Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Path to 270 May Be SCOTUS or House

[mystery-ak]

Eric Mack    |   Tuesday, 17 November 2020 03:42 PM


The possibility the Supreme Court decides this presidential election is still a long ways away, if it ever comes – and it might not sit well with the American public – according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.

"We're a long way from 2000," Dershowitz told Tuesday's "American Agenda," referring to the Bush v. Gore decision that gave George W. Bush the state of Florida and ultimately the White House.

President Donald Trump's path to 270 is so difficult, the more likely goal for his team is to keep enough states from certifying the election results so Joe Biden falls short of 270 electoral votes Dec. 14.

"We're in a land of the unknown, and we just don't know how the Supreme Court would ultimately decide this case," Dershowitz told host Bob Sellers.

more
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/electoral-college-state-delegations-house/2020/11/17/id/997476/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Eric Mack    |   Tuesday, 17 November 2020 03:42 PM


The possibility the Supreme Court decides this presidential election is still a long ways away, if it ever comes – and it might not sit well with the American public – according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.

"We're a long way from 2000," Dershowitz told Tuesday's "American Agenda," referring to the Bush v. Gore decision that gave George W. Bush the state of Florida and ultimately the White House.

President Donald Trump's path to 270 is so difficult, the more likely goal for his team is to keep enough states from certifying the election results so Joe Biden falls short of 270 electoral votes Dec. 14.

"We're in a land of the unknown, and we just don't know how the Supreme Court would ultimately decide this case," Dershowitz told host Bob Sellers.

more
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/electoral-college-state-delegations-house/2020/11/17/id/997476/

Less than 1% chance of happening.

[libertybele]

Eric Mack    |   Tuesday, 17 November 2020 03:42 PM


The possibility the Supreme Court decides this presidential election is still a long ways away, if it ever comes – and it might not sit well with the American public – according to constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.

"We're a long way from 2000," Dershowitz told Tuesday's "American Agenda," referring to the Bush v. Gore decision that gave George W. Bush the state of Florida and ultimately the White House.

President Donald Trump's path to 270 is so difficult, the more likely goal for his team is to keep enough states from certifying the election results so Joe Biden falls short of 270 electoral votes Dec. 14.

"We're in a land of the unknown, and we just don't know how the Supreme Court would ultimately decide this case," Dershowitz told host Bob Sellers.

more
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/electoral-college-state-delegations-house/2020/11/17/id/997476/

I'm not worried about the Supreme Court ruling and deciding the case I'm worried about the case even making it to the Supreme Court.  Let's get there!!    Oh, and I don't give a darn what the American public thinks .... the American public has the absolute right to a fair election, regardless of outcome!!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Less than 1% chance of happening.

Maybe not @Weird Tolkienish Figure

Trump legal team zeroes in on expulsion of election observers, data irregularities
Just the News, Nov 17, 2020, John Solomon

[...]

The lawyers are prepared to argue that votes that were counted on election night and the day after without GOP observers present in Democrat-led cities should be thrown out because they were tainted by a process that was left open to fraud and abuse and illegally treated voters differently in various jurisdictions. The Trump campaign lawyers have identified 680,000-plus votes in Pennsylvania and about 250,000 in Michigan they believe fall into the category.

To augment the case, the lawyers are securing affidavits and declarations from citizens who allege:  [...]

The request to discount large numbers of votes is a high legal and political hurdle to surmount, but it is not without precedent. In the last year, North Carolina threw out an entire special congressional election in its 9th District after evidence emerged that mail-in ballots were tainted by a ballot harvesting scheme tied to a GOP operative. And in New Jersey, a state judge earlier this year ordered new municipal election in Patterson, N.J., after evidence of ballot fraud emerged.

Both cases involve mail-in ballots, which are at the heart of the Trump campaign's arguments that rule changes by state officials — not approved by their legislatures as required by the Constitution — coupled with the exclusion of bipartisan vote count observers created election irregularities in parts of Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states that violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

More: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/tue-am-trump-legal-team-zeroes-expulsion-election-observers-data

Add this to the precedents:  (The Presidential candidates were included on the ballots thrown out)

Voter discrepancies cause Nevada's largest county to throw out one local race
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/discrepancies-clark-county-nevada-election-highlight-potential-voter

From Richard Grenell -- managing the fraud investigations in Nevada:

Richard Grenell
@RichardGrenell

 you have to suspend common sense to believe fraud only happened on one race of a long ballot.

They didn’t have faith in their election - there were too many discrepancies. They threw out 150k ballots over 10 cases? Absurd.

11:05 AM · Nov 17, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1328730917423091712

[rustynail]

Less than 1% chance of happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM

[aligncare]

Well, at least now we can make out who among us are the optimists and who, the pessimists.

[Fishrrman]

"President Donald Trump's path to 270 is so difficult, the more likely goal for his team is to keep enough states from certifying the election results so Joe Biden falls short of 270 electoral votes Dec. 14."

I believe there's an error in understanding the procedure here.

Let's use Pennsylvania for example. The state has 20 electoral votes.

If all 50 states present electors to the Electoral College, the required majority "to win" is 270 -- 269 + 1.

BUT... if Pennsylvania sends no electors, the total number of electors present now becomes only 518. Thus, "a majority vote" of those present becomes 260 -- 259 + 1.

That's how I believe the procedure is supposed to go.