Nope: You are saying they are heretics for alleging they question a dogmatic fact.

False: There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects Francis’ legitimacy.

Sweetie, hush now.

:baby:

There is not a single approved pre-conciliar theologian who has disputed that a universally accepted pope  is a dogmatic fact.

Consequently, for you to impute to Lefebvre/Williamson the questioning of the conciliar papacies is to impute to them the questioning of a dogmatic fact (which Cartachini says is a “mortal sin against the faith”).

There is not a single Bishop with jurisdiction who rejects the New Mass or the teachings of Vatican II.

On one hand, I could argue that not 1 novus ordo bishop has any jurisdiction due to their acceptance of V2 heresy.  Thus only leaving Trad bishops as those with 'supplied' or 'potential' jurisdiction.
.
On the other hand, assuming novus ordo bishops have jurisdiction, they would only possess material jurisdiction, as their spiritual jurisdiction is "impounded" (using Fr Chazal's terminology) due to acceptance of V2 heresy.
.
On a third hand, even if you assume novus ordo bishops have full jurisdiction, while they did not reject +Francis' election by way of media (as this would be the only way we were to hear of such things, and that's assuming the media would report honestly, if at all), there are other ways which opposition could have been made publically that we are unaware of (because public does not mean "known by all" but only "able to be known by all" in the sense that eventually it would come to light).  Being that I have no evidence of this, I will assume it didn't happen.
.
Further, let's assume there was no public rejection of +Francis' election.  But this does not mean that doubts and challenges have not been made since, as Socci's book (who has a history of credible witnesses and sources from inside the Vatican) and other websites have statements from Vatican officials which suggest a growing idea that +Benedict is still pope and his resignation was invalid.  Certainly this is evidence of a rejection, even if after-the-fact.  One could argue that the false translation of +Benedict's resignation letter from latin to the vernacular is a cover-up and this would make the acceptance of +Francis' resignation invalid, because it was based on lies.
.
Finally, even if we assume that +Benedict's resignation was valid, +Francis' legitimacy is being openly questioned right now, as the "dubia" letter is direct evidence.
.
All of these scenarios have some truth to them and support a doubt to some degree.

Whoop-dee-do:

I’m not defending those things as dogmatic facts.

Trad bishops have full spiritual jurisdiction, as did St Athanasius.  The novus ordo bishops would have material jurisdiction, which is the visible continuance of the Church.  This suffices.