Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg is speaking to the press today on a couple of subjects, including how he believes investigators were looking at the September 2020 car accident which has been the subject of significant scrutiny, as well as speaking to delegates about the next election around the corner.
According to the article by Stephen Groves of the Associated Press:
“I was willing to take a lie detector test. I was willing to go to North Dakota,” Ravnsborg said when asked to respond to the investigators’ testimony. “I took their testimony to basically say that they didn’t want me to because they knew I would tell the truth. So I think that speaks volumes.”
and..
He acknowledged that he had been making calls to the state Republican party’s delegates, who in June will decide the party’s nominee for attorney general, though he cast it as part of his regular order of business. Ravnsborg would face Republican Marty Jackley, his predecessor, at the state convention.
For the handful of delegates that read the articles on this site, and the handful who review comments, please, for the sake of the GOP, don’t put up Jason Ravnsborg for the AG spot.
Nonymopuse would you please tell us why you think this way.
Dude killed a guy with his car.
same Moran–different day
Yeah what a moran
Hey, it’s the guy in the basement saying the same thing over and over again. You have been schooled so many times on the definition of an accident, no one killed anybody.
Stop saying the same thing on every article, let the big boys chat.
Talk about disrespectful–everyone knows the AG’s mother passed away during his last campaign—talk about disrespectful
He literally killed a man. The question is about LEGAL CULPABILITY. You gotta stop lying. Please.
Don’t forget the part about lying about it.
Will ya please stop.
Can you imagine if he won the nomination? (Which won’t happen)
The governor would not vote for him. Dozens of legislators would endorse the democrat.
No one would associate with him.
The seat would be given to the Democrats.
It’s a sad deal that he is that toxic to the party and state and continues to put his self interest first.
And who is your source on this, everyone I talk to from the party still is very supportive of Ravnsborg (to include the majority of law enforcement)?
Let me guess, you are Marry and trying to bad mouth Ravnsborg because you are still unhappy your husband came in last place in the AG race 4 years ago.
Doubtful this is a post by Mary.
She is usually (foolishly) proud enough of her musings that she places her name to the post.
And her more current pressing concern is sponsoring legislation so that her kid (and 16 others who weren’t able to pass the SD Bar Exam since 2013) can practice law in South Dakota.
This clown needs to go.
No way–then Noem gets to pick…and that is not good for the state and not good for Jackley.
If he goes and Noem can put her pick in there no way we are getting the truth on anything.
If you didn’t think it was political before….(which I did) the robocalls proved it was political and who gains? NOEM
Isn’t it illegal what Noem did by paying for robocalls?
who said Noem paid for those robocalls? What did I miss?
Not as illegal as running someone over.
And that has been settled as an accident, hence nothing illegal about it. But Noem bully and getting someone fired to get her daughter a license is illegal.
Whoever Noem picks would just be a caregiver until Jackley returns next January. There’s not a lawyer in SD who she could appoint that would be able to then beat Jackley at the convention.
Marty Jackley’s law enforcement endorsements could become a liability if voters find out law enforcement botched the reconstruction of his opponent’s crash and tried to put him in prison by falsely accusing him of manslaughter.
That would probably also remind people of Jackley’s refusal to release the results of the Benda investigation.
Call Lora Hubble. Someone got into her tin foil supply.
*Hubbel
Especially if it becomes apparent that those law organizations were influenced by Noem to oppose Ravnsborg for no good reason.
It’s more likely that Noem was influenced by law enforcement, especially Craig Price.
Uh huh.
The best thing about this is Marty has a clear understanding of who his real allies are.
Reckless, arrogant cops?
No, Kristi did not pay for those robocalls. Have you ever heard of others paying for robocalls to make it sound like someone else paid for them just to make them look bad? Not the first time in SD this has happened… Don’t be fooled so easily.
I guess you must work for Noem and are trying to cover things up. The proof is in the pudding and there is proof Noem paid for the robocalling.
Let me ask you this. Is it that hard to think that Noem, who has been proven to have meddled in the entire investigation from day one, could have also paid for robocalling to try and influence the committee?
Why would it be in the ordinary course of his business to call delegates, unless he wants to run again?
It’s not a normal thing people do. It’s certainly not part of the AG’s job.
Is he running, or not? Seems like a simple question.
The AG has kept in touch with me long before this election season as a convention goer.
He is just a nice person that had a tragedy happen to him.
That is what some hate about him. He has always out worked everyone.
The guy went to a Lincoln Day Dinner 2 years prior to the election when he had the accident.
I am totally confident that you guys will renominate him and he’ll then win. Some of us remember 1982, when an AG and a Treasurer’s arrests in Winner didn’t stop them from getting re-elected later that same year.
And what about all of Noem’s speeding tickets and contempt of court citations that were uncovered in 2010? Those issues didn’t stop her from being elected to Congress, did they?
Go back to Scott’s blog and pretend you’re original and/or funny. Or, just go away.
I will not be at the convention. I will be voting in November. If the delegates choose Ravensborg to run as AG, I will vote for him. Should they choose Jackley, I will vote for him. Both are good people and both have been good lawyers, although I believe Ravensborg was better.
Voting is so easy when you just check the Republican box, isn’t it?
I too find it compelling that they asked him to take a lie detector test….he said he would and even go to North Dakota and they blinked—because when he passed they couldn’t say “we think” he is being deceptive
Newsflash: Polygraphs are fake, they do nothing and their results aren’t allowed in court.
You need to read the article (again ?).
The North Dakota investigators did not ask Ravnsborg to submit to a polygraph examination.
Are polygraph exams even admissable in South Dakota courts?
Guy– yes they did. It was during one of the released video tapes
The investigators never wanted Ravnsborg to submit to a polygraph, which he was willing to do. Makes you wonder that if you think someone is lying, you have a way to determine if he is lying, yet you don’t do it. Maybe the investigators knew Ravnsborg was telling the truth from day one but wanted to be able to claim he thought he was lying.
Spam filter likely caught my reply.
See the reply elsewhere in the Reply section, posted after I removed any semblance of web links.
The investigators did not ask Ravnsborg to take a polygraph test.
I would also be very interested to know why Ravnsborg offered to travel to North Dakota?
The investigators were fully able and willing to spend time in South Dakota – the legal jurisdiction which was the site of the incident.
Hey Jason, moving the site of an interview, interogation or exam to another legal juridiction does not change the rule of law guiding admissability of evidence!
Keep talking counselor.
Newsflash…they asked him to take it….if they are so unreliable why do you ask…
They thought he would decline…but instead he cooperated fully….they only have a “feeling” — what a joke
They did not ask him to take a polygraph test.
Will post a subsequent reply with those news flashes.
Will apparently need to edit to remove any semblance of web links in order to pass through the spam filter on this blog site.
No, they did not request that he take polygraph test.
From a minute-by-minute review of the video interviews published by the Argus Leader (02/23/2021)
– – – – – –
Polygraph test?
1:58:05: After a water break, one of the investigators asks Ravnsborg if he would pass a polygraph test. He says he would, but that he’s asked his own people how they work. He says he was told that because he now knows what happens, that could be problem.
– – – – – –
Very subtle difference. They asked him if he would PASS a polygraph test.
A point after which Ravnsborg answers, then foolishly volunteers that he had asked his people “how they work”. What competent attorney tells/allows their client to keep talking beyond direct answers to questions asked by investigators?
Furthermore, the fact that the investigators DID NOT ask Ravnsborg to take a polygraph test was examined during testimony to the impeachment panel (summarized by the Mithcell Daily Republic, 01/19/2022 )
– – – – – –
Another major question that remains unanswered, the agents never administered a polygraph test, despite Ravnsborg offering himself up. That’s because Arenz, who is trained to conduct and read polygraph tests, said himself and other examiners determined that, for a variety of factors, the polygraph wouldn’t have given an accurate result in this instance.
“After looking at it, none of the examiners, including myself, thought it would be a good case. We didn’t feel it would be a fair test to give to him,” Arenz said. “The likelihood of him not passing the test would be extremely high, even if was telling the truth.”
So Arenz says they didn’t administer the polygraph because failing wouldn’t necessarily have indicated lying. Does he believe passing would have indicated truthfulness?
I hope not. Investigators I’m sure know that polygraphs are more about intimidation than any truthfulness.
This deal is game over. Noem cannot get her impeachment. Nor can she find a WORTHY horse who could beat marty at convention. Delegates will talk nice to Ravnsborg, and vote for marty. They know ravnsborg would cost us the seat.
One of the comments claims that marty having the support of all law enforcement “could
become a liability.” Wait, what? 60+ sheriffs and 60+ states attorneys a bad thing. Hmm. Makes my head hurt….where do they come up with this drivel?
Attacking the investigators? Playing Ravnsborg as the victim? Let me know how that works out.
If i am wrong and they do nominate ravnsborg, say hello to the first democrat AG since Kermit Sande a half century ago. The polling says 80% of SD wants Ravnsborg O-U-T. Its not whether he works hard or is a nice guy. Its whether the public and law enforcement have lost faith in him.
Noem gets a caretaker and a number of scandals go away think about that
It has all been about politics since the beginning… Noem said herself that she was in charge
What scandals?