For example, in Pennsylvania, they have two very strong legal arguments. One, that the courts changed what the legislature did about counting ballots after the end of Election Day. Thats a winning issue in the Supreme Court. I dont necessarily support it, but its a winning issue in the Supreme Court, Dershowitz told Fox Business on Sunday. The team, meanwhile, has a winning issue in the Supreme Court on equal protection, that some counties flawed ballots to be cured while others didnt. Bush v. Gore suggests that an Equal Protection argument can prevail. Zerohedge Dershowitz, who helped defend Trump during the Senate impeachment trial earlier this year, said that due to Democratic candidate Joe Bidens lead over the president, Trumps team may not be able to contest enough ballots in Pennsylvania. The other legal theory they have, which is a potentially strong one, is that the computers, either fraudulently or by glitches, changed hundreds of thousands of votes. There, there are enough votes to make a difference, but I havent seen the evidence to support that, he elaborated. So, in one case, they dont have the numbers. In another case, they dont seem yet to have the evidence, maybe they do. I havent seen it. But the legal theory is there to support them if they have the numbers and they have the evidence.
There appears to be good statistical evidence for the computer problems. Less currently known
evidence for it, but the statistics alone make a good case if looked at closely rather than dismissed.
This entry was published Tue Nov 24 11:18:51 CST 2020 by
and last updated 2020-11-24 11:18:51.0.
comments powered by Disqus. comments powered by