That was my (uneducated) thought, that any voter at all could legitimately claim harm resulting from a disqualified candidate being permitted to run.
It would be, if the HAO has bylaws that determined who was allowed to serve as president. Like, you wouldn’t want a convicted fraudster as president, would you? 
The case would argue, “The GOP should never have let him run in the primary, knowing he was disqualified from the office, and the various Secretaries of State in each state were negligent in placing his name on the ballot, knowing he was disqualified from the office. These series of actions, both jointly and severally, deprived the plaintiff their right to win the primary votes, and become the nominee for office, and denied the voters their right to have a candidate who was legally qualified to hold the office, should a majority of the voters decide to support the Republican party. If either the GOP or the SoSes met their duty under the law, Trump would never have appeared on the ballot.”
Such a thing has never been litigated, but it seems to me that this claim is facially valid, and should be given its day in court.
I could see Christie bringing such a suit, if for no other reason than to irritate Trump.
More power to him! And in other schadenfreude-y court news:
Although I do wonder how much he really has to campaign for political reasons (acknowledging that his personal ego absolutely does need it)…
A friend of mine, after this week and the upcoming expectations in George described Trump as collecting indictments like there were Fucking Pokemon. Here’s hoping he gets to catch them all!
You’re welcome.
I’m wondering how long soon it will be that the judge orders Big Mouth 45 held for contempt.
I’m going to start calling his mouth “the contempt trap”.
Brings a whole new meaning to Keep your trap shut.
I hope Peter Navarro never expected any real help from Trump in his contempt trial. That’s not his style at all.
Bumpity bump. Under the bus goes Peter Navarro.
It’s getting full under there!
DJT, "Never met the man. "
Did you mispell that name: >> ??? <<
Ashli Babbit was the traitorous woman who was killed by US Capitol Police while storming Congress on Jan 6th 2020. In Reactionary Wacko Traitor circles she’s a glorious martyr to the cause of Rightful Emperor for Life trump and all things wacky.
Lorena Bobbitt was … somebody else. Equally a f***ed up pup, but in a very different line of crazy.
Heh. I said the same thing on Facebook when I shared this image from back in 2018.
Some reason Navarro can’t subpoena the America-hating fuckstick?
I think he could. But Trump could plead the 5th. (and probably should given all the criminal charges pending against him)
Trymp not showing up is much better than him showing up and taking the 5th. How’s that gonna look for the defense?
Navarro would only want to subpeona Trump if Trump’s testimony would support him. Trump getting on the stand and saying “Navarro who? I never heard of the guy.” would not help.
ETA: … or what the other two posters said
Couldn’t the defense spin taking the fifth as validation? After all, if he didn’t tell Navarro to claim executive privilege, why not just say so?