Argus Leader late night claim of “Ravnsborg impeachment” seems to be getting shot down quickly by state officials, other media

Later last evening there was a story filed at the Argus Leader which breathlessly seems to claim that there’s a mysterious movement afoot to impeach the Attorney General for the  auto accident that’s been under review for the past number of months:

South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg could face an unprecedented impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives following criminal charges filed against him last week, the Argus Leader has confirmed.

The development comes four days after the Hyde County States Attorney’s Office announced it would not pursue felony charges against Ravnsborg alleging criminal culpability in the death of Joe Boever, 55, of Highmore, who was walking along Highway 14 on Sept. 12 when he was struck. Instead, Ravnsborg will face three separate misdemeanor traffic charges in court for careless driving and distracted driving.

And multiple GOP leaders in Pierre confirmed Sunday night that members are actively discussing potential impeachment of Ravnsborg.

Read that here.

The problem with the story? At least according to other sources, it’s unclear where any of it’s coming from:

“This report is false. This has nothing to do with our office,” senior policy advisor Maggie Seidel told KELOLAND News.

Asked whether the governor had any knowledge whether House Republicans were discussing impeachment, Seidel replied, “I’d suggest you talk to the House members.”

House Speaker Spencer Gosch told KELOLAND News later Sunday night, “At this point in time, no conversations have been had.”

Read that here.

Keep watching…

19 thoughts on “Argus Leader late night claim of “Ravnsborg impeachment” seems to be getting shot down quickly by state officials, other media”

    1. Agreed, Ravnsborg hasn’t even had time to fight the bogus charges. And when do misdemeanors even constitute impeachment, they are misdemeanors?

        1. Do we yet know where that happend? NO, as I have not seen anything from the report to show that.

          Do we know if the guy was walking with or against traffic? NO, if with traffic then he was illegally walking on the road and if against traffic why didn’t he see the car and get out of the way?

          Do we know if he was drinking (most likely as he crashed his truck during the), was he stumbling in the road??

          A lot of facts being left out to make it seem like Ravnsborg is guilty.

          1. See, this is the sort of goalpost moving that irritates me. If you read the above anon post (mine), I was responding to a person claiming the charges were “bogus.” Now another part of the commentariat shifts the debate to “we don’t know.” Fair, we don’t yet. But that wasn’t the point of contention, was it?

  1. I hear they have these people who to to law school who review cases to see if they meet a burden of proof for charging people for crimes.

    But I’m sure the Internet is a far better substitute.

    1. A couple points:

      1) I’m not sure what your point is here. He was charged with crimes. Those crimes led to the death of a man.
      2) Are you asserting that impeachment shouldn’t happen unless manslaughter is charged? If so, why?

      1. They were misdemeanors that he has not been found guilty of, so he is guilty of nothing other than a series of unfortunate events that led to the accident.

        And they are misdemeanors, hardly impeachable.

        1. Again: these misdemeanors killed someone. People keep leaving that important point out, and it smacks of argument in bad faith. Again: his careless driving and lane driving were negligent. That negligence killed someone. Just because it didn’t rise to the level of recklessness necessary for a manslaughter charge, doesn’t mean he was a victim to a “series of unfortunate events.” You make it sound like he had nothing to do with the outcome.

          1. And you are leaving out facts as well, Ravnsborg was accused of careless driving and lane driving. He has not been convicted of anything, those could be dismissed which means Ravnsborg did nothing wrong.

            Sometimes accidents are just accidents.

          2. Anonymous at 10:24…

            I’d assume that Mr. Ravnsborg’s lawyer will bring up that Mr. Boever was walking on the wrong side of an unlighted road on a sliver moon night. That’s an accident waiting to happen. I’ve had close calls in such conditions — both as a driver and as a pedestrian.

      1. are you intentionally leaving out the fact that the pedestrian was walking on an unlit highway late at night in a 65 mph zone?

        Have you never heard of contributory negligence???

        1. He was on the shoulder of the highway, which is where he was struck and killed according to available evidence. Interesting misstatement on your part.

          1. facts:,while pedestrians have the right of way, they have more control over these situations as they can see (and hear) an approaching vehicle before the driver of that vehicle sees them, especially if it’s at night and the vehicle has headlamps on.
            If you are walking opposite the direction of traffic as you are supposed to, you should be able to jump into the ditch in time to avoid being hit.
            Some responsibility has to rest on the pedestrian who was out on a highway in the dark.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.