No. of Recommendations: 11
Actually I believe it wasn't even a trial but a local hearing which decided to disenfranchise 1 million voters. I am sorry if this is what American justice is considered to be OK and supported by those screaming for protecting Democracy. Sad.That's not correct. The district court conducted a five-day trial, at which trial Trump was allowed to - and did - present his own witnesses and evidence. Those proceedings are summarized in the district court's order, which you can read below:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Cour...No one has been disenfranchised. All of those voters are free to cast their ballots. They are no more disenfranchised by the fact that Trump has been found (after a trial and numerous appeals) to be ineligible for office than Democrats are disenfranchised by the fact that Barack Obama is no longer eligible for office. Their franchise is based on the right to vote - not for every human being they might want to vote for to be eligible for every office they might want to vote them into.
If Trump lost his eligibility to hold office by engaging in an insurrection, the fact that millions of people might want to vote for him anyway
doesn't change his lack of eligibility. And it doesn't disenfranchise them to rule that an ineligible candidate can't appear on the ballot.
