Austin Goss breaks the story that killer Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg is finally ready to surrender to his moral, professional, and political failure and not seek reëlection:
Ravnsborg did not respond to a request for comment on the matter. However, sources close to the matter tell Dakota News Now that since being impeached in the House, Ravnsborg has been telling Republican delegates and close confidants that he will not run for the office again in 2022, regardless of the outcome of the Senate impeachment trial later this month [Austin Goss, “Sources: Ravnsborg Will Not Pursue Re-Election in 2022,” KOTA-TV, 2022.06.01].
However, Ravnsborg is still fighting to get back into office for his last few months. Bob Mercer reports that Ravnsborg is telling the Senate that he is not guilty of the articles of impeachment filed against him:
South Dakota’s suspended attorney general Jason Ravnsborg has broken his silence on the two impeachment articles that have been brought against him.
He has told the South Dakota Senate he’s not guilty, according to Michael Butler, the Sioux Falls lawyer defending him.
“The attorney general, through counsel, has entered a denial of guilt regarding each of the two articles contained in the House resolution,” Butler told KELOLAND News on Tuesday night [Bob Mercer, “Ravnsborg Tells Senate, ‘I’m Not Guilty’,” KELO-TV, 2022.06.01].
Ravnsborg’s written response is not yet available on the Legislative Research Council’s webpage for Senate Court of Impeachment documents (and for Pete’s sake, don’t pester LRC chief Reed Holwegner for those documents, because we know how hard it is for him to do his job when the public asks him over and over when he’s going to do his job), but his lawyer is going to have a pretty high hill to climb to demonstrate to the Senate Ravnsborg is not guilty of the two articles of impeachment. Ravnsborg did commit crimes causing the death of Joseph Boever, including driving outside his lane, and he did commit malfeasance in office following the death of Joseph Boever, including invoking his official title and misrepresenting the facts of the accident in his 911 call right after he killed Boever.
Ravnsborg has acknowledged that he can’t win an election. Now if only he had the moral fiber to admit he should not win his impeachment trial.
Has anybody heard any noises from the SDDP about a potential nominee for AG?
Just goes to show even a blind hog can read the writing on the wall once in a blue moon.
Some folk can look at the facts and admit that the facts are facts and acknowledge that the facts which include their actions are facts, too.
Others need to be hit with a hammer a few times.
‘Bye, Jason.
Convenient that Ravnsborg moves on after he makes Sanford’s deal move on. Also, if he is not impeached, he will then get his promotion.
Ravnsborg has a Ph.D in Denial.
O, the suspense! Will Jason the Kraven Killer be impeached, and, if so, disbarred?
Who knows? This is South Dakota, baby! This is the enormous circus tent of Trumptard Reptilians and their lickspittle sycophants the voters deserve.
I’ve existed in SD since June 26, 2001, and have never lived in a stupider, more corrupt county or state, nor one as proud of it.
I suspect the back room deal has been made. Jason doesn’t run and the senate doesn’t find him guilty.
jlk–your hunch about a deal saving Ravensborg’s license to practice law is a good one….better than 50-50 in my estimation.
Bob Mercer writes for KELO-TV:
I’m wondering how Bob claims to know that.
Didn’t the investigators initially say Joe was walking west when he was struck because he hadn’t had time to get to his truck and start back?
Didn’t the investigators initially tell Jason they knew the right side of his car was over the white line because they found bone scrape in the rumble strip?
Didn’t the investigators initially say Joe’s body took out the passenger side mirror when it rolled off the side of the hood?
Are the investigators standing by any of those claims?
Jason told the 911 dispatcher that what he’d hit was in the roadway. He’s continued to tell his friends and family the same thing, which would presumably mean the amputation on the shoulder happened when Joe’s body came off the car.
How do Bob Mercer and KELO-TV claim to know Jason is lying?
How did an initial collision on the front bumper supposedly separate Joe from his lower leg without separating him from his eyeglasses? Why didn’t his impact with the right side of the car angle it into the ditch? And why was all of the blood from the amputation on the bottom right side of the car, with none of it on the top of the car?
Bob Mercer and KELO-TV owe South Dakotans an explanation or an apology.
Austin Goss writes for Dakota News Now and KOTA-TV:
Et tu, Austin?
The words “pleaded guilty” in that sentence are hyperlinked to another article that doesn’t support the claim.
I’m pretty sure Jason actually pleaded “no contest,” which means the defendant admits he’s likely to be convicted but explicitly doesn’t admit guilt.
Judge John Brown had apparently made up his mind about the case in advance. Brown excluded Joe Boever’s medical records, denied Jason a jury trial, and despite accepting the “no contest” plea, initially sought to sentence Jason to lecture young people about the dangers of distracted driving.
Jason says he was transitioning between speed zones, looked at the speedometer, and struck something in the roadway. Has he ever pleaded guilty to distracted driving or driving outside his lane?
Austin Goss and Dakota News Now owe South Dakotans an explanation or an apology.
I’d written:
Does anyone here know whether Mike Butler could have legally subpoenaed Judge Brown to testify at Jason’s senate trial? I’d like to see someone ask Brown whether Governor Noem’s DPS secretary Craig Price made any attempts to communicate with him other than through the published accident reports or through the media.
Mr. Evans many of your statements are simply wrong, for one the investigators never initially said Joe was walking west. In fact the investigators made no initial or preliminary statements prior to the completion of the report. The report is and was their statement.
the question of whether Boever was walking west, with his back to the traffic, or east, facing traffic, is interesting because if facing traffic his flashlight would have been visible to an approaching vehicle. But if he was walking west it would not have been.
This is why pedestrians are supposed to walk facing traffic. The pedestrian has more control over the situation, day or night, because he can see and hear an approaching vehicle long before a vehicle operator can see him. The light from a flashlight pointed ahead of you if you are walking with your back to the traffic is going to be washed out by a vehicle’s headlamps. A driver just won’t see it.
So was Boever walking east or west in the westbound lane?
Joe Boever could have been dancing a jig and it would not matter since Ravnsborg was distracted! Furthermore, since the killer and the sheriff both missed seeing a lit flashlight after the fact, one concludes both of them were distracted!
Algebra, Joe Boever was walking east facing traffic. A fact confirmed by the autoposy and by several motorists who saw a man walking east on the north shoulder in the minutes before Ravnsborg hit him.
Nick Nemec writes:
Did any of the non-government investigators say that?
Bart Pfankuch wrote for South Dakota News Watch in September 2020:
https://www.sdnewswatch.org/stories/crash-experts-question-ravnsborgs-car-deer-explanation-and-raise-concerns-of-distracted-driving/
Nick writes:
Didn’t the North Dakota investigators initially tell Jason they knew the right side of his car was over the white line because they found bone scrape in the rumble strip?
I’m not seeing how that could have been true if the initial impact had been ten feet outside the white line, as Craig Price now claims.
“Algebra” writes:
Two witnesses who saw it at close range on the night of the crash described a light so dim that it could have been washed out by the light from Jason’s phone. Neither of those witnesses even recognized it as a flashlight.
Mr. Evans writes:
Everyone laughing.
Everyone laughing.
Somebody else said:
I’d written:
“grudznick” writes:
Jason has never been a joke, and you’re a wicked liar.
Ravnsborg has always been an incompetent joke. But he is a good back slapper of Republican convention goers. How else can you explain the 2016 GOP convention nominating their least qualified candidate for the office of attorney general?
That is how grudznick explains it, too, Mr. Nemec. As a fellow who backed Mr. Seiler loudly, I have continued to assert that Mr. Ravnsborg is probably the least effective and most incompetent person to ever serve as the General Attorney for South Dakota.
He must go and he must go quietly. No kicking and screaming. If he cooperates, he gets to keep his law license.
I think whether he continues to be a licensed member of the bar will be decided by the Bar Ass’n and/or the Supreme Ct.
grudznick wouldn’t mind a little kicking and screaming. You know, for the entertainment factor.
grdz you have never shown anything but disdain for our eminently qualified Democratic candidate for AG, Seilor! Then Ravsborg blew up in your face. Same w/Trump, you were all in and then Trump was impeached twice before upending our historic democratic peaceful transition of power, Jan 6th.