Re “Readers offer strikingly different views of Trump’s 34 guilty verdicts” (May 31): I am glad that Howard R. Killion did not teach my government classes when I was in college.
The first part of his basis for democracy — the loser not challenging the results of a fair election — is exactly what the loser did, yet he makes no mention of this fact.
The second part of his basis for democracy is that the winner of an election won’t use violence or illegal tactics to keep the loser from running again. There is no factual evidence of any violence or illegal means by the winner.
A jury of peers unanimously found the loser of the election guilty of all 34 counts.
Belief in the jury system is a major basis for democracy.
— W. Reed, San Diego
I don’t understand. Trump was convicted by a jury that his own defense lawyers agreed to. There was nothing rigged about it. As a convicted felon, he is still allowed to run for president.
How is this illegal? And how can Mr. Killion say that Trump believes in democracy when he has vowed to become a dictator?
— Yvon Dacayana, Escondido
According to Government 101 instruction, violence or illegal means cannot be used against anyone participating in the next fair election. How someone could use that statement as support for a case that began with a grand jury’s approval of indictments and concluded with a verdict of guilty on all charges could be found illegal is beyond me.
Those who attack the checks and balances of our democracy based upon the guilty party claiming that the trial was rigged are a great threat to our democracy. Checks and balances institutions should be scrutinized, but evidence must override opinion.
— Greg Franzen, Poway
Read More: Opinion: Former government professor rapped for claims about Trump, trial