That "PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats" could also be explained by Republicans making false statements 3 times as often. I don't want to start a huge partisan pissing match here, but that possibility wasn't considered and is merely hand-waved away. It also doesn't even attempt to look at the ratings themselves to see if they're about accurate. That second article is more or less the same with more words.

Neither are convincing for claims of "overt bias", and even IF there was a huge bias in the selection of statements to rate, then this only means ... a bias in the selection of statement to rate, and doesn't actually say anything about the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the actual fact-checks. A partisan "we-rate-republicans.com" and "we-rate-democrats.com" could be 100% accurate in their ratings. "Biased" does not equal "false".

I do think that "politicians from one side are rated much more frequently" is a good reason to take a close and skeptical look by the way, but that needs to start with "are politicians from that side actually untruthful significantly more often" as a baseline.

So I would rate your post as "false" for 1) making a claim that's completely unsupported by your evidence because your evidence actually makes a different claim, and 2) being weak evidence in the first place.