Claim: Dinesh D'Souza 2000 Mules is disinformation
Dinesh D'Souza's film is worth watching as it raises an important issue
2000 mules makes credible assertions.
Dinesh D’Souza’s film 2000 mules puts forward the case that the election watching organisation True the Vote has uncovered election fraud on a massive scale in the Trump 2020 election.
I believe the assertions are credible, for a number of reasons: one is that the process True the Vote used to uncover the fraud is technically feasible. Also, the actions and body language of the people apparently dumping votes are inexplicable if they visited 10 or more drop boxes; particular the night time dumps.
Geolocation Data
They paid for geolocation data, apparently, which they used to track ‘mules’ going from left-wing community centres or other partisan left-wing organisations, apparently dumping multiple votes into drop boxes. They only included people as possible mules if they visited 10 or more dropboxes.
They also used security camera footage, where it was available, to verify what the ‘mules’ were doing. In some states, security cameras by law must record footage of election drop boxes 24 hours a day; in some cases the footage was missing for the period the ‘mules’ were apparently dropping off votes.
The data has been passed on to law enforcement in various places, apparently, and investigations are in process.
An excellent interview in the Washington Post discusses what interviewer Philip Bump sees as the ‘gaps’ in the case 2000 mules is making.
Is Geolocation data fine enough to use to track the mules? Yes.
There are several arguments that various news organisations are making against Dinesh D’Souza’s claims, which Bump repeats. One is that geolocation data is not fine enough to be able to tell if a person went to a dropbox, or merely past one.
I think anyone who has used “Find my Phone” on an apple iPhone recently ought to know that by now, you can see on the map now, which part of the house you’re in.
In the Washington Post interview Dinesh D’Souza quotes this Supreme Court case in 2018 where the judge discusses the accuracy of cell phone data. As part of Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion of the Court, he discusses the accuracy of cell phone data and says it achieves “near perfect surveillance.”
D’Souza makes a good case that the geolocation data is fine enough to tell if someone is at a dropbox or merely passing one; particularly when you take into account the dimension of time.
D’Souza: Okay. I have two observations about this.
Bump: — you’re not necessarily anywhere near a drop box.
D’Souza: I have two observations about this. One is I think you will agree that geotracking can clearly tell the difference between someone who is in motion and someone who is stationary. Agree?
Bump: Yeah. If you have data over time.
D’Souza: Okay. Yeah. In other words, if you have geotracking through time, you can tell. All right. So there’s a big difference between walking by a drop box and walking to a drop box. And you can tell that difference, correct. Or do you disagree with that?
What can a movie prove?
One of Philip Bumps other main assertions is that Dinesh D’Souza’s movie hasn’t actually proven anything - D’Souza’s answer to this is worth reading:
D’Souza: This is the problem is that there is a difference between what a movie does and what a law court does. What a law court would do is they would say: You know what? This is all very suspicious and what we need to do is raid the stash houses and what we need to do is arrest the mules. Now, happily, we have the cellphone IDs of all the mules, so we can unmask them — which is to say we can get their names, we can go talk to them. Who paid you? How much? How is this organized? Who organized it? That’s a logical next step in any other investigation. That’s what they would do. They wouldn’t go to the filmmaker and say, “Wait a minute. How come you have not, in fact, verified? How come you haven’t gone into these stash houses and found out who these mules are?” The answer is, that is the logical next step. So some of the questions you are raising —
Bump: That’s such a cop-out!
D’Souza: Hold on, they can be answered decisively, right? You’re asking, “Show me proof that these guys were paid.” And I say, “You know what? I would love to see these guys arrested and charged, and let’s see what they say and we’ll see if you’re right or I’m right.”
He makes a good argument that the job of a movie is not to make a persuasive case, but to raise interest in order to spark the real investigation.
D’Souza: First of all, no movie by itself is the, quote, “case for the prosecution.” What the movie does is it’s a spur to the prosecution to do its job. So what I’m saying is I’m hoping that [Attorney General Mark] Brnovich in Arizona or Raffensperger’s office in Georgia or the guys in Philadelphia will dive into this. If this were 2016, right, and The Washington Post published this exposé on how Trump stole the 2016 election, there would be a massive furor.
The Body Language of the ‘mules’
To me one of the best arguments the film makes visually speaking is that the body language of the ‘mules’ is highly furtive and exudes a sense of shame and secrecy about what they are doing; some of them arrive in the middle of the night. Film is a visual medium and these scenes from the security cameras show that something is certainly going on; and if it is indeed true that each of these mules visited 10 or more dropboxes as well as a community centre etcetera, then it appears that there really is a case to answer here.
On the basis of the body language alone, I believe the assertions are credible. Bump quibbles about numbers, for instance at one point he criticises D’Souza for making a conservative estimate of how many votes were ‘dropped’ in each case; this certainly is a mark in favour of D’Souza’s argument in my opinion.
Bump: Where does the estimate of five absentee ballots per quote-unquote “mule” come from? Because there’s literally no way to know that.
D’Souza: There actually is a way to know that, but it does require a pretty sophisticated ability to look more closely at video that is shown very broadly in the screen. So I agree, if someone is watching the movie, they’re not able to tell — if somebody is holding a sheaf of ballots, let’s say — is that two or five or 10? That is not visible in a video box on a screen. You can see, I mean, obviously, you can tell if there are more than one ballot and they fall on the ground. You can obviously tell there are many ballots, as we showed with video, where people are putting in ballot ballot, ballot, ballot, ballot. Then, you know, obviously there’s multiple ballots.
Bump: On two or three occasions, right.
D’Souza: I mean, no, we have cases of people who put a minimum of 10 ballots, shown on the screen. Now, in some cases, I agree: You cannot tell if it is if it is one or many ballots. But investigators can tell. That’s the key point.
Bump: So what’s the average based on?
D’Souza: They’re able to zoom in and tell.
Bump: So the national average that you use, the five ballots per, is based on a review of some ballot boxes that were monitored in some states.
D’Souza: Right. They’re based upon taking an average of what — they based upon the observed videos and using those videos to develop a sophisticated estimate. And then you notice that when we did the broader look, we dropped the average to three, to make it an ultraconservative estimate. So we used the estimate of five, and then we lowered the estimate to three.
Bump: Right. Well, I don’t think that’s the point in your favor, because it makes —
D’Souza: It is a point of favor because —
Bump: It makes clear that you don’t know how many ballots were theoretically dropped by each of these mules in each of these stops. I mean, obviously, there’s a big difference between saying — you dropped to three, but then you also vastly increased the number of mules, so therefore increased the number of votes. So you can say it’s a more conservative estimate —
LEGAL INVESTIGATION
But only a proper investigation by legal authorities can prove or disprove these assertions: and if the United States is to have a functioning democracy, such assertions need to be investigated properly.
GOD IS A GOD OF TRUTH - A SHORT THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION
It is also important to remember that Jesus Christ is Sovereign, and while the Lord may allow human beings to get away with misdeeds, lies and hypocrisy temporarily, in the end every hidden secret will be shouted from the rooftops; to the shame of those who tried to hide their wrongs, instead of confessing them and receiving peace with God, which is freely available to all through Christ’s cross and resurrection.
I’m praying that the liars in this case will repent publicly and tell the truth about what happened in the 2020 election, for the sake of their immortal souls; even if those responsible are in the highest level of government in the United States.
UPDATE - YUMA COUNTY
In Yuma County Arizona an investigation had already began in March, apparently; this is the press release 11 May, a little more than a week after 2000 mules was released.
Some examples of voter fraud Yuma County is currently seeing are the following:
• Impersonation fraud: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died or moved away.
• False registrations: Falsifying voter registrations by either using a real or fake name, birth date, or address. This is being done by outreach groups who are paid for each registration form they submit, therefore, are out soliciting voters into unnecessarily re-registering or falsifying forms with Yuma County resident’s identities.
• Duplicate voting: Submitting multiple votes or registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.
• Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.
Gateway Pundit released this story; in their article they say that the police have obtained some confessions already.
Apparently New York Times reporter Alexandra Berzon contacted David Lara and Gary Snyder, who are the investigators featured in 2000 mules, to ask about the story. They then declined to publish it. David Lara lives in Yuma county.
MORE ABOUT GEOLOCATION
What is not generally known is that mobile phones themselves use more than just triangulation from mobile phone towers to work out their position, but are also able to use the location of known wireless networks to triangulate the exact position; not just networks the user has accessed, but essentially all wireless networks. Phones can also use the location of other devices to work out their position. It is unlikely that this information would have been available to True the Vote researchers, but law enforcement may be able to access it.
Furthermore, the more mobile phone towers there are in a given location, the easier it is to find out the position of the phone. 5G, because of the smaller wavelength, needs more towers; therefore, geolocation data will be more accurate. From a Washington Post article:
5G, which stands for “fifth generation,” promises to raise Internet speeds by as much as a hundredfold over fourth-generation technology.
5G needs many more cellular antennas, called “small cells,” than 4G. That’s because it uses higher-frequency radio waves, which carry much more data but have shorter ranges.
Furthermore, what is rather interesting is that the position of modern phones is still available even when the phone is low on battery or turned off due to something called Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE); in the case of iPhones a message comes up when the phone battery is dead saying the phone can still be found; this is because other iPhones or apple devices can ping your phone to find out the location.
REFERENCES
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
https://www.yumacountysheriff.org/pr-2022/PR-2022-30-Yuma-County-Voting-Fraud.pdf
CHANGE LOG
23 May 8:09am added the Update.
8:22am added the More About Geolocation addendum.