The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 7
Greitens proves to be his own worst enemy with ill-timed radio ad
Gov. Eric Greitens should have known to shut up. The Republican governor faces a tsunami of bad publicity over his 2015 extramarital affair with his hairdresser and ongoing inquiries into possible campaign-law violations. Late last month, he decided to fight back, launching a $50,000 radio ad campaign to let his supporters know he’s not giving up.
It was the latest in a cascade of abominably bad decisions by a governor whose grip on power grows more tenuous by the day. His lawyers are fighting hard to reduce the influence that bad publicity might have on jurors when his criminal trial begins May 14 in St. Louis. Greitens is charged with invasion of privacy for allegedly photographing his lover without her consent.
His lawyers asked a Missouri House special committee to postpone issuing a report, expected this week, of its investigation into the governor’s actions. On Thursday, the panel of five Republicans and two Democrats rejected the delay request.
Greitens could not credibly argue that the House panel’s findings risked unfairly influencing the outcome of his trial when his radio commercials risked exactly the same thing.
“The reality is the governor spent $50,000 on (radio) commercials, he’s already out there tainting the jury, so I don’t see that our report coming out at this point does anything more than what he’s already doing,” said House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty, D-Kansas City.
The ad, paid for by Greitens’ campaign, says liberals are “hell-bent on stopping his conservative reforms” and that “even Satan’s own lawyers from the Satanic Temple are suing Greitens.” That’s a reference to a group that advocates for individual religious liberty. The group says it does not believe in a literal Satan. Women associated with the organization filed suit against a Missouri abortion law that Greitens advanced during a 2017 special legislative session.
Greitens’ radio ad says he “is on a conservative mission for Missouri, and he won’t stop until the mission is complete.” But not even Republicans on the investigations panel are buying it. The fact that they were unsympathetic to his lawyers’ appeal underscores the depth of the governor’s troubles.
He spent his 2016 campaign and first year in office blasting incumbent politicians as corrupt. It’s now payback time.
A one-time Republican ally, Attorney General Josh Hawley, has issued a civil subpoena to Greitens related to a separate investigation into campaign irregularities involving The Mission Continues, a nonprofit Greitens founded to help veterans.
The possibility remains that Greitens could be exonerated in the St. Louis trial. But guilty or not, the taint of scandal is sticking to him. The widening distance being established by Republicans in Jefferson City makes clear they regard him more as a liability than an asset as elections approach.
______
The Springfield News-Leader, April 7
After questionable trial, Brad Jennings deserves freedom. At least for now.
Brad Jennings and his attorneys know their fight isn’t over.
Jennings, the Buffalo man who was convicted of murdering his wife in 2010, spent eight years in prison before a judge set aside that conviction in February.
Jennings and his attorney, Robert Ramsey, have both said they expect the state to again pursue a conviction. But until that happens, and possibly even after, Jennings should be allowed to remain free on bond.
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office filed documents last month arguing that Jennings should still be in prison on the grounds that Judge John Beger’s decision to grant a habeas corpus hearing was improper.
Attorneys on both sides of this case will continue to make arguments on that issue and others, but what’s been made clear through hearings and reporting is that Jennings’ initial trial was not sufficient to convict him. Attorneys can debate the other details, but the key piece of evidence that earned Jennings his freedom, at least temporarily, is all that will matter to many right now.
While it’s only one piece of evidence in the case, we now know the state did not reveal the results of a gunshot residue test, which indicated it was unlikely Jennings fired a gun in the early morning hours of Christmas Day in 2006. That evidence casts significant doubt on Jennings’ guilt. That doubt is important, of course, because we’re expected to prove someone’s guilt, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Jennings is still bound by the system - that aforementioned bond, which is $250,000 - but he’s spent eight years in prison for a crime we’re no longer certain he committed. He deserves the opportunity to stay at home while prosecutors get their ducks in a row. Even if the state does bring charges again, it seems reasonable that Jennings should be allowed to remain on bond during a trial.
Ramsey has said he believes the state is trying to maintain the reputation of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Sgt. Dan Nash, the lead detective on the case. Perhaps that’s true. We would understand if the Attorney General’s Office wants to protect the sanctity of a system that is designed to protect Missourians and help seek justice.
But there’s compelling evidence now that justice was not served, but rather abused, in 2010.
Missouri will surely be willing to continue trusting the Highway Patrol, and the justice system in general, and it’s possible Jennings will be convicted again. But prosecutors have a lot to prove - not just in this case, but to people whose confidence may now be shaken. Until then, Jennings should be free.
_____
The Kansas City Star, April 6
Sly James is late but not wrong on renaming a KC street for Martin Luther King Jr.
Mayor Sly James might have spoken up sooner about his 11th-hour brainstorm to form a citizens’ commission that will lead a community-wide conversation on how best to honor the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Even if unintentionally, his last-minute plan comes off as disrespectful to Congressman Emanuel Cleaver and to the group of African-American ministers who have already put a lot of time and effort into their plan to rename The Paseo for King.
But though his timing is unfortunate, the process he’s proposing is solid.
There’s a lot to be said for engaging the whole city in this decision through an exercise that will hopefully pay tribute to King, too.
We still like the idea of renaming The Paseo, which runs north-south through the city’s African-American community, for the slain civil rights leader, who was assassinated in Memphis 50 years ago.
But there’s also a good case for getting the widest possible buy-in for renaming either The Paseo or some other appropriate thoroughfare.
As always, process matters, and an electoral fight over the question would not honor a man who died for his non-violent commitment to peace as well as racial and economic justice.
And of course, as is always the case in a community that’s not a monolith, support for The Paseo option isn’t universal among African Americans in Kansas City.
The mayor himself does not favor that option, which he sees as “just automatically renaming a street in a segregated part of town and creating yet another dividing line. . I just don’t know how that honors Dr Martin Luther King. I don’t say that having a street named after him isn’t an honor.
“But I’ve been to other cities where there are MLK streets. None of them are in any parts of town that have any economic activity or anything going on that I’ve been able to see. And I just don’t know how that honors the man.”
Point taken.
And his more important point is this one:
“If that’s what the city wants, fine,” he told The Star. “But I think there ought to be some discussion about whether or not that’s a good idea or whether there’s a better idea. I wanted to give the opportunity for the discussion to be held in a broader way.”
The renaming effort from Cleaver and the ministers has been in the works for some time.
In fact, they were to have begun collecting signatures to put the matter on the ballot at a rally on Friday - an event that was rescheduled for April 13 because there was snow in the forecast.
In an interview on Friday afternoon, Cleaver didn’t criticize James over the surprise course correction.
Asked about the new commission, he said, “Yes,” then paused for a few seconds before adding, “There’s a tradition in Kansas City that mayors never criticize mayors. So I’m going to practice that.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.