Missouri Governor Eric Greitens admits to cheating on his wife after pretending to be a loyal family man

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens has been privately accused by a woman of A.) having cheated with her on his wife, B.) having photographed her in a state of undress without her permission after tying her up, and C.) having bullied her by threatening to spread the photos if she revealed their affair. The allegations have just gone public, courtesy of her now-ex-husband.

I suppose you could add a point D.), which is that Greitens subsequently ran for governor as a decent and loyal family man on a mission “to clean up Jefferson City” with the wife upon whom he cheated beaming at his side.

It’s important to understand that there is a corroborating witness to at least the primary part of the woman’s story, and that would be Eric Greitens himself. Through a spokesperson, the governor discovered candor after getting caught—how courageous—and verified the cheating part of the story Wednesday night. He denies the rest.

So point A seems proven and makes for an interesting juxtaposition with point D, which we already knew. That leaves a couple of questions:

1. Did the governor indeed photograph his mistress without her permission for the purpose of intimidating her into silence?

2. If he did—and lied about it as recently as yesterday—is he fit to serve as governor?

Before exploring these questions, let’s establish what this story is not, which is some form of “fake news,” witch hunt, media circus, or political cheap shot. The allegations that Greitens’ spokesperson labeled “false” were not made to the media or in any other public forum, and they were not made for any political reason.

They were made by a tearfully despondent woman to her then-husband in a confession that she did not know was being taped. That’s at least what local media outlets were told by the ex-husband, whose name has been withheld so as not to identify his ex-wife (who is not commenting) and his family, including a teenage child whom the man says was called by a reporter. That, he said, is what prompted him to release the tape.

It’s awfully hard to ascribe cheap motives to the ex-husband of Greitens’ mistress. If he had an agenda, he most certainly could have come forward with the tape any time in 2016 for the purpose of derailing Greitens’ righteous quest to the Governor’s Mansion.

Let’s be clear about this: The mistress is not publicly alleging anything about Greitens. The husband is merely revealing the allegations that she privately made to him. And the media isn’t the story here.

Greitens’ only argument is with an audiotape, unless he’s also having an argument with his conscience, which is doubtful. To me, the outcome of this story really comes down to whether he abused his mistress’ privacy, bullied her, and then lied to the public about it.

And, of course, what should happen if he did all those things? If your answer is “nothing,” you might want to Google the words “Me Too.”

On the other hand, let’s be clear that this is not likely a story about crime. If a married woman goes to another man’s house for the purpose of having an affair and consents to be tied up in a compromising situation, it’s tough to prove that she didn’t consent to a photo, if one were taken, or that she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation.

Also, while the alleged activity of Greitens is consistent with colloquial use of the word “blackmail,” lawyers tell me that doesn’t mean it constitutes an actual felony. It might be subject to some statute involving intimidation, but again, it’s not easy or obvious criminal proof. And lying to the public is not a crime.

I don’t think that matters. The story is about degrees of immorality, not crime. The question is whether you believe Greitens is telling the truth, which means the woman would have been lying to her then-husband in what she thought was a private conversation.

Personally, I think it’s hard to believe that Greitens is not lying. His propensity to lie is a known commodity based on his family-man campaign. Also established is Greitens’ propensity to bully people: He wears his macho, weapon-toting, Navy Seal, tough-guy image as a badge of honor. He proudly and publicly has bullied legislators of his party, among others. It’s what defines him and sets him apart from “weak” politicians and media types.

Can anyone really say they have trouble believing Eric Greitens would stoop to intimidating a woman to protect his own skin? It’s hard to believe he wouldn’t. And this isn’t some partisan statement: Plug in a name like Matt Blunt or John Aschroft or whomever into the scenario, and the assumption would be just the opposite.

It’s not clear what the woman stood to gain by concocting a story about a photo or intimidation. She wasn’t making a public statement to the media, she wasn’t talking to police, she wasn’t in a courtroom, and she wasn’t out gossiping. She was talking privately to her husband, or so she thought.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. It’s obvious that the Greitens’ team strategy will be to deny, deny, deny and then claim that this is all political and all about “fake news.” And, of course, it will be portrayed as a mean-spirited, Godless attack on his innocent wife and children.

Consider the statement attributed to First Lady Sheena Greitens: “We have a loving marriage and an awesome family. Anything beyond that is between us and God. I want the media and those who wish to peddle gossip to stay away from me and my children.”

In a separate statement attributed to the loving couple, Team Greitens had the audacity to include verbiage that referenced that “Eric took responsibility” (how noble) and that the couple dealt with this “honestly and privately.” The press release referenced “God’s mercy” and used a form of the word “forgiveness” three times, in the last instance to be provided by “you” along with your love, compassion, and prayers.

When you have no defense, go on offense. Perhaps they’ll try to export this as a campaign commercial about divine redemption for a courageous public servant.

In some ways, this soulless political spin is almost as disgusting as the original sin.

First, don’t play the God card here. God is not a human shield. God weighed in on adultery quite a bit in the Bible. Of all the things to keep private at a time like this, your religious practice is top of the list.

Also, this isn’t about “the media and those who wish to peddle gossip.” When one publicly admits to cheating on one’s wife—albeit only after getting caught—the subject matter is no longer gossip. It’s fact. As for the role of the media, would it have been more responsible to have covered up and censored the story?

Like other people in the media, I was aware of the Greitens’ cheating rumors for a while. I had no interest in pursuing the topic, as repulsive as I have always found the guy, personally and politically. I’ll admit to being old-school and a bit outdated on this point: I’m just not an adultery-story hunter, and all I’d heard were rumors.

Greitens was actually the beneficiary of much decent restraint here. Sources tell me that the rival gubernatorial campaign of former Attorney General Chris Koster undoubtedly had the same rumors at its disposal and did not choose to use them against Greitens. If that’s true, it speaks highly of Koster’s character. One wonders what Greitens would have done were the situation reversed.

But the tape changes everything. If I’d had it, as apparently the St. Louis Post-Dispatch did, there’s no way that I would have taken the cowardly path to withhold it, because the contents of the women’s allegations are extremely serious and go far beyond the subject of cheating.

This isn’t a story about sex and politics; it’s about character and integrity. At the end of the day, the most important question is whether Eric Greitens is fit to serve.

On the face of it, I think not. But it will be interesting to see if some form of public inquiry gives us a more definitive answer. That said, Jefferson City being the swamp that it is, don’t hold your breath waiting for one.