Obama Digs for Dirt!!

[mark francis]

Again ***** evidence was looked at
You are a legal ***** lol

Looking at evidence and irrefutably debunking election fraud are two entirely different matters.

 

[pjmret]

Looking at evidence and irrefutably debunking election fraud are two entirely different matters.

Not the issue *****
God you are stupid lol

Reply
Report Edit Delete

 

[mark francis]

Again ***** evidence was looked at
You are a legal ***** lol

Looking at some evidence falls short of irrefutably debunking all the evidence of fraud.

 

[pjmret]

Looking at some evidence falls short of irrefutably debunking all the evidence of fraud.

Not the issue *****
God you are stupid lol

Reply
Report Edit Delete

 

[mark francis]

Again ***** evidence was looked at
You are a legal ***** lol

Evidence of fraud was looked at but not irrefutably debunked.

 

[pjmret]

Evidence of fraud was looked at but not irrefutably debunked.

Not the issue *****
God you are stupid lol

Reply
Report Edit Delete

 

[pjmret]

Evidence of fraud was looked at but not irrefutably debunked.

Thanks for admitting you and Rand lied and are legal morons lol

 

[mark francis]

Rand said courts didn't look at the facts
Clearly they did as my examples proved

You two are legal morons lol

If there were even two facts the courts never looked at, and there is no way courts looked at all the facts, then Paul was right.

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

Rand Paul rejects claim courts ruled no election fraud occurred: They found 'excuse' to sit it out

by Andrew Mark Miller, Deputy Social Media Editor |

December 16, 2020 03:04 PM

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.”

 

[pjmret]

If there were even two facts the courts never looked at, and there is no way courts looked at all the facts, then Paul was right.

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

Rand Paul rejects claim courts ruled no election fraud occurred: They found 'excuse' to sit it out

by Andrew Mark Miller, Deputy Social Media Editor |

December 16, 2020 03:04 PM

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.”

Rand said the courts didn't look at facts and you agreed with him
I posted proof they did

You two legal morons lied as you admitted

 

[pjmret]

If there were even two facts the courts never looked at, and there is no way courts looked at all the facts, then Paul was right.

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

Rand Paul rejects claim courts ruled no election fraud occurred: They found 'excuse' to sit it out

by Andrew Mark Miller, Deputy Social Media Editor |

December 16, 2020 03:04 PM

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.”

What facts that were presented to them didn't they look at *****?

 

[mark francis]

According to the judge there was no evidence of fraud. That's the whole point.

One judge looked at one case and ruled he or she saw no evidence of fraud? So? The judge did not see evidence of fraud in that particular case but did not irrefutably refute the evidence of fraud in that case and certainly had nothing to say about all the other evidence of fraud not listed in that one case.

No they haven't. The passwords remain in tact and are there to stop disgruntled fuckwits like you fishing for an excuse.
Sorry son. The whole thing is over. Biden won and its history. Trump is about to go to jail because he deliberately refused to accept the decision and admit there was no fraud.
Now we have you thinking you can overturn the election with some childish gossip spread by a raving lunatic.
Git God's sake mark, give it up. You've lost it and nothing will change it. You even tried your best in the eyes of god to prove something but it didn't.

Democrats have no intention of allowing non-democrats examine the inner workings of their closely controlled voting machines. That does not speak of honesty and openness but of deceit and coverups. Deceit and coverups have no place in American elections.

 

[mark francis]

McCain is Bush? Lol
Fannie Mae Isa commodities group? Lol

No, Bush supported and even promoted what McCain and other lawmakers were doing to rein in Fannie Mae.

Report: Bush, Republicans want tougher Freddie, Fannie regs - Jun. 15, 2005 (cnn.com)

 

[mark francis]

Rand said facts were not looked at
I proved they were

You two are legal morons lo.

If courts did not look at all the facts than Paul was right to say courts did not look at the facts they did not look at.

 

[pjmret]

No, Bush supported and even promoted what McCain and other lawmakers were doing to rein in Fannie Mae.

Report: Bush, Republicans want tougher Freddie, Fannie regs - Jun. 15, 2005 (cnn.com)

So the problem wasn't cfma? Why did you lie?

 

[pjmret]

If courts did not look at all the facts than Paul was right to say courts did not look at the facts they did not look at.

Which facts presented to courts were not looked at *****