Greitens And The Mug Of A Thug

Just two things about my creepy indicted governor.

First, I love this official mug shot, taken after he was taken into custody on a felony charge:

Second, the Missouri GOP, a morally bankrupt entity, had something predictable to say:

That reference to Kim Gardner is because she is the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, the city’s top prosecutor. Both Greitens and now the Missouri GOP are attacking this law enforcement official because she, well, has decided to enforce the law against Greitens despite the fact that he is allegedly a “law-and-order governor.” One would think that a law-and-order governor, under such dark suspicion, would welcome his day in court. But not so much.

Oh, not that this has anything to do with the GOP attacks on Gardner, but this is what my newest hero looks like:

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. - DANNY WICENTOWSKI



[photo credit: Danny Wicentowski]


  1. I just posted this on my Facebook page — Question: If a state prosecutor indict a state governor, can federal prosecutor indict a sitting president?


    • I have been researching that question myself for a while now. It seems the Justice Department has an internal prohibition against it (based on decades-old legal opinions), but it also seems the Constitution does not, unless you interpret the impeachment clause in a very strange way. 

      In any case, Mueller (who under the law doesn’t have the power of the old Special Prosecutor; Ken Starr actually believed he did have the power) doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would challenge Rod Rosenstein’s denial (it would be his call) of an indictment (if it ever comes to that, of course), even though I learned the other day that if Mueller does request an indictment and Rosenstein says “nope,” then Rosenstein has to report that to Congress so we will all know about it. 

      In any case, if the prevailing legal opinion is that no sitting president can be indicted, then the prevailing legal opinion is that the office of the president is, indeed, above the law. Fortunately, nobody thinks our governor is.



      • Duane,

        I asked Google, “can a sitting president be indicted?” and as you can imagine, I got lots and lots of hits. I found that what most of the legal beagles say is that, yes the president can be indicted. The conclusion, buried in a 56 page memo by an attorney working for Ken Starr says, “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.” (See

        Note that the indictment is for “ serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties.” But for criminal acts made by a sitting president in connection with his duties, then the appropriate recourse is through impeachment.

        On that basis, litigation could then be bifurcated between criminal court and a trial in the senate. The founders were keen on checks and balances. And I think they would approve of this interpretation.

        Of course, other lawyers, as they are wont to do, make contrary arguments. The devil is in the details don’t ya know. For example, can Trump be indicted for crimes committed after the election but before inauguration? Then there’s the pardon issue to consider. And on and on.

        I’m pretty sure Mueller will make the right decision, but it’s all going to end up in the courts in any case. God help us.


        • Herb,

          Oh, I have no doubt the thing will end up in the Supreme Court, but for different reasons. I don’t think there is a chance in hell that Tr-mp will voluntarily submit to an interview with Mueller, which would force Mueller to compel him to do so. At that point, Tr-mp will play the card he has spent all this time preparing people, his people, to play: the Mueller investigation has gone off the rails, is a witch hunt perpetrated by the Democrats and the corrupt media, and he ain’t playin’. Then we will have a ruling by the Supremes, who, if they follow precedent, will order him to answer Mueller’s questions.

          The first potential crisis will come if Tr-mp simply refuses to comply with the Court’s ruling. What then? Will Rosenstein at that point ask for an indictment from the grand jury? Or will Republicans in the House impeach the bastard? My money in that scenario won’t be on the Republicans, either in the House or Senate. But I do think Rosenstein might request the indictment, if Tr-mp ignores a subpoena. 

          It comes down to a gamble for Tr-mp any way you look at this. Because he has some nasty skeletons in his closet (probably financial skeletons with Russian names) that he never wants out, and because he doesn’t know exactly how much Mueller’s team knows, he is taking a risk by submitting, voluntarily or involuntarily, to an examination, where he would undoubtably lie his ass off in some way that would subject him to a perjury charge. Or he could gamble that no matter what he does, refusing a subpoena or an order from the Court, that his Republican friends in Congress won’t go after him in sufficient numbers. If he can survive until the next election, he could simply not run again and continue to claim a vast conspiracy against him.

          Because none of us knows what Mueller knows or is finding out, it is impossible to see the end game here. That is why the next several months will be fascinating.



  2. Bbob

     /  February 23, 2018

    I shared this on Twitter. It seems the Democrats are to blame, but, oddly, didn’t mention Obama. 🤣

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Anonymous

     /  February 23, 2018

    Damn, that booking photo looks like two different guys with those asymmetrical eyes. Jekyl & Hyde was his mugshot back.

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: