- Mar 23, 2010
- Reaction score
In the case of breaking into the car, damages can easily be determined and restitution is possible. In the case of vote counting in which a republican monitor was not present, there is no way of determining if there was any damage to the vote count, thus there can be no restitution. The problem with all of Trump's suits is that they are based on what might have happened. No wonder the judges threw the cases out so quickly.By the way, so you know an affidavit claiming to have witnessed the theft of an automobile would be acceptable proof in a court of law. A stranger breaking into an auto you know is not his, because you know who owns the car, is enough to convict someone of car theft.That would be an affidavit enough to support whatever action they're requesting.
But that's not what Trumps legal teams have produced. Their affidavits are to the tune of, I saw somebody fiddle with the car door for ten minutes, get inside, and drive away.
Similar to when a neighbor reported two black men fooling with the front door of Henry Lewis Gates house.
Finger prints in the car and burglar tools found on the thief would all be great corroborating evidence.
But there is absolutely nothing wrong with eyewitness testimony.
It's certainly nothing like a neighbor reporting two black men trying to break into the home of Henry Louis Gates.