Replies

I love Widburg but disagree with her.

For one thing, the movie is not entertaining. It is poorly edited and poorly organized. It could easily have been half the length, but it was padded out. The talking head segments could have and should have been eliminated entirely; also, the D’Souza wandering around and pointless Debbie segments.

But mostly Widburg misses the point. She explains what does not need to be explained, that very corrupt and politically motivated people were paid to stuff ballots. That is the obvious part.

The part which needed explanation was what they did wrong. Even D’Souza says at some point that the ballots were valid ballots. IOW, they were not stuffing made-up ballots, or fraudulent ballots. D’Souza fleetingly gives a few examples where this might be so, for instance where incompetent nursing home residents “voted” despite their inability to do so. But the movie is NOT about that.

The law broken by the mules is that only the voter himself or a member of his family can deliver the ballot. Having watched it once, I do not know if that law applied in every state, it may or may not have.

But breaking that law does not necessarily imply the ballots themselves were not genuine. It merely suggests so. Personally, I believe that many if not most were fraudulent, but I cannot prove that based on the movie.

IMO this is why D’Souza almost totally avoided an analysis of the legal implications of the evidence. He could not make a movie saying there is a whole lot of smoke, but we cannot see the fire.

IMO Mike Lindell’s symposium conclusively proved fraud. The symposium was also poorly organized and presented. Yet the symposium proved far, far more than D’Souza, and presented unmistakable and irrefutable proof of fraud.

There is an effective movie to be made, but D’Souza has not made it. Those not highly committed will not watch this movie, especially because it is not entertaining or compelling.

I realize this sort of criticism brings out the predictable yahoos who cannot distinguish between the message and how effective the message is conveyed. To them I say, our side is not very good at presenting messages effectively. That may not be necessary, as the truth itself is powerful.

The very complicated truth may come out despite our inability to present it well. Or maybe not. But it could not hurt to present the truth in an effective and compelling way, something our side does not do, and D’Souza has not.

Why would you think most of the ballots were valid? Do you really think someone filled out their ballot and sent it to a non-profit so it could be picked up and stuffed into a box at 2 in the morning? Or do you just mean they were somehow undelivered and sold?

But I agree— the movie had flaws. I would have preferred much more cctv video. Video of the same person making multiple drops, tied with the GPS data and video timestamp. Here is the lat/lon, here is their car, this is where else the person went, and here they are the next night doing the same thing.

They also needed to prove money changed hands for the votes. The lady said she did it to buy Christmas gifts (and not meth, ahem.) It would have been good to get more details about how she was paid, how much per vote, and by cash/check.

A bounty to find a mule willing to talk anonymously that could describe what they did and has the photos of their ballots at the dropbox, and a full accounting of what they saw and how many others they encountered doing the same thing.

Anyway, good movie.. needs a Part II.

"For one thing, the movie is not entertaining. It is poorly edited and poorly organized. It could easily have been half the length, but it was padded out."

Your first D'Souza movie, obviously.

"But breaking that law does not necessarily imply the ballots themselves were not genuine. It merely suggests so. Personally, I believe that many if not most were fraudulent, but I cannot prove that based on the movie.

IMO this is why D’Souza almost totally avoided an analysis of the legal implications of the evidence. He could not make a movie saying there is a whole lot of smoke, but we cannot see the fire."

Because he is not a limitless deep pocket as are our opponents. He was on radar for ages before they finally hit him on the Wendy Long bundling eight years ago. The Feds gave him eight months in a halfway house and 30K fine, at nearly the same exact time that Hillary was violating alpha-level US national security wiping her server 'with a cloth or something'.

Same rationale in force, as to why the identity of the (actually deeply pocketed) Marxist non-profits that funded the Mules and their illicit backpacks full of dirty ballots, were cut out from the movie, to be revealed shortly -- as you must have some interest in, because you're in that very thread.