Political witch hunt!-----Five Questions On The Eric Greitens Indictment That Must Be Answered

Five Questions On The Eric Greitens Indictment That Must Be Answered:
"'Unlike anything I’ve ever seen in all my years of law enforcement'---By Dave Grossman
"...It’s worth keeping that case in mind as another graduate of Duke, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, stands in the crosshairs of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. 
Greitens was indicted for felony invasion of privacy, in a case with dynamics that seem strikingly similar to the Duke lacrosse case — a prosecutor who may have brought an indictment based more on politics than facts, and a public that may be judging too quickly.
It is my personal opinion that Gardner may be guilty of malpractice and malfeasance on par with the Duke lacrosse case, but with potential to do far greater harm to our nation. 
Her misconduct is of such a magnitude that she should be investigated and possibly disbarred. 
If she is found to be guilty of malfeasance, like the infamous prosecutor in the Duke rape case, she too should face criminal charges.
...Five questions about the legitimacy of this case demand an answer.
1. Where is the police report?
Our legal system typically works like this: someone commits a crime against someone else. 
The victim calls the police, who file a report and conduct an investigation. 
A prosecutor uses the police documents to get an indictment, and a trial begins.
That’s how the system is supposed to work. 
But in this case, the indictment came down without a police report. 
It came without a full investigation. 
And — astonishingly — it came without a victim seeking justice. 
We know, from prior reporting, that the person who the Circuit Attorney has alleged is the victim never went to the police and never brought an action against Greitens. 
Indeed, her only complaint has been that this case was brought into the public to begin with. 
She asked for privacy, and the prosecutor gave her a circus.
Remember how this case first came to light: An aggrieved ex-husband recorded the victim without her consent or knowledge. 
A television station, Missouri’s KMOV, had shabby enough editorial standards that they chose to run that recording on the nightly news, even as other news organizations passed on it. 
And that, it turns out, is all that was used by the prosecutor to bring a charge: a secret recording by an angry ex-husband, and a news report.
That’s hardly the stuff of which felony indictments should be made.
2. Where is the evidence?
Read on!