South Dakota State Senate votes on Article II of impeachment 31 yes, 2 no.

On Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment before the State Senate this afternoon:

Article II: Malfeasance in Office Following the Death of Joseph Boever

S.D. Const., Art. XVI, § 3 provides that the House of Representatives may impeach “state and judicial officers,” for “drunkenness, crimes, corrupt conduct, or malfeasance or misdemeanors in office.” Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg committed malfeasance in office following the death of Joseph Boever.

Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg committed the following wrongful deeds:

(1) Immediately following the collision, Attorney General Ravnsborg identified himself by his official title and made a direct misrepresentation to the dispatch officer, misleading first responders as to the crime he had just committed;

(2) During the investigation, Attorney General Ravnsborg made numerous misrepresentations and misstatements of fact to law enforcement and to the public regarding his conduct surrounding his criminal acts; and

(3) Attorney General Ravnsborg used assets of the Office of the Attorney General to benefit himself personally with respect to the investigation into his criminal activity.

Wherefore, the foregoing wrongful deeds amount to malfeasance in office as provided in S.D. Const., Art. XVI, § 3. Accordingly, this Article of Impeachment for malfeasance in office following the death of Joseph Boever is adopted, and Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg must face trial in the Senate of the State of South Dakota pursuant to S.D. Const., Art. XVI, § 2.

The Senate passed the Second Article on a vote of 31 yea, 2 nay, and 2 excused.

6 thoughts on “South Dakota State Senate votes on Article II of impeachment 31 yes, 2 no.”

  1. “Misstatements of facts….”
    Is that South Dakota wordsmithing for “Lies”?????

    1. So do you disagree that our former AG lied at any given point in the investigation? If you do, we must not be reading the same case documents that have been made public…

        1. You must not have watched Vargo’s closing argument. Jason’s story changed several times in the course of even one interview.

          1. If you take out of context everything looks like a lie

            The whole I would not leave someone behind then he did….over the top….they went to get help. If he leaves him that meant they would have just left and not reported it.

            Just disgusting by Vargo

Comments are closed.