Argus Leader has more on call for Special Session for impeachment

The Argus Leader also more on a story regarding the call for a special session for purposes of impeachment of South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg as announced earlier today:

Peterson said he will formally begin petitioning all members of the Legislature beginning next week and will ask them to gavel in for the special session on Nov. 9.

Because the governor is set to deliver her annual budget address the same day, many lawmakers had already planned to be in Pierre. And that will add ease for House leaders to garner the two-thirds support they need, said Senate Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck.

The Watertown Republican and highest ranking senator in the chamber in recent months has dismissed talks of a special session to take up topics like marijuana policy or participation of transgender people in sports. But after speaking with House Speaker Gosch earlier in the day, he will not oppose a special session regarding the attorney general, he said.

Read the entire story here.

 

71 thoughts on “Argus Leader has more on call for Special Session for impeachment”

    1. Exactly, this opens the door to impeaching a lot of people in the South Dakota government for trivial violations.

        1. And the death has already been ruled an accident, I don’t get you people can’t understand that. Yes, it was a tragedy, but yet it was still an accident. Ravnsborg holds no fault in it.

            1. Government investigators told Jason they recovered “bone scrape” in the rumble strip. If the initial collision caught Joe in the windshield, how could it have simultaneously left bone scrape in the rumble strip?

              And if there was bone scrape in the rumble strip, why did the diagram in the police report show Joe near the north edge of the shoulder during the initial collision?

              It sounds to me like Joe’s body may have been struck a second time after tumbling forward off the hood as Jason was braking.

              1. If Joe had been “walking” upright prior to the initial collision, how did the government investigators explain the damage to the passenger-side mirror?

              2. Dude killed a guy outside his lane. Dude should resign. Everybody but people on this website think so.

                    1. That is particually sick and twisted since it is well known Jason’s mother died unexpectedly during the campaign you cold heartless bastard.

                    2. No, I didn’t give birth to Jason, and I wasn’t at the scene of the crash, and I’m not the one claiming he was outside his lane.

            2. The guy was way over his medication limit from his meds, he crashed his truck earlier that evening, he was suicidal, witnesses have him stumbling on the road, etc.

              The guy holds the majority of the fault. Not trying to speak ill of the dead but had he not done anything of these he would still be alive.

              1. What witnesses saw Joe “stumbling on the road”? That claim isn’t helping Jason if there are no such witnesses.

  1. This sets a horrible precedent and as the prosecutors concluded it was just an accident.

    Politics through and through, that is all this is and has been.

      1. Craig didn’t kill someone and lack the moral courage to face their family or take ownership of his actions.

        1. Craig Price falsely accused the state’s top law enforcement officer of manslaughter. He should never work in law enforcement again.

          1. Was Jason behind the wheel of a vehicle that struck and killed a pedestrian while traveling outside the lane and was completely unaware of what he hit at the time of crash?

            1. Jason exclaimed to the 911 dispatcher that whatever he’d hit had been in the roadway. I’m still waiting for persuasive evidence that his car was outside the driving lane at the time of the initial collision.

              And I’m going to need more than Craig Price’s hysterical rants and the flagrantly deceitful diagram in the police report.

  2. I would be embarrassed to even be associated with people who thinks this proper. So I am not. This is crap.

  3. This is a MEDIA RELATIONS STUNT – never before have we ever impeached anyone for a “Motor Vehicle Accident”

  4. Jason: we know you read this. You have lost the confidence of the law enforcement community. You aren’t effective as our Attorney General, the office is suffering. Our state is not being served every day you continue in office. An impeachment trial in the legislature will be miserable.This won’t end well. Your best option is to resign.

    1. Hang in there, Jason. Call these legislators’ bluffs. We elected you to hold cops accountable, not vice versa.

    2. I know all you Jason haters read this as well. Keep up the good work Jason, we know you are doing a heck of a job as AG. Continue working as hard as you do. Don’t listen to the haters, your employees know how hard you work and how much better the AG’s office has been with you as its head.

      Also, you have not lost the confidence of law enforcement, we know that is a political stunt.

  5. If this case doesn’t call for impeachment, then I can’t think of anything that would.

    I wonder if the same people who support locking up drug users for possession and ingestion, are the same people against impeaching an Attorney General who was convicted of a crime that resulted in the death of a man?

    I could walk out and sit on the curb with a joint and face more consequences then he is. That’s South Dakota for you, It’s not about what you do with your life, it’s all about who you know

    1. I support the decriminalization of voluntary drug use by adults, and I hope Jason finishes his term.

      South Dakota is probably the freest, happiest place left in the world, but you’re welcome to shop around if you disagree.

      1. We voted to do just that with one drug and the governor successfully took steps to stop it. How is that free?

        1. That had so much red tape in it that most cannabis users probably would have stayed in the black market anyway. We can do better.

  6. Me speaking my mind honestly will not cost me a single friend. People who can’t handle my views are not my friend and smoking them out today is better than tomorrow.

    This is an accident with horrific consequences and it is appalling it is being used to reverse an election by people who have buyers remorse. Elections and the vote of the people deserve more respect.

    1. So does Joe Boever. None of this would be necessary if JR would take some responsibility and resign.

  7. Not that anyone asked me, but in my opinion, the fact that we are having this debate means that his remaining in office has become a major distraction.
    Had he plead guilty right after he was charged and taken his fine and expressed remorse and taken responsibility for this accident, this wouldn’t be an issue. We wouldn’t be talking about this.
    He didn’t and he hasn’t.
    The most important parts of this case aren’t subject to debate –
    He wasn’t driving in his lane and he killed a man.

    Yes it was an accident, but it was his fault. He could have mitigated this by manning up and taking responsibility.
    And now he has lost the faith of the Governor and enough of the state government that this is being discussed seriously.
    He has publicly lost the faith of a large percentage of the state’s law enforcement officers.
    He’s going to spend the rest of his term not being effective in his office, and the distractions are going to pile up with the almost certain wrongful death suit he’s going to be facing.
    I don’t think he should be impeached, but I think he should probably resign.

    1. Jason exclaimed to the 911 dispatcher that whatever he’d hit had been in the roadway. If he’d known he struck a person on the shoulder, he should be impeached. If he didn’t know it, why would he have lied?

      What if he really was driving in his lane during the initial collision? Why do you say that question isn’t “subject to debate”?

      1. What do you think is more reliable – the memory or impressions of the person who was just in a car accident OR the accident reconstruction that looked at debris patterns and tire treads?

        I’ll give you a hint – it isn’t the person who was in the accident. I’m not saying that he was lying. Any number of studies, scholarly articles, and evidence from police investigations have proven that after a sudden shock, are not reliable.
        I’m saying that there is a greater than 90% chance that the accident reconstruction was more accurate than his memory or initial impression.

        Ask any experienced police officer how often they get contradictory witness accounts? This isn’t because the people are lying, it’s because they have seen something confusing or traumatic and their memories are distorted.

        1. I believe the spontaneous exclamation of the person who was just in the collision is more reliable than the government investigators who “looked at debris patterns and tire treads.”

            1. I don’t believe that for a second, but hypothetically, would you be fine with convicting innocent people in the remaining ten percent of those cases?

  8. Some of you may think this is a non-comparison, but I remember a few years ago a young man was pleading before legislative committees to enact a texting while driving law. He spoke of heart-wrenching guilt telling the world how he was guilty in killing someone.

    I don’t remember any of the JR-haters speaking up about ruining this young man’s life, shunning him, destroying any future career when he committed a misdemeanor but killed someone, absolutely with no doubt he intentionally was texting while driving.

    Prepare yourselves public servants, you could be impeached for jaywalking.

    1. It isn’t a “non-comparison,” but one could argue it’s a flawed comparison since there’s no publicly available evidence that Jason was on his phone at the time of the collision.

    2. He owned it, and that is more than what could be said about Jason. That is why Jason is going to face impeachment. His behavior is unbecoming of the position he holds.

      1. I heard a story a few years ago about a man who spent much of his life in prison before being exonerated by DNA evidence. The judge had added ten years to his sentence because he failed to show remorse.

      2. He also wasn’t an elected official. Not only an elected official but the attorney freaking general. I know his office has been handling phone calls for months. The added stress and anguish he’s caused others is nasty. For what, another couple hundred thou in salary and his own selfish ego?

        1. Or a desire to honor his four year term as elected and not succumb to people using this tragedy to over-turn the election?

          1. Hold on Jason and don’t allow the Governor to have the office…..she already has how many failed lawsuits??

  9. I see Jason has paid posters back on staff. I haven’t talked to one person who thinks Jason should stay in office. Some were undecided until they saw he never even appeared in court for his charges. The poor guy has never faced adversity before, and it shows.

    1. I sign my name and the only people I know who want him to go have an agenda.

      Its always the one who slurs people for being bought who is the one who is bought.

      P.S. A large segment of the population quit paying attention to it a week after it happened and the “insiders” started calling for his resignation. It’s not hard to see a witch hunt, especially after watching what happened to Trump.

      1. Troy, the top lawman in the state lied to investigators. You can’t deny it. Waken up and smell the coffee. Quit licking the badge.
        Real lawmen hate that crap.

        1. “Real lawmen” ought to carefully avoid assuming the worst and jumping to conclusions.

          When would you say Jason lied to investigators?

        2. What lies, please tell me the lie that you speak of? Oh wait, there is no lie. The prosecution didn’t think he lied or they would have file charges.

    2. Jason must have been pretty lucky if he “never faced adversity” during two tours in Afghanistan.

      What if one of his “paid posters” confessed to the Jason-haters in the media? If he were dumb enough to hire paid posters, he might have been dumb enough to lie to a 911 dispatcher about the location of a collision.

      1. This comment makes no sense and is just dumb. Next time, think before you type, be coherent and have something worth of value to say. Now go give back the computer to your mommy and go sit down in time out.

  10. I think it is total BS this whole..he didn’t go face the family……you mean Nick “I have attacked the AG, the Governor and countless other Republicns for years prior to this” Nemec OR the estranged wife who didn’t care enough about Joe when he was alive but now that she can get a check, he was the love of my life……total BS an theatrics….

    1. You make a valid point about Nick Nemec’s politics, but Joe’s wife probably doesn’t need to fake grief. No matter who’s to blame for the crash, this must be a waking nightmare for her. Could we all please cut her a little slack?

  11. I am starting to smell a rat. Before the Legislators hold this kangaroo court, we will be inside a year of an election 8 months of a nominating convention.

    Let us decide at convention decide the nominee and elect the AG. Or is that what you are afraid of. Getting a good indication of what these people think of elections and the people’s will.

    1. Troy are you implying that everyone that wants Jason gone for his conduct ALL want the AG’s spot? Literally? What else do we ALL have to gain? That argument makes no sense

      1. When an AG lies in an investigation regarding a death that came at his hands, he is unfit for office. How is this a debate? PLEASE SOMEONE ADDRESS THIS AND NOT DEFLECT. (Someone is who thinks this is a which hunt).

        1. How did the AG lie?…please explain with specificity–hard to defend against such vague allegations–I will try a few preemptively though.

          The investigators pressured him saying he was on his phone at the time of the accident…the AG repeatedly denied it…and what was the result of this repeated pressuring…oh wait for it…. the investigators were either lying (which is allowed in an interrogation by LE) or they were wrong as the evidence proved he was not on his phone at the time, the prosecutors said it repeatedly. How would you act when they are pressuring you to say something you did not do!

          What else? They proved he was not drinking, which is consistent with what the AG said, but people still claim it, no matter how many times it is said he did not drink.

          The light & the body were not only not seen by the AG, but the Sheriff, the tow truck driver and every car that drove by at night and in the morning. So he was not alone in these observations.

          Have you listened to the 911 tape? He doesn’t sound like someone who just knew he hit someone, even the operator thought a deer was a plausible explanation. Plus who on earth calls 911 within seconds of the accident if he was trying to cover anything up?! What was his plan, he had no idea who they would send out or what efforts would be done to see what happened…you know that is how it is supposed to work…call 911 and let the officer who arrives take charge of the accident scene…the AG or ANYONE else’s responsibility ends right there for finding out what happened.

          Maybe you got your law degree at the same place Craig Price did. Maybe you should criticize the prosecutors like the Gov and Price both did, I am sure that is going over well.

          The criticized prosecutors didn’t charge him with obstruction. The ones that should have been charged with obstruction are the Governor and Price….remember the release of the video tapes which has happened to NO ONE else ever…..

          1. Great comment.

            “Plus who on earth calls 911 within seconds of the accident if he was trying to cover anything up?!”

            And whose go-to alibi is that he hit something right in the roadway but didn’t see it? It’s hard to see why anyone would say that unless it was the truth.

            1. Someone who wasn’t looking where they were going. Cars have headlights to see things that are “right in the middle of the road.”

              Also how many people call 911 and give their occupation to the dispatcher?

              1. So you agree that he was in the middle of the road. So again, why was he stumbling in the middle of the road. Had he not be there he would not have been hit. Holds the majority of blame.

      2. Noem wants control of it

        Marty wants it so he can run for Governor in 2026

        You will in the blanks…….

Comments are closed.