House State Affairs plans to take up House Resolution 7001, the two articles of impeachment against killer Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg, tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 7:00. Remarkably, that weighty matter is scheduled along with six Senate bills of no small import—sports betting in Deadwood, redistricting, state-tribal relations, abortion, stealth vouchers, and marijuana—so Chairman Kent Peterson (R-19/Salem) and the crew will be earning their per diem.
The hearing could be awkward, since Judge John Brown came out of retirement last week to slap a gag order on every member of state government, including legislators, forbidding them from making statements about the Ravnsborg case. HR 7001 prime sponsor Rep. Will Mortenson (R-24/Pierre) may thus have a hard time offering proponent testimony for his impeachment resolution. Then again, legislators may shield themselves from Judge Brown’s gag order with the South Dakota Constitution, Article 3, Section 11, which says we can’t punish legislators for things they say during Session unless they commit treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
When legislators do open up on Ravnsborg in committee, they will have a chance to explain both articles of impeachment. The first article is obvious: Ravnsborg broke the law, drove distracted, and killed a man, so he’s not fit to serve as our top law enforcement officer. The second, revolving around “other acts” unbecoming the office after the vehicular manslaughter, during the investigation, is not as straightforward. The article does not specify those “other acts.” Certainly people watching the police interview videos that Ravnsborg tried to stifle can assert that Ravnsborg comes across as a simpering liar, but one could also view those videos the same way prosecutors did and determine that, without a confession and without witnesses, they don’t have a slam dunk case for anything beyond the three misdemeanor charges filed. Just what impeachable offenses do Mortenson and his co-sponsors think Ravnsborg committed after killing Joe Boever?
One possibility surfaces at 2:02:00 in the September 30, 2020, police interrogation (still preserved online by Dakota Free Press, because I’m not subject to any gag order, and I’ll win in court if Jason tries to sue me to take it down). One of the North Dakota investigators asks Ravnsborg about his own division’s cyber crimes investigation resources. Ravnsborg says he asked “Gromer” about “how phones work and how they transmit and such…. I just asked him, well, how do things work, how fast do they transmit, what will get held against me.”
Supervisory Special Agent Brent Gromer runs the Division of Criminal Investigation’s Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) unit. He is a state employee, Ravnsborg’s subordinate. Jason Ravnsborg asked a state employee under his supervision to provide him with information that he could use in preparing his defense in a potential criminal trial. That smells as bad as using the state plane to boost one’s political fortunes.
After Ravnsborg mentions his consultation with Agent Gromer and Gromer’s position in his office, the cops quietly take notes for several seconds. The second article of impeachment may be taking notes as well.
Representative Mortenson, fellow legislators, I hope you’ll all see your legal way past Judge Brown’s overreaching gag order and give us your explanation of the articles of impeachment against Jason Ravnsborg in House State Affairs tomorrow. But as we closely review the Ravnsborg videos, the grounds for both articles are becoming clearer.