Your side immediately says everyone they disagree with is lying, instead of looking at both sides of the story in a fair and open-minded manner. Most of the cases were thrown out "for lack of standing," which is a procedural way of refusing to hear the question.
Period.
"
Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan
In other words, you can't make any conclusions either way, regardless.
And in this case, there is evidence, but if you just hide your eyes away from it, I guess you think it magically disappears.
Not yet. You cannot allege a fraudulent individual until the irregularities are even addressed. And your side conveniently failed to do so.
First 'A,' then 'B,' and then 'C.' But you hate necessary legal procedure. It just gets in the way of your narrative. I get it already.
1. Legal intimidation.
2. I read the retraction, which hilariously contains
zero specifics (not that you care). It's a great way to get out of a pickle
and then continue reporting as if nothing happened. lol.
Then there's the
Time magazine elephant in the room. lol.