Alan Dershowitz says ‘legal, constitutional paths’ to 2020 presidential election exist for Trump

Alan Dershowitz, legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney, believes President Donald Trump has at least two or three potential constitutional paths to securing the 2020 presidential election.

Several states across the country are still in the process of officially certifying the vote, and the Electoral College convenes mid-December.

Inauguration Day is Jan. 20, 2021.

What are the details?

According to the Washington Examiner, Dershowitz said during an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo that Trump and his legal team have several strategies in order to clinch a re-election against former Vice President Joe Biden.

“In Pennsylvania, [the Trump team has] two very strong legal arguments,” he explained. “One, that the courts changed what the legislature did about counting ballots after the end of election day. That’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. I don’t necessarily support it, but it’s a winning issue in the Supreme Court. … They also have a winning issue in the Supreme Court on equal protection, that some counties allowed flawed ballots to be cured while others didn’t. Bush v. Gore suggests that an equal protection argument can prevail.”

Dershowitz also said that Biden’s vote lead, however, could prevent Trump and his legal team from contesting what the Examiner refers to as a “sufficient number of ballots.”

“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 haven’t seen the evidence to support that,” he explained to Bartiromo. “So, in one case, they don’t have the numbers. In another case, they don’t seem yet to have the evidence; maybe they do. I haven’t seen it. But the legal theory is there to support them if they have the numbers and they have the evidence.”

Dershowitz pointed out that Trump and his team is under the gun to prove a case based on voter fraud.

“You need to have witnesses, experts subject to cross-examination, and findings by a court,” he explained.

“Notwithstanding the fact that there are legal paths to potential victory,” the professor continued, “I don’t think that the election is going to be reversed based on the numbers that I see at the moment and based on the fact that I haven’t seen the evidence. Their strongest case, if they have the evidence, is that computers may have turned hundreds of thousands of votes.”

*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from TheBlaze can be found here ***