Media Bias / Fact Check: the annoying thing's WORST NIGHTMARE!

[mark francis]

courts don't work that way *****. lol.

courts are well qualified to evaluate evidence presented to them, *****. its literally what they do...every day. including evidence from expert witnesses who would be qualified to discuss the technical aspects of a case.

and yet you morons lost EVERY SINGLE CASE.
hahahahaha
hahahah

Judges dismissed voter fraud cases for many different reasons, none of which involved any alleged proof that no voter fraud occurred.

 

[pjmret]

Judges dismissed voter fraud cases for many different reasons, none of which involved any alleged proof that no voter fraud occurred.

they dismissed them because the evidence wasn't credible.
its as simple as that.
because you morons couldn't find any credible proof.
judges understand that just losing an election and whining about it doesn't mean fraud occured

 

[mark francis]

you can prove they ONLY "glanced over it"?
go for it, *****.
but you wont
because you are a fake christian who lies constantly. lol

Democrats claim judges do not investigate voter fraud claims yet they also claim judges did more than look over the claims before ruling on them. No court took a voter fraud case that actually yielded a court ruling that stated voter fraud did not occur.

 

[pjmret]

Democrats claim judges do not investigate voter fraud claims yet they also claim judges did more than look over the claims before ruling on them. No court took a voter fraud case that actually yielded a court ruling that stated voter fraud did not occur.

you can't prove they only "glanced over it".
you're a fake christian liar. lol
fake christians claiming to be chrisitans are disgusting people

 

[mark francis]

they dismissed them because the evidence wasn't credible.
its as simple as that.
because you morons couldn't find any credible proof.
judges understand that just losing an election and whining about it doesn't mean fraud occured

That may have been true in some of the cases, but certainly not in the majority of cases. In some of the cases, the judges likely had specific reasons for rejecting the case in spite of the reasons they enumerated. No judge ruled that no voter fraud took place.

 

[pjmret]

That may have been true in some of the cases, but certainly not in the majority of cases. In some of the cases, the judges likely had specific reasons for rejecting the case in spite of the reasons they enumerated. No judge ruled that no voter fraud took place.

so list the cases it was true in, and list those it wasn't to prove your "majority" claim.

but you won't
because you are a disgusting fake "christian" liar.


"likely" had other reasons? list them and prove them had them.
oh wait, you won't, because you are a disgusting liar. lol

 

[mark francis]

you can't prove they only "glanced over it".
you're a fake christian liar. lol
fake christians claiming to be chrisitans are disgusting people

All cases of voter fraud that were dismissed were dismissed without the evidence being examined in court. That is why no judge has ever ruled that no voter fraud occurred.

 

[pjmret]

All cases of voter fraud that were dismissed were dismissed without the evidence being examined in court. That is why no judge has ever ruled that no voter fraud occurred.

the evidence was looked at by the judge, *****. the judge IS the court *****.

my god you are completely and totally clueless about everything. lol

 

[mark francis]

so list the cases it was true in, and list those it wasn't to prove your "majority" claim.

but you won't
because you are a disgusting fake "christian" liar.


"likely" had other reasons? list them and prove them had them.
oh wait, you won't, because you are a disgusting liar. lol

For those interested in truth, here is a good article about the issue of court rejections of voter fraud cases (from US Senator Rand Paul):

Rand Paul rejects claim courts ruled no election fraud occurred: They found ‘excuse’ to sit it out - Washington Examiner

Sen. Rand Paul rejected the idea that courts have "decided the facts" on the integrity of November's presidential election.“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Sen. Rand Paul rejected the idea that courts have "decided the facts" on the integrity of November's presidential election.
“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.”

 

[mark francis]

the evidence was looked at by the judge, *****. the judge IS the court *****.

my god you are completely and totally clueless about everything. lol

Democrat judges don't dare open cases pertaining to voter fraud because of what might be uncovered in court that could not be covered up by Democrats. Non-Democrat judges would also have great motivation to avoid such controversial subjects as voter fraud.

 

[pjmret]

For those interested in truth, here is a good article about the issue of court rejections of voter fraud cases (from US Senator Rand Paul):

Rand Paul rejects claim courts ruled no election fraud occurred: They found ‘excuse’ to sit it out - Washington Examiner

Sen. Rand Paul rejected the idea that courts have "decided the facts" on the integrity of November's presidential election.“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Sen. Rand Paul rejected the idea that courts have "decided the facts" on the integrity of November's presidential election.
“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.”

washington examiner? rand paul? lol. totally biased opinions and hence worthless. No actual proof of his claim was presented, just whining.

explain why OVER SIXTY judges, including those appointed by trump, found no credible evidence of fraud, *****.


“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.”

here's proof he lied or was clueless (just one example): "A federal judge has dismissed a wide-ranging lawsuit attempting to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Arizona, bringing an end to the seventh and final lawsuit challenging the results of the state’s presidential election. Humetewa wrote that the plaintiffs were “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence” to back up their implausible claims of massive election fraud, which included allegations of foreign espionage along with more mundane accusations of illegally cast ballots.

see. NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE after the judge reviewed their submission. the judge looked at the facts and found them wanting. duh

 

[pjmret]

Democrat judges don't dare open cases pertaining to voter fraud because of what might be uncovered in court that could not be covered up by Democrats. Non-Democrat judges would also have great motivation to avoid such controversial subjects as voter fraud.

Federal judge Stephanos Bibas pulled no punches when he issued a scathing opinion last Saturday rejecting the Trump campaign’s latest attempt to overturn the outcome of the November 3 presidential election.

“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” Bibas wrote in a 21-page ruling dismissing a lawsuit that sought to stop the certification of Pennsylvania's voting results. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
But Bibas, 51, is not just another judge on another court. He is a Trump appointee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, with jurisdiction over Pennsylvania and two other states. A former member of the conservative Federalist Society, Bibas was appointed in 2017, one of 53 appellate judges the president has put on the federal bench since he took office, more than any other president since Jimmy Carter.


even trump appointed judges think you morons are morons. lol

he didn't "avoid" it, he ruled against it, *****. duh

 

[mark francis]

washington examiner? rand paul? lol. totally biased opinions and hence worthless. No actual proof of his claim was presented, just whining.

explain why OVER SIXTY judges, including those appointed by trump, found no credible evidence of fraud, *****.


“The courts have not decided the facts,” Paul said Wednesday during a hearing on the integrity of the 2020 election. “The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.”

here's proof he lied or was clueless (just one example): "A federal judge has dismissed a wide-ranging lawsuit attempting to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s win in Arizona, bringing an end to the seventh and final lawsuit challenging the results of the state’s presidential election. Humetewa wrote that the plaintiffs were “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence” to back up their implausible claims of massive election fraud, which included allegations of foreign espionage along with more mundane accusations of illegally cast ballots.

see. NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE after the judge reviewed their submission. the judge looked at the facts and found them wanting. duh

Democrats falsely claim that everyone who refutes a lying Democrat claim is a liar.

 

[mark francis]

Federal judge Stephanos Bibas pulled no punches when he issued a scathing opinion last Saturday rejecting the Trump campaign’s latest attempt to overturn the outcome of the November 3 presidential election.

“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so,” Bibas wrote in a 21-page ruling dismissing a lawsuit that sought to stop the certification of Pennsylvania's voting results. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
But Bibas, 51, is not just another judge on another court. He is a Trump appointee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, with jurisdiction over Pennsylvania and two other states. A former member of the conservative Federalist Society, Bibas was appointed in 2017, one of 53 appellate judges the president has put on the federal bench since he took office, more than any other president since Jimmy Carter.

The judge was wrong, like so many judges whose opinions are overruled by higher courts. The error the judge made can be seen in his statement "calling an election unfair does not make it so." What the judge does not say that renders his entire judgment unacceptable is the unmentioned fact that "calling an election fair does not make it so."

even trump appointed judges think you morons are morons. lol

he didn't "avoid" it, he ruled against it, *****. duh

 

[pjmret]

Democrats falsely claim that everyone who refutes a lying Democrat claim is a liar.

what? lol. "democrats" say many things of course.

i claim you are a ***** for still insisting there was massive fraud in 2020 with no credible evidence after 2+ years.