I’m sure the Democrats did cheat. But the most that comes out of disputed elections is that there was cheating, not that it flipped the results. It probably did, but that’s what’s hard or impossible to prove in court.
I know what you mean, but I am less sanguine about action than I am that the documentary clearly displayed the truth of the election fraud..
I thought the 200 Mules documentary was both compelling and conclusive. I think they did it correctly, setting the bar for judging movements of mules engaged in illegal actions very high (10 drobboxes visited as well as the location of a non-profit stash house) and showing even that high bar would have changed the election.
If they lowered the bar (admitting the patterns of mules who visited say, 7 ballot drop boxes instead of ten ballot drop boxes, the election was a Trump rout of Biden. In the official surveillance video that was both available, clear enough, and coincided with the GPS data, they could count the number of votes being stuffed into the boxes on average. if they saw that these mules were making x amount of trips, visiting y amount of boxes, and depositing z amounts of ballots, they could make a good estimate of the votes being introduced. The assumption these votes were all for Biden is a valid one.
Very well done. I thought it was well produced, the intro was nicely constructed with effects and music, and the logical presentation of the issue, followed by the various data elements used, layering and time synching the video evidence they obtained, how it affected the election, and ending with where they got the ballots from.
It was compelling to see the videoed reaction from the family of the elderly woman in the nursing home who has been in a mostly unresponsive state for years (according to the family sitting with her) to recount how astonished they were to find she had been voting in elections.
The led the observer along, deliberately explaining things (even some simple things they didn’t need to) and allowed most people to understand.
I was very impressed. If someone can explain how the data can be misinterpreted in some way, I would be willing to listen, but I think this is solid work. What are they going to do-say the tracking data is invalid? D’Souza can say “Sure. Here is who we purchased data from. The same place that the Georgia State Police or the Philadelphia District Attorney gets their data from. Have at it.”
Perhaps they might say that the video footage, time-synched with the cell phone footage was misleading? The video is the authentic property of the states legally obtained via allowable citizen requests and such.
And when you look at the pattern, repeated verbatim (NGO pickup points>>mules making rounds>>mules stuffing boxes with small numbers of ballots over time) over all the key battleground states, I think their research passed the bar.