Legal counsel for Greitens for Missouri says report does a ‘tremendous disservice’ to citizens

“Even though the report alleges that a false campaign report was filed, the Chairman did not allow the campaign an opportunity to be heard. He never asked the campaign to testify before his committee, nor did he request that the campaign provide any documents to his Committee.

“He did not issue any subpoenas on this matter to the campaign. And he certainly did not allow the campaign to be represented by counsel in its hearings nor to cross-examine any witnesses making accusations against it. He did not allow the campaign to confront its accusers or respond to accusations. If a witness made an allegation, it was accepted as true and republished.

“The sum and substance of the first 70 or so paragraphs outline a charge—that The Mission Continues list was used for campaign purposes—considered and resolved a year ago by the MEC with a $100 fine, less than most speeding tickets.

“The ‘big revelation’ comes at the end of the report where former campaign manager Danny Laub attempts to say that he was falsely listed as the contributor of the list to the campaign. But if you read the actual testimony, Mr. Laub says Mr. Chambers called him, told him that his name would appear on the campaign finance report, that he was being listed because he was at the campaign at the time—and Mr. Laub agreed.

“If the committee had heard from the campaign, it would have learned that Mr. Laub had possession of the list in early 2015, that the campaign was not formed until then, and that Mr. Laub was the top staff person on the campaign when it began.

“This should have been an open process. There is no argument to be made that the identities or testimony of the accusers in this report should be shielded from scrutiny. This is, at its core, a minor campaign finance issue. The report pertains to allegations made about the source of a list used to raise money for a campaign. The witnesses were employees of or consultants to the campaign. Two of them were replaced long before election day. One of them worked for one of the Governor’s opponents in the campaign. And all of them were testifying about the campaign itself.

“If Chairman Barnes were on a quest to find out the truth, he has unfinished business to conduct. He ought to ask the campaign for its version of events before acting as judge and jury in a matter that was settled long ago.”

Former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward D. “Chip” Robertson, Jr., counsel to the House Special Investigative Committee on Oversight, issued the following statement in response to Hanaway’s remarks:

“Catherine Hanaway is confused about the law of impeachment. She is fully aware that the House is not convicting anyone. Rather, the House serves to determine whether a public official should be impeached. Impeachment is akin to an indictment by a grand jury in some, but certainly not all, ways. Like an indictment, an impeachment is followed by a trial where due process is honored and the official impeached is given a fair hearing. To that end, the House will accept Ms. Hanaway’s offer and will issue subpoenas to the appropriate persons within the campaign. Indeed, the committee’s report had the desired effect. It caused people associated with the Greitens team to offer to do what they have so far refused to do when asked — to provide information to the committee.”