Removal based on legal rulings

I keep reading some people saying that Trump should not be disqualified from the ballot due to the 14th Amendment because he has never been charged, tried and convicted of insurrection. My counterpoint is that Trump was legally determined to be an insurrectionist. It seems like a judge of the court hearing the underlying case in Colorado had to have been presented with evidence that was convincing enough to rule that Trump was an insurrectionist.

So, it was a legal ruling, even if Trump was not charged, tried and convicted with that crime. He was legally determined to have been an insurrectionist even if the only punishment, so far, is to be disqualified from appearing on the presidential primary ballot.

The appellate court and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that Trump was an insurrectionist, so presumably they also reviewed whatever evidence was presented in the underlying case and found it convincing.

The issue the Colorado Supreme Court was called upon to determine was if the office holder of the presidency was an officer for which the 14th Amendment was applicable. The Colorado Supreme Court made the logical decision that the president is an officer for which the 14th Amendment is applicable. So, it seems that evidence was presented in courts that was deemed convincing all the way up to the level of the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Maine Secretary of State views Trump as an insurrectionist and, therefore, ineligible to appear on the primary ballot in Maine. I believe she referenced the Colorado Supreme Court being convinced Trump is an insurrectionist in her decision to bar him from the ballot. If so, this is also based on a legal ruling.

John Captain

Antioch