Senate votes to bar Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg from holding future office unanimously (33 yes, 2 excused) for both articles.

Trying to keep up, but in addition to impeaching the Attorney General on both counts, the Senate also voted to disqualify Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg from holding any future office of profit or trust for the state on a vote of 33 yes, 2 excused for both the first and second articles of impeachment.

27 thoughts on “Senate votes to bar Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg from holding future office unanimously (33 yes, 2 excused) for both articles.”

  1. This should also pretty much put the kabosh on his goal of achieving the rank of Army colonel. Ya shouldn’t have ‘misstated’ stuff during the investigation.

    1. So now we are attacking a veteran who has served his country without and question. Shame on you. He deserves the rank he earned.

      1. He told people, one House Rep in particular, that he would resign or retire if he won the AG office. If he got called up and deployed after getting voted in, then there’d be an appointed person in that seat. So we voted for him. He won…but he did not resign or retire…which means, he lied. Just stating a fact with no negative reflection on military career to this point. He is a Lieutenant Colonel and he has earned that rank. I did not write that he did not deserve it.

    1. We have an AG who has never seen the inside of a courtroom and a DCI director who has never made an arrest.

      Big problem.

      1. I bet this is Marry, are you still upset your husband lost twice trying to become AG? You just can’t let go that the AG’s office does not need a prosecutor but more of a leader and manager.

  2. A sad day for South Dakota, while a good day for justice. Yet, it will be interesting to see what Ravnsborg does next regarding how this was all handled by SDDPS and the Governor’s office. Many missteps along the way that could open the state up to a lawsuit brought by Ravnsborg. Time will tell.

    1. This was new to me. I cannot support someone to head up DCI who is accused of lying by his subordinates. unbelieveable. This seals it.

  3. All a sad commentary on what happens when a couple truly tone deaf people get elected and appointed. We all suffer…..until the next election or in this case, impeachment.

    One must ask, how did Jason Ravnsborg ever get elected in the first place? Did a worthy candidate bail out at the last minute? Were there NO worthy opponents? A mystery.

    Gnat-vig lie to the house? My bet is on Gromer for telling the truth.

    1. Ravnsborg was the consensus choice at the state GOP convention, as an alternative to John Fitzgerald and Lance Russell as I recall. Ravnsborg beat Randy Seiler in the general.

      1. Too many good old boys unhappy with Ravnsborg trying to do the right thing and make South Dakota a better place.

      2. Ravnsborg was a terrible candidate but he built relationships and those delegates who supported him looked beyond his many limitations.

        Russell was a good attorney with too much baggage and a high basement low ceiling. Too many could never support him. He didn’t work hard either.

        Fitzgerald was a good attorney but he didn’t understand the process and he put too much stock in his resume and experience rather than talking to delegates.

        McGuigan is a big part of the JR fiasco. He kept many good people out of the race. Then he dropped out when it was too late for anyone else to get in. Really upset many.

        Ravnsborg became the likely front runner because he worked the hardest at the process.

        Had Fitzgerald made the 2nd ballot rather than russell he might have won as all Russell voters would have gone to Fitzgerald.

        But the Fitz voters couldn’t support Russell.

        Helping get JR over 50%.

        Many voters were strongly encouraged not to support JR but they ignored all the signs of incompetence and narcissism and the fact that hes a strange ranger was ignored also.

        Russell and Fitzgerald would have been vastly better. They just didnt campaign hard enough to overcome their baggage or limitations and JR did.

        Not having a clear stand out is the real reason he won though. Where was the SA with great experience? Also many of the SA’s who would likely have ran here young and in a first term. Just all kinds of wierd problems happened. But number one is that McGuigan kept any consensus alternative out of the race and that really helped JR rally those who didn’t want Russell.

        1. This says it all to me. They have been fighting Ravnsborg long before the accident. He wouldn’t give in to good ole boys and the accident was their way to take him down.

          1. Lol. JR is the definition of a good ol boy. Got the nod based on his friends and connections and not on merit.

        2. I am not sure Russell or Fitz would have been vastly better candidates: Russell had some really unacceptable baggage which would have been campaign fodder for Seiler. And Fitz just came across as too loud and angry, and would have lost to Seiler as well. Both of them campaigned for the nomination in ways which really annoyed a lot of delegates, too. People who were undecided as of Friday night at the convention were really put off by them, and temperatures were still high the next day. The delegates who didn’t arrive until Saturday morning were left wondering what they missed.

          Those of you balking at the cost of attending the convention on Thursday and Friday should think about that. If you want to know what’s going on, you need to show up.

    1. The SA’s have no one to blame but themselves. Putting and endorsement out is not enough. They should run and start encouraging those in their ranks to step forward from Pennington, Brown, Minnehaha, Brookings… get engaged. Bachand should be telling them all to go to Democrat and GOP conventions to make sure competent people are running and nominated.

      The world is run by those who show up.

      Sometimes you get clowns like JR when no one shows up.

  4. What statute did they use for this vote?

    This seems like overkill. It is one thing to remove from office and then a lifetime ban chosen by just 33 people.

    Does it apply to all state, county, township offices? Can someone explain this more, the actual topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.