Legal experts: House report provides new grounds for impeachment of Gov. Greitens
When the House committee investigating Gov. Eric Greitens released its report Wednesday night, new details caused lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to react in anger and disgust. They called for the resignation of the governor, and for his impeachment.
House Speaker Todd Richardson, a Republican, called the testimony in the report “disturbing” and told the Capitol Press Corps on Wednesday that lawmakers were open to a special session to consider impeachment.
The testimony from Greitens’ former hairdresser and mistress paints him as the aggressor in an unwanted sexual encounter.
Former Cole County Prosecutor Bill Tackett said that the reactions from lawmakers last week indicate that they believe the woman’s testimony, and that the committee has clearly found her to be credible.
“It certainly looks as though by coming out and saying before the report is finished, ‘We believe the woman,’ then you’re going to impeach,” he said. “It seems pretty clear to me.”
Frank Bowman, a professor of law at the University of Missouri, said it comes down to whether or not the woman is to be believed. If so, he said, the governor has committed more crimes than just invasion of privacy.
“If one believes what the young woman has to say, then it would appear that the governor has committed one or more sexual crimes,” he said. “If that’s true, then my interpretation at least of the Missouri constitutional provisions on impeachment, would be that sexual crimes, if proven, would constitute grounds of impeachment.”
The definition of impeachable conduct, which can be found here in the Missouri Constitution, includes such acts as “crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.”
Bowman said he has no doubt the governor’s lawyers would argue that the events occurred before the governor took office and, therefore, do not make him subject to impeachment.
“There’s no binding legal precedent one way or the other on that point,” he said. “I think that’s likely to be a point of contention if this ever gets to actual impeachment.”
