Stacey Abrams' group loses court challenge to the 2020 runoff election in Georgia

[pjmret]

60 courts may have said: 'We will not examine voting fraud evidence and we will not take voting fraud cases in our court' is not proof that Democrats did not commit massive voting fraud in 2020. Democrats are lying when they try to deceive Americans into believing the stupid claim or suggestion that courts proved little or no fraud occurred.

They did take the cases and did evaluate the evidence provided ***** and found it not credible
It's what judg3s do
Your post is proof you are a legal *****

 

[mark francis]

They did take the cases and did evaluate the evidence provided ***** and found it not credible
It's what judg3s do
Your post is proof you are a legal *****

No, I have never seen proof that courts did take the voting fraud cases and after hearing all sides of the arguments and evidence ruled that the evidence shows there was little or no fraud involved. Name a case that you think did otherwise and let us examine it together here in public.

 

[pjmret]

No, I have never seen proof that courts did take the voting fraud cases and after hearing all sides of the arguments and evidence ruled that the evidence shows there was little or no fraud involved. Name a case that you think did otherwise and let us examine it together here in public.

again you post the same stupidity about how courts do NOT work as if that proves anything except you are a legal *****. lol

why do you insist on looking so stupid? i truly would like to know. lol

 

[pjmret]

No, I have never seen proof that courts did take the voting fraud cases and after hearing all sides of the arguments and evidence ruled that the evidence shows there was little or no fraud involved. Name a case that you think did otherwise and let us examine it together here in public.

and yes, they DID evaluate the evidence, that's what judges do.
and your "evidence" was found not credible. lol.

you are happy being a legal ***** I guess

 

[mark francis]

again you post the same stupidity about how courts do NOT work as if that proves anything except you are a legal *****. lol

why do you insist on looking so stupid? i truly would like to know. lol

Courts have rejected voting fraud cases for the following reasons:

1. No proof the voting machines were corrupted (no wonder since investigations of the machines were not allowed.)
2. No right or standing to bring the lawsuit (has nothing to do with and does not consider the evidence.)
3. Judge thinks the amount of fraud could not change the election so he decides to dismiss the case and the evidence without investigating the validity of the claims and evidence.)
4. Judge does not want to take the voting fraud case and gives no logical reason for his rejection of the case and evidence.

 

[mark francis]

and yes, they DID evaluate the evidence, that's what judges do.
and your "evidence" was found not credible. lol.

you are happy being a legal ***** I guess

Give me just one court ruling or judge who ordered an impartial investigation of the evidence of voting machine fraud before he dismissed the case for lack of evidence. You cannot because no judge in the country ordered an impartial forensics investigation of voting machines before dismissing the voting machine fraud case.

 

[pjmret]

Courts have rejected voting fraud cases for the following reasons:

1. No proof the voting machines were corrupted (no wonder since investigations of the machines were not allowed.)
2. No right or standing to bring the lawsuit (has nothing to do with and does not consider the evidence.)
3. Judge thinks the amount of fraud could not change the election so he decides to dismiss the case and the evidence without investigating the validity of the claims and evidence.)
4. Judge does not want to take the voting fraud case and gives no logical reason for his rejection of the case and evidence.

prove #4.

and of course, "no proof" is key here. you morons didn't prove anything, so you lost all your cases. duh.

and yes, machines were investigated, *****, when you followed the law. no wonder you are a *****. lol

 

[pjmret]

Give me just one court ruling or judge who ordered an impartial investigation of the evidence of voting machine fraud before he dismissed the case for lack of evidence. You cannot because no judge in the country ordered an impartial forensics investigation of voting machines before dismissing the voting machine fraud case.

give me one court ruling where they found the evidence to be credible and did NOT order an investigation.

oh wait, not a single judge found the evidence to be credible. lol

 

[mark francis]

prove #4.

and of course, "no proof" is key here. you morons didn't prove anything, so you lost all your cases. duh.

and yes, machines were investigated, *****, when you followed the law. no wonder you are a *****. lol

No investigations = no proof, which is why crooked Democrats and their supporters are wrong to claim that no evidence yet gathered in investigations means there was no fraud committed.

 

[mark francis]

give me one court ruling where they found the evidence to be credible and did NOT order an investigation.

oh wait, not a single judge found the evidence to be credible. lol

As far as I know no court ordered an in-depth investigation to determine whether evidence of voter fraud was valid or invalid.

 

[pjmret]

No investigations = no proof, which is why crooked Democrats and their supporters are wrong to claim that no evidence yet gathered in investigations means there was no fraud committed.

Noth8ng stopping you from legal 8nvestigations *****
Arizona and Michigan did it and found nothing as two examples
God you right wing morons are so lazy, get off your butt and stop whining and investigate

 

[pjmret]

As far as I know no court ordered an in-depth investigation to determine whether evidence of voter fraud was valid or invalid.

Why would they, s8nce no court fo7nd your evidence credible duh
You prove over and over how much of a legal ***** you are

 

[mark francis]

Noth8ng stopping you from legal 8nvestigations *****
Arizona and Michigan did it and found nothing as two examples
God you right wing morons are so lazy, get off your butt and stop whining and investigate

Democrats and leftists looked for democrat and leftist voting fraud and found no evidence of fraud. Am I the only one here to see a problem with this?

 

[mark francis]

Why would they, s8nce no court fo7nd your evidence credible duh
You prove over and over how much of a legal ***** you are

Why do Democrats and leftist government officials not want to investigate voting fraud? They prove themselves crooked because they dismiss voting fraud evidence without satisfactorily debunking it.

 

[pjmret]

Why do Democrats and leftist government officials not want to investigate voting fraud? They prove themselves crooked because they dismiss voting fraud evidence without satisfactorily debunking it.

why do you say they don't want to?
of course they want to investigate actual fraud.
but pretend fraud by morons who are whining because their feelings were hurt dont deserve any attention.
you morons prove yourself stupid.
burden of proof is on you morons to prove your claims, not others to waste time and money pandering to you. lol