The business of the House Select Committee on Impeachment seems to be slow going

An article from Christopher Vondracek this morning in the Forum News Service/Grand Forks Herald doesn’t exactly paint a bright portrait of how things are progressing in the House Select Committee for Impeachment in the case where they’re attempting to bring action against the Attorney General:

“This is way beyond the scope of anything we’ve done,” said Jensen, who added he was just “trying to figure out how to get things done in a timely manner.”

And..

Moreover, the Legislature’s select committee hasn’t been keeping the most brisk of calendars. After meeting more than two weeks ago, they’ve yet to meet since. On Tuesday, Nov. 23, Gosch told Forum News Service that “likely next week” would be when the team next meets.

And..

On Wednesday, Nov. 24, the committee’s vice-chair, Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, also said he’d yet to hear a meeting for next week confirmed. Asked if they’d hired the special counsel yet, Stevens said, “You’d have to talk to the speaker about that.”

Read the entire article here.

Considering the AG pled No Contest to minor traffic offenses (a lane change violation and using his phone while driving a few miles before the accident) this whole impeachment business might be a lot more complicated than people think.

27 thoughts on “The business of the House Select Committee on Impeachment seems to be slow going”

    1. Hey, is the same guy that all he ever has to state is a wrong statement of he killed a guy. You must have woken up from your nap. Remember he was never charged of killing, it is an accident. Keep up with your lame comment.

  1. Hilarious. The legislature decides what’s impeachable under the constitution. Not you bob. This isn’t law and order or ncis. The standard in the constitution is broad enough the legislature clearly has the ability to examine if he was truthful, remorseful and his misdemeanors and actions in total warrant removal.

    Let’s be honest. He’s staying in office because he has no where to go. Best job he will every have. No options at this point. Which makes this about him.

      1. Agreed, this is laughable. Nothing is impeachable able about this unfortunate accident. Everyone knows it, this is Noem wanting to put one of her persons in the position.

  2. Interesting story. Also interesting will be to observe how many House Members serving as Delegates at the state convention in Watertown vote for Jason for AG. A large number could foreshadow an unwillingness to impeach.

  3. Facts of the matter:
    1) Jason was behind the wheel, hit and killed a pedestrian, and was completely unaware of what he hit – a clear case of negligent driving.
    2) Jason was stupid enough to talk to investigators without his own counsel present.
    3) Jason was too chickenhearted to attend his own trial.
    4) Jason has yet to take ownership of his actions.
    5) Jason was pulled over for another gross speeding violation before his trial concluded.

    The grounds for impeachment don’t require he get convicted of anything. A lack of faith is his ability to serve or belief that his embodiment of moral turpitude undermines faith in the justice system are alone sufficient justification for impeachment.

    1. Are you kidding me, none of these are facts. They are more opinion by you, who clearly is a hater.

      1. He did not kill anyone, Ravnsborg was involved in an unfortunate accident that resulted in the loss of life. The prosecution who decided what to or not to charge felt he did not kill anyone.
      2. Ravnsborg fully corporated with investigators who seemed to have an agenda vs just seeking truths and facts.
      3. No one attends a hearing on misdemeanors, that is what lawyers are for.
      4. Take ownership of what, he did nothing wrong. He was driving home for the night from an event. The fact that there was an individual in the dark, with dark clothes, stumbling in the road, overdosed on mind meds and had crashed his truck that day was out there on the road on a Saturday at night. No one does that.
      5. Really, how many of us don’t have speeding tickets. Other than timing because of the unfortunate accident, everyone gets speeding tickets.

      Let’s add other facts.
      1. From everything I have read in the news and on this site, he has continued to perform as AG effectively.
      2. Ask anyone that has worked or met with Ravnsborg, nothing but compliments.

      I get you don’t like Ranvborg for whatever reason you have, but you have offered nothing of factual items. Try again.

      1. I agree totally Truth….except Good old boys don’t like him as he has been cleaning up Pierre and they don’t like it one bit…

      2. 1. Can’t argue against the negligent driving can you? Whether or not he’s solely responsible isn’t the issue, he directly contributed to the death by not paying attention to the road.
        2. Law school 101: Don’t talk to police without a lawyer present. He was under duress and decided to wing it. It’s indicative of bad judgment.
        3. A man was killed, it was well beyond a speeding ticket, and he’s the AG. There are optics to consider, which he clearly didn’t.
        4. See point number one. If he did nothing wrong he would have called in hitting a pedestrian to 911 the night of and they would have recovered the body that night since they’d have incentive to put in actual effort in the search.
        5. No they don’t, and I imagine most people don’t rack up multiple offenses because of the consequential car insurance rates. Going 22 mph over the limit would also be an automatic reckless driving charge in some jurisdictions. You obviously do you, but maybe think twice before you drive out of state and don’t be a hazard to others when you drive in this one.

        1. You’re reading abilities seem limited, and I don’t exactly take you as the widely read type. He’s struggling to post language for ballot measures correctly more than his predecessors, and he’s made more enemies out of former allies than anyone in Pierre save the governor.
        2. I have. I wonder if sarcasm is something that escapes you.

        1. Wow, you are really delusional. You have not said a single new thing that was not already debunked before. You just can’t accept that the AG has done nothing wrong and has corporated fully with the law. I feel sorry for you, you just typed complete fiction. Nice try, but sorry not an ounce of factual points.

          1. How has any of that been debunked? You pitched some garbage out there, got called on it, and now are crying home to mama.

            I’ll even make it super simple. Just explain how Jason could legally hit someone with a vehicle and not be aware of what he hit. I’ll wait.

            1. And you were there that night? So there is no possibility that a person wearing dark clothes, on a dark road, in the dark of night could not have been seen? Just because you have it in for the AG does not mean what you are peddling is factual.

              Everything you have typed is opinion-based with no facts to support it.

              So no, you didn’t call me on anything, you did nothing but regurgitate the same old fictional stuff. Go back to your basement and let the big boys talk.

            2. it’s called physics
              it’s math, applied to practical applications. so this may be hard for you.

              At 67 mph you are traveling 98′ per second.
              high beam headlamps MIGHT illuminate 400′ ahead; low beams half that.
              So if he had his high beams on the most he could see was only 4 seconds away. If low beams only 2 seconds.
              Driver reaction time depends on a lot of factors like fatigue but it can take a second or two for a driver to see an obstacle and react.
              If headlamps were on low beams (possible because he had just driven through highmore) those two seconds might have not been sufficient time to see the pedestrian, process the information, and know what he hit.

              Most of us have had a “what was that??” experience of seeing something run past us. All we saw was a moving object.
              What was it, a cat, a dog, a coyote, a rabbit, a fox? We didn’t see it long enough to know.

              If nothing like that has ever happened to you, you need to spend more time outdoors.

  4. No one said this would be quick….

    These legislators do have normal day jobs. I really did not expect them to meet before budget address in December.

    This largely feels like a story about nothing to keep the story alive.

  5. There will be an election in November in which I am guessing there will be two people who are not currently serving as AG on the ballot. I fail to understand what the purpose of an impeachment is even if the events were impeachable.

  6. No one supports this impeachment except those self interested —Mary Fitzgerald; Will Mortenson, the Governor….no one has even seen any evidence except selective and I’d say unethical releases like that one prosecutor said.

  7. New thought—- they approach a lawyer… we would like you to be a constitutional expert on something that has never happened before in South Dakota in a political battle with the Governor, Attorney General, Legislature and maybe the Supreme Court a few times… everyone will second guess everything you do and say with their online law degrees… what say you:.. you in?

    Hard pass no matter what I thought of the situation.

  8. Bob et al(other staffers),

    Ok so Joe Boever was killed and it was an “accident” according to the states attorney who charged it out while lamenting the fact we don’t have negligent homicide statutes. Got it.

    No one else has been impeached as a state’s chief law enforcement officer for distractedly driving a car that hit and killed a pedestrian on the side of the road. Got it.

    He’s cleaning up pierre? I assume this is a shot at Noem. Ok.

    You’ve sold me. Time to move on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.