Replies

Just another Democrat run attack

Without knowing the facts in the case, you may be right. Fact is he was charged by a St Louis City DA (democrat, of course) with the felony charge of photographing her without her consent. The law was written to be able to prosecute people who sneak cameras into changing rooms, tanning salons, etc. Although that was the purpose of the law, it is now being claimed that photographing anyone where they “have an expectation of privacy” (example: a picture of your wife asleep at home) could be subject to felony charges.

The judge in the case has already refused Grieten’s request to be tried by a judge and could very well refuse a change of venue request, therefore having the trial in St Louis City, which, of course highly democrat.

No one claims to have seen the photograph in question and the woman claims she was blindfolded when Grietens allegedly took it.

So yeah there’s a reasonable chance that this is just another way to run someone out of office.

So, she consented to being blindfolded? Greitens is certainly into some weird “50 Shades of Gray” shit in the sack but so is this woman. When does consensual sexual activity become a crime for the purpose of political blackmail?

Without knowing the facts in the case, you may be right.

Or not. From the story: "The woman's graphic testimony was revealed in a report released Wednesday by a special Missouri legislative committee that now is expanding its mission to recommend whether lawmakers should begin impeachment proceedings to try to remove the Republican governor from office."

Republicans control both houses of the legislature. It's their committee which is investigating, their committee that took the testimony, and their committee that released it.