Most Comprehensive List of 2020-2022 Election Fraud

[FA_Q2]

How many of those loses actually went to a real court of law and were presented in front of a real judge with evidence? Or were they just thrown out on their face without their day in court?

Denial of justice is not justice obtained, its justice denied.

You would have to actually have some evidence first. That is the part you have been lacking this entire time.

 

[beagle9]

When were they given ONE try? Every single case was thrown out. If a case isn't heard, it can't be said to have been false.

Judges knew that if they started uncovering fraud like republicans said there were, it could make history in an ugly way. So just claim everything is fake, throw out all cases before the accuser gets a chance to make their case.

Yea, that sure proves no fraud LOL

If liberals are so sure and so certain there was no fraud, why not let republicans make their cases and let them lose outright in court? Not just throw everything out before anything can be heard. That doesn't prove anything and leaves people who believe in voter fraud wondering just what the courts were trying to cover up by NOT letting the accusers make their cases.

I mean courts have let women's cases against men for money for sexual abuse go on with NO evidence other than the woman saying she was abused. But something as important as voter fraud in a presidential election, thrown out before any evidence could even be presented. This is NOT normal.

We present you with the FBI apparently hiding or squashing the Hunter Biden story excetra excetra. Corruption knows no bounds. What's amazing is how corrupt it has all become.

 

[beagle9]

You would have to actually have some evidence first. That is the part you have been lacking this entire time.

The evidence was there, it just wasn't allowed to go before a full hearing in a court, otherwise where both sides could properly represent that evidence being either for it or against it before a sitting judge.

 

[Care4all]

The evidence was there, it just wasn't allowed to go before a full hearing in a court, otherwise where both sides could properly represent that evidence being either for it or against it before a sitting judge.

What evidence was rejected by any court? This general statement of those on the right, seems patently wrong.

NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED to the judges in their preliminary hearings on whether a law suit can go forward... or not...if frivolous or lacking merit.

It's not that evidence was rejected by the courts, it's evidence of fraud were never PRESENTED to the court case judge in the first place....

If there WAS evidence, it was NEVER PRESENTED in any court suit or attempted suit.

In other words, there has never been any evidence of any kind, presented in any Case, of actual fraud being committed.

that's quite different

 

[airplanemechanic]

What evidence was rejected by any court? This general statement of those on the right, seems patently wrong.

NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED to the judges in their preliminary hearings on whether a law suit can go forward... or not...if frivolous or lacking merit.

It's not that evidence was rejected by the courts, it's evidence of fraud were never PRESENTED to the court case judge in the first place....

If there WAS evidence, it was NEVER PRESENTED in any court suit or attempted suit.

In other words, there has never been any evidence of any kind, presented in any Case, of actual fraud being committed.

that's quite different

Apparently you have absolutely NO CLUE how the court system works. I do. When you file a lawsuit, you don't go to the judge and show your evidence. You file a lawsuit, a court date is set, and you present your evidence at that time.

I've filed multiple court papers for multiple lawsuits. It's not a fun process but that's how it works. I've NEVER presented evidence when I filed the lawsuit. The defendant was served and either we settled out of court or the case went to trial and I presented my evidence then.

 

[Mac1958]

Americans hold that every man has his day in court.

You Nazis are like the Stalinists who shot a chess master to death and then declared themselves the greatest at chess.

Denying justice isn't winning, Nazi boi.

Boris Spassky can't win a chess match after a bullet is fired into his brain.

You Nazis won ZERO cases, you just denied access to the courts to your enemy - the fascist scum that you are.

Your ugly hate and impotent rage can't change the facts.

Even Trump-appointed judges threw your shit out.

65+ times. And that's a fact. Tough shit.

 

[Mac1958]

How many of those loses actually went to a real court of law and were presented in front of a real judge with evidence? Or were they just thrown out on their face without their day in court?

Denial of justice is not justice obtained, its justice denied.

Even Trump-appointed judges said you were full of shit.

Go ahead: Let Hannity and Tucker tell you that you know more than Trump's Justice Department, Trump's DHS, Trump's Attorney General, Trump's Supreme Court, Trump-appointed judges, Trump's White House staff, Trump's White House lawyers, Trump's campaign manager, Trump cybersecurity officials, several Republican lawmakers, Republican state and local election officials, state Supreme Courts and Republican State Attorneys General, and the GQP's very own handpicked Cyber Ninjas.

 

[Care4all]

Apparently you have absolutely NO CLUE how the court system works. I do. When you file a lawsuit, you don't go to the judge and show your evidence. You file a lawsuit, a court date is set, and you present your evidence at that time.

I've filed multiple court papers for multiple lawsuits. It's not a fun process but that's how it works. I've NEVER presented evidence when I filed the lawsuit. The defendant was served and either we settled out of court or the case went to trial and I presented my evidence then.

In a law suit the plaintiff brings suit against a defendant.

The judge over the case tells the plaintiff to provide a summary brief of their case to see if the case has merit, before the case can proceed.

In that summary brief, the plaintiff lawyers provides the best evidence he has of the wrong done to him, to the judge...

This judge decides if the case has merit to move forward to a trial based on the Summary brief.....

If the plaintiff has no evidence that's court worthy, he won't get a trial, if the plaintiff does not show a case to be made in their summary brief, he won't get a trial etc etc.

If the plaintiffs shows no evidence that he was possibility harmed, or that there was fraud that caused the harm, or the suit was frivolous etc etc then the case is dismissed.

 

[FA_Q2]

The evidence was there, it just wasn't allowed to go before a full hearing in a court, otherwise where both sides could properly represent that evidence being either for it or against it before a sitting judge.

Notice I said nothing about a court.

Clearly they have failed to put it before a court but the fact is I have not seen any evidence whatsoever in any form. Period.

You have nothing to actually support stolen election claims except for bald assed accusations.

So, AGAIN, you would have to have some evidence first. That is the problem, you have none.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many of those loses actually went to a real court of law and were presented in front of a real judge with evidence? Or were they just thrown out on their face without their day in court?

Denial of justice is not justice obtained, its justice denied.

Even with the most controlled courts, facts sometimes slip through the cracks. The Reich wasn't willing to take a chance that the carefully crafted narrative put together by party leaders and the party-controlled media could be challenged.

For those like Blowhard Mac, courts exist to legitimize actions by the Reich, not to weigh questions of law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In a law suit the plaintiff brings suit against a defendant.

In a banana republic, those deemed enemies of the Reich are denied access to the courts.

The judge over the case tells the plaintiff to provide a summary brief of their case to see if the case has merit, before the case can proceed.

In a banana republic, the judge refuses to hear evidence that could impugn the Reich.

In that summary brief, the plaintiff lawyers provides the best evidence he has of the wrong done to him, to the judge...

In a banana republic, the clerks refuse to admit any summary or evidence by the enemies of the Reich.

This judge decides if the case has merit to move forward to a trial based on the Summary brief.....

In a banana republic, there is no case because the enemies are denied access to the courts outright.

If the plaintiff has no evidence that's court worthy, he won't get a trial, if the plaintiff does not show a case to be made in their summary brief, he won't get a trial etc etc.

If the plaintiffs shows no evidence that he was possibility harmed, or that there was fraud that caused the harm, or the suit was frivolous etc etc then the case is dismissed.

In a banana republic, there is no plaintiff nor evidence, because courts are closed to enemies of the Reich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You would have to actually have some evidence first. That is the part you have been lacking this entire time.

Lying again, I see.

Here Is The Evidence

 

[Uncensored2008]

What evidence was rejected by any court? This general statement of those on the right, seems patently wrong.

NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED to the judges in their preliminary hearings on whether a law suit can go forward... or not...if frivolous or lacking merit.

So kind of like this:

Clerk: Yer dishonor, there is some miscreant claiming to have proof that our GLORIOUS ruler stole the election.

Judge: Did you see the evidence?

Clerk: No yer putridness, the guards shot him before he could retrieve it.

Judge: Another court victory for the GLORIOUS Reich.

It's not that evidence was rejected by the courts, it's evidence of fraud were never PRESENTED to the court case judge in the first place....

If there WAS evidence, it was NEVER PRESENTED in any court suit or attempted suit.

In other words, there has never been any evidence of any kind, presented in any Case, of actual fraud being committed.

that's quite different

Most of the 60 cases had no preliminary hearing. The Justice system was completely denied to the Trump team by the Reich.

 

[Care4all]

How many of those loses actually went to a real court of law and were presented in front of a real judge with evidence? Or were they just thrown out on their face without their day in court?

Denial of justice is not justice obtained, its justice denied.

Tell us which court case that was denied, had the best evidence for fraud that took place...and what was that alleged fraud?

See, you guys are just regurgitating far right wing talking points, without ever researching it, or verifying it, or even the tenacity to do such.

You just parrot, what they tell you to!

So I ask again, which law suit of the republicans or trump lawyers should have been accepted by a judge as having merit, that was rejected?

I'd like to know, so we could actually debate something of substance instead of repeated, vague talking points.

 

[Care4all]

So kind of like this:

Clerk: Yer dishonor, there is some miscreant claiming to have proof that our GLORIOUS ruler stole the election.

Judge: Did you see the evidence?

Clerk: No yer putridness, the guards shot him before he could retrieve it.

Judge: Another court victory for the GLORIOUS Reich.



Most of the 60 cases had no preliminary hearing. The Justice system was completely denied to the Trump team by the Reich.

Any proof to that? Name the cases and the reasons denied.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Any proof to that? Name the cases and the reasons denied.

Show us even ONE of the 60 cases that were won by your Reich?

Justice denied by the banana republic is not victory for you fascists.

Or maybe it is, maybe your point is to prove we no longer have a system of justice in this country.

 

[FA_Q2]

Lying again, I see.

Here Is The Evidence

Nope.

You apparently do not know what the word evidence means. Claims are not evidence. Once again, all you have are claims.

 

[candycorn]

How many of those loses actually went to a real court of law and were presented in front of a real judge with evidence? Or were they just thrown out on their face without their day in court?

Denial of justice is not justice obtained, its justice denied.

Every voter fraud whine-fest was tossed out of court...by a real judge.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope.

You apparently do not know what the word evidence means. Claims are not evidence. Once again, all you have are claims.

I know what "partisan hack" means.

You didn't even click the link - your Reich programmed what you think - you'll consider NOTHING else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every voter fraud whine-fest was tossed out of court...by a real judge.

Fucking liar.

The courts were closed to Trump and his team.

The "justice denied" campaign by the radical left.