"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. 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," Dershowitz said. "They also have a winning issue in the Supreme Court on equal protection, that some counties flawed ballots to be cured while others didn't. Bush v. Gore suggests that an Equal Protection argument can prevail."
"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 said. "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."
"Notwithstanding the fact that there are legal paths to potential victory, 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," he concluded.