Police investigating Circuit Attorney’s Office; Greitens’ defense team says case tainted


ST. LOUIS - The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is now investigating the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office.

Attorneys Ed Dowd and Scott Rosenblum, who represented Governor Eric Greitens in his invasion of privacy case, walked into police headquarters Tuesday morning to file a police report alleging perjury by the circuit attorney’s chief investigator, William Don Tisaby.

Greitens’ defense attorney Jim Martin said the governor’s remaining criminal case is also tainted by the investigator’s lies.

“He testified in his deposition he conducted as many as 35 interviews when he was in Missouri,” Martin said. “Only two of them were related to the invasion of privacy. The others related to the Mission Continues claims and so every witness he talked to now has become a tainted witness.”

Martin said they’ll try to depose private investigator Tisaby a second time, as well as Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner.

“You’re going to see just as aggressive of a defense,” he said. “The reality is there is just as many weaknesses in the second case as there was in the first.”

That second case accuses Greitens of using his charity’s donor list to benefit his campaign for governor.

“He’s the one who created the list. Everybody on that list, almost everyone on that list, was somebody he solicited and the donor list is still with the Mission Continues,” Martin said. “They still have it. It’s still available to them. So the legal issues as to whether any crime was committed will be pushed very heavily by our office because there was no crime.”

Just like the invasion of privacy case, which Martin said was dismissed because there was no evidence, he said the circuit attorney did not really have a conflict of interest.

“Both the Missouri Supreme Court and the Missouri ethical rules specifically say that other people in her office could have continued with the case. As you observed in the proceedings, (Gardner) was never the active participant in the trial anyhow,” Martin said. “She had lawyers who could carry on the case. Any excuse that it was a conflict of interest for the office is just made up.”

The circuit attorney wrote the following response:

“The continued theatrics from Governor Greitens and his defense team today should surprise no one.

“I knew when I began investigating the Governor that his high-priced defense team would use whatever means possible to attack my team and me in court and through the media. How did I know? Twice Governor Greitens’ team of attorneys came to my office and threatened my staff and me with the continued barrage of insults and accusations if we continued to pursue charges against the Governor.

“As Circuit Attorney, I am responsible for following the evidence to seek the truth, wherever it may lead. Sometimes the evidence leads us to hold public officials and powerful people accountable under the law, and that makes them uncomfortable. Often times, powerful people use whatever financial means available to stop prosecutors from seeking the truth. This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) in American history when an elected official was under investigation and they attacked the investigation itself to redirect the focus from their client to something else.

“What is happening here in Missouri also mirrors what is happening on a national level. Thankfully, the elected officials in Missouri have the courage to stand up for truth and for what is right, regardless of how messy things can get.

“The actions by the defense team today do not concern me. There is not one shred of evidence that any action by Mr. Tisaby was illegal or materially impacted any evidence in this crime. There is also no evidence that Mr. Tisaby was anything other than mistaken or confused during his deposition when he answered the questions improperly.

“Just as Governor Greitens did not want anyone to conclude that he was guilty if he refused to take the stand during the trial, Mr. Tisaby’s reluctance to answer questions during his second deposition was merely due to the fact he had not been given the opportunity to review his previous deposition, which all witnesses are legally allowed to do.”