kenberg, on 2020-October-21, 11:50, said:
The difference here is the level of damage. If someone puts sand in your petrol tank, they will have to pay you back the cost of the damage plus costs plus additional damages for the inconvenience. You will get your car back in more or less the same condition as before the attack. An election though is different. If the GOP had done this not in California but rather in Michigan or Pennsylvania, and then subsequently won that state by less than 1000 votes, how confident would you be that the result was sound. Now take the case that this put DJT over the line at 571 electoral votes. What should the courts do?
Well, what they should do is perhaps a moral question; but that they actually would do most likely would be to say that there is not enough evidence that the illegal drop boxes cost more than 1000 votes and that therefore DJT won the state. The damages would be most likely to come in the form of a fine to the local GOP. The fine would be a cheap price to pay for having won the presidency for 4 years. You do not get back the country in the same state as without the illegal act as you might expect from your car.
Now perhaps you think I am exaggerating here but remember that I am English. In the Brexit referendum the Leave campaign was found guilty of a number if illegal campaign violations but the result was precisely as described above - they had to pay a fine and the Brexit result stayed in place. For the money men and foreign powers financing the Leave campaign, this was the cheapest price to pay possible compared to the prize they had won. I was damaged but the remedy I got in no way compensates for the illegal action taken. This is how I suspect you would feel if Michigan was the deciding state in the election and it was won by such underhand means as these illegal drop boxes. This is what you are missing.