the House report, there is a false allegation that I slapped the woman. That allegation had been made once before, and it was disproven. The story changed, so I will say again: it did not happen. On this new video, she says that when this story broke in the media, she asked her two friends if they ever remembered her talking about a slap, and they both said “No.” The witness claimed to the House that she was coerced into sexual activity on the morning of March 21st. This is inconsistent with her statements in the video interview with the Circuit Attorney.

The report that was put out last night did not contain this evidence, and the allegations in that report will refuted by facts, including this video, depositions, discovery, and other evidence that will be subjected to the rigors of a courtroom analysis. In 32 days, a court of law and a jury of my peers will let every person in Missouri know the truth and prove my innocence.

The video mentioned was the subject of a Thursday morning court hearing in St. Louis. The Associated Press reports that Judge Rex Burlison took the matter into his own chambers to discuss the “serious allegations of perjury and dishonesty against the prosecutors.”

Gardner’s office filed a motion on Thursday explaining that the office turned over the video within the 48-hour window the court ordered in March. A malfunctioning camcorder caused the office to seek IT help to get the video, the motion said. Gardner’s office viewed the video for the first time on April 10, according to the motion, and delivered it to Greitens’ attorneys on Wednesday.

“From the outset of this case, the defense strategy has been to attack in all directions in the hope of inducing the Court to abort the case without trial,” the motion said. “The credibility of the victim is a question for the jury.”

The governor’s statement on the hearing comes two days after Bulison ordered limited comments be made in public about the case. The gag order applies to all “parties, attorneys, endorsed witnesses and their attorneys” from speaking about the case in a way that could prejudice a jury.

Sandy Davidson, a communications law professor at MU, said the indirect gag order seeks to keep details about the case

“When you have not had a jury seated, then judges are really concerned about statements made outside of court,” Davidson said. “What you want is a fair trial with fair and impartial jurors.”

A violation of the judge’s gag order could result in a fine or jail time. Davidson said that as long as Greitens or the prosecutor’s statements kept to what was said or argued in court, no violation would occur.

“The judge makes clear that if information is part of a public record, then it’s no violation to be discussing it,” Davidson said.

Davidson said a judge could extend the gag order to the media from reporting on the case prior to trial, but said one side would need to prove certain elements to get such an order.