Regarding “Readers have strikingly different views on President Trump’s 34 convictions” (May 31): I’m glad that Howard R. Killion didn’t teach me any political science classes in college.
He makes no mention of the first part of his rationale for democracy – that losers may not challenge the results of a fair election – which is exactly what losers did.
The second part of his premise for democracy is that the winner of an election will not use violence or illegal tactics to prevent the loser from being re-elected. There is no evidence that winners have used violence or illegal means.
The jury unanimously found the election loser guilty on all 34 charges.
Trust in the jury system is a fundamental foundation of democracy.
— W. Reed, San Diego
This makes no sense. Trump was convicted by a jury whose own lawyers agreed to it. There was no wrongdoing. He is a convicted felon and yet he is allowed to run for president.
Why is this illegal? And how can Killion say Trump believes in democracy if he has vowed to be a dictator?
— Yvon Dakayana, Escondido
According to the government's basic policy, violence and illegal means cannot be used against anyone participating in the upcoming fair elections. I cannot understand how anyone can use this statement as a basis for declaring an incident that began with a grand jury approving an indictment and resulting in a guilty verdict on all charges as illegal.
Those who attack our democratic checks and balances by alleging that the guilty party was rigged are a great threat to our democracy. Our system of checks and balances should be scrutinized, but evidence must prevail over opinion.
— Greg Franzen, Poway
