Ambassador Sondland supports Trump in spite of J-6 because he believes democrats have done worse damage than was done on J-6

[mark francis]

prove there were no investigations.

and clue for the clueless, voting machines are always "wiped clean" after elections..so they can be used in the next election. duh.

my god you are beyond stupid lol

I googled: How many Dominion voting machines were examined by non-biased forensic investigators in the first few weeks following the 2020 election? What did I find out? There is not a single report of a single voting machine being investigated by non-democrats in the critical time period following the 2020 election.

 

[mark francis]

There was NO evidence of fraud, Trump lost in 2020, he lost bigtime and claimed he won by a landslide.

You say there is no evidence of fraud and yet you provide no evidence that vulnerable voting machines were not corrupted.

 

[pjmret]

How many times must SCOTUS tell Jack Smith he is full of s**t before he finally gives up?

they haven't told him that.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a challenge by social platform X, formerly known as Twitter, to court rulings that forced the platform to turn over data on former President Trump’s account to special counsel Jack Smith.

in fact he just won that ruling. lol.

god you are beyond stupid

 

[pjmret]

I googled: How many Dominion voting machines were examined by non-biased forensic investigators in the first few weeks following the 2020 election? What did I find out? There is not a single report of a single voting machine being investigated by non-democrats in the critical time period following the 2020 election.

ah, a moooron makes a google and declares that to be proof. lol.

god yo are beyond stupid

 

[mark francis]

they haven't told him that.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a challenge by social platform X, formerly known as Twitter, to court rulings that forced the platform to turn over data on former President Trump’s account to special counsel Jack Smith.

in fact he just won that ruling. lol.

god you are beyond stupid

What did I miss? Didn't SCOTUS knock down Jack Smith's illegitimate charges against Trump?

 

[mark francis]

ah, a moooron makes a google and declares that to be proof. lol.

god yo are beyond stupid

You are just sore because you know Dominion and democrats refused to allow honest forensic examiners to look at voting machines following the 2020 election. Well guess what? Because democrats blocked investigations into voting machines democrats had previously admitted were susceptible to corruption democrats can no longer claim there is no evidence of voting fraud. All they can claim is that they think there is no evidence of voting fraud but they cannot know or prove that is an irrefutable fact.

 

[pjmret]

What did I miss? Didn't SCOTUS knock down Jack Smith's illegitimate charges against Trump?

nope. and you just missed the last ruling apparently.
try to keep up so you dont look so stupid

 

[Boris Norris]

How many times must SCOTUS tell Jack Smith he is full of s**t before he finally gives up?

They haven't told him anything. They are giving him time to prepare his case for a once only shot at his hearing.

How many times must the courts throw out trumps claims of election interference?
60 I know of but you won't give up.

 

[mark francis]

They haven't told him anything. They are giving him time to prepare his case for a once only shot at his hearing.

How many times must the courts throw out trumps claims of election interference?
60 I know of but you won't give up.

Who cares whether courts refruse to take up voting fraud cases since courts have already proven they cannot rule on whether massive voting fraud occured in 2020 or not.

 

[Boris Norris]

Who cares whether courts refruse to take up voting fraud cases since courts have already proven they cannot rule on whether massive voting fraud occured in 2020 or not.

They haven't proven anything. Every court has a right to dismiss a future case if there's no evidence to support the prosecution.

You'll eventually have to belief that regardless of your ignorance.

 

[pjmret]

Who cares whether courts refruse to take up voting fraud cases since courts have already proven they cannot rule on whether massive voting fraud occured in 2020 or not.

they didn't refuse to take them up.
so yes, I dont care that they didn't do something they didnt do. lol.

god you are stupid

 

[mark francis]

They haven't proven anything. Every court has a right to dismiss a future case if there's no evidence to support the prosecution.

You'll eventually have to belief that regardless of your ignorance.

Leftist and compromised courts have more than amply proved they are under no obligation to examine voting fraud evidence for accuracy or inaccuracy. Courts can avoid subjects in which judges feel their job security is threatened.

 

[mark francis]

they didn't refuse to take them up.
so yes, I dont care that they didn't do something they didnt do. lol.

god you are stupid

Courts neither proved nor disproved the accuracy of all voting fraud evidence. In fact, courts did not prove nor disprove the accuracy of any voting fraud evidence.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Courts neither proved nor disproved the accuracy of all voting fraud evidence. In fact, courts did not prove nor disprove the accuracy of any voting fraud evidence.

The assumption is that the election was free and fair because it was set up to be free and fair, and there were no reasons to prove it otherwise.

 

[pjmret]

Leftist and compromised courts have more than amply proved they are under no obligation to examine voting fraud evidence for accuracy or inaccuracy. Courts can avoid subjects in which judges feel their job security is threatened.

Prove they are compromised lying moooron