darn those near-sighted deer: South Dakota AG hit and run case reveals more facts

Because not wanting to be accountable for perhaps something more felonious like manslaughter is so on brand for Republicans.

Washington (CNN)

South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg is under pressure to resign after he was charged last week with three misdemeanor counts in the accident that led to the death of 55-year-old Joseph Boever.

The calls for his resignation have ramped up in light of new evidence released Tuesday night, in which investigators say that they found Boever’s broken glasses in Ravnsborg’s car and that the victim’s face had come through the attorney general’s windshield. Ravnsborg struck and killed Boever on September 12. He initially told police he had hit a deer, but he discovered Boever’s body the following morning after returning to the scene of the collision.
In a two-part interview, a video recording of which was released by the South Dakota Department of Public Safety, investigators question Ravnsborg about a pair of broken glasses found inside his vehicle.
“Do you normally wear glasses or anything when you’re driving?” one investigator asks Ravnsborg in the first interview, to which the attorney general says he does not.
After a brief back and forth over the type of glasses that Ravnsborg normally wears — sunglasses — the investigators move on to discuss other things.
In a follow-up interview, the same two investigators question the attorney general and discuss the broken glasses.

“They’re Joe’s glasses. So that means his face came through your windshield,” an investigator tells Ravnsborg, who lets out an obvious gasp and says, “I wondered about that.”

Apparently Ravnsborg also was one of the 17 GOP AGs who attempted to challenge 2020 election results in GA,MI, WI, and PA with a nonsense suit.

Joining challenge to 2020 presidential election results

On December 8, 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where certified results showed Joe Biden defeated Trump. Paxton, Ravnsborg,[84][85] and 16 other states’ attorneys general who supported Paxton’s challenge of the election results alleged numerous instances of unconstitutional actions in the four states’ presidential ballot tallies, arguments that had already been rejected in other state and federal courts.[86] In Texas v. Pennsylvania, Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the states’ 62 electoral votes, allowing Trump to win a second presidential term.[87] Because the suit has been characterized as a dispute between states, the Supreme Court retains original jurisdiction, though it often declines to hear such suits.[88] There was no evidence of consequential illegal voting in the election.[89] Paxton’s lawsuit included claims that had been tried unsuccessfully in other courts and shown to be false.[90] Officials from each of the four states said Paxton’s lawsuit recycled false and disproven claims of irregularity.[91] The merits of the objections were sharply criticized by legal experts and politicians.[92][93] Election law expert Rick Hasen called the lawsuit “the dumbest case I’ve ever seen filed on an emergency basis at the Supreme Court.”[94][95] U.S. Senator Ben Sasse said the situation of Paxton initiating the lawsuit “looks like a fella begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt”, in reference to Paxton’s own state and federal legal issues (securities fraud charges and abuse of office allegations).[96] On December 11, the Supreme Court quickly rejected the suit in an unsigned opinion.[97]


  • February 25, 2021