Posted on 08/13/2022 1:33:13 PM PDT by MNDude
I saw 2000 Mules and was very impressed by it. So I had really big expectations for this event today considering how much they hyped it.
Since I can't find anything on it, I assume it wasn't anything ground shattering revealed today.
What did they say?
And they had to make multiple visits and also visit a pre-defined NGO. In the examples I saw (not necessarily shown in the movie) the times and frequencies of the visits were very strong evidence.
What is the probability that somebody is driving around a city at 3AM and they "visit" five drop boxes?
Just because the location data is not exact to the foot it does not invalidate the analysis. In many cases there is nothing else around that would attract someone to stop and "visit" in the middle of the night.
Say what?
When True the Vote read that letter, they realized that they had spent a small fortune on geospatial data that they had no way to recoup.
Most of the Republican power structure in Georgia was in on The Steal.
They have their piece of the pie. That's all they need and want.
The Democrats want power.
My posts to this thread are about the film 2000 Mules. They have nothing to do with whether or not vote fraud occurred in the 2020 election. I believe such fraud occurred and probably cost Trump the election.
I do not look to the FBI or the New York Times to "shine the light" on voter fraud or on anything else. They are both leftist institutions that serve only the left.
(2000 Mules) provided one of many independent arguments that voter fraud took place.
If the film had been proved accurate, that would have been true. Instead, it just promoted a conspiracy theory and made Dinesh D'Souza rich.
A suggestion: Try reading the posts you respond to.
You are buying the leftist construct. Geofencing data are routinely accepted as evidence in court all the way to SCOTUS. You don’t need videos. We have the locations of the organizations and the phone numbers of the mules. There are legal issues about divulging this information. Have you seen 2000Mules?
Cellphone data is like digital DNA,” Engelbrecht explained. A court case on the precision of this technology makes that claim difficult to dispute. In response to the 2016 Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. United States, Justice Roberts wrote a 2018 opinion in which he describes the level of precision tracing afforded by pinging a cellphone using geofencing technology. “Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone,” writes Roberts, “It achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.” Two of the most striking paragraphs from his 2018 opinion are captured below:
In fact, historical cell-site records present even greater privacy concerns
than the GPS monitoring of a vehicle we considered in Jones . Unlike the
bugged container in Knotts or the car in Jones, a cell phone-almost a
“feature of human anatomy,” Riley, 573 U.S., at ——,134 S.Ct., at 2484 -
tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner. While individuals
regularly leave their vehicles, they compulsively carry cell phones with them
all the time. A cell phone faithfully follows its owner beyond public
thoroughfares and into private residences, doctor’s offices, political
headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales. See id., at -
-, 13 S.Ct., at 2490 (noting that “nearly three-quarters of smart phone users
report being within five feet of their phones most of the time, with 12%
admitting that they even use their phones in the shower’); contrast Cardwell
v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974) (plurality
opinion) (”A car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny.”).
Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it
achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to
the phone’s user follow a particular individual, or when.
Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a
category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to
reconstruct a person’s movements were limited by a dearth of records and
the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now
travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the
retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records
for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually
logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States-not just those
belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation—this
newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone. Unlike with the GPS
device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.
Justice Roberts/2018 Opinion/Carpenter v. United States
https://uncoverdc.com/2022/05/09/2000-mules-and-true-the-vote-debunk-ap-hit-piece/
D'Souza pretended in 2000 Mules that the geospatial data was accurate to within a foot or two, without giving a specific number. If the data was only accurate to within a radius of 100 feet, that does not confirm a visit to a ballot box or anything else. No one is ever going to be convicted of voter fraud in court if the evidence shows only that while driving around he came within 100 feet of five ballot boxes.
It is garbage data -- worthless.
When True the Vote purchased the data, the businesses that sold the data certainly specified its accuracy.
D'Souza intentionally omitted the specific accuracy from the film. You can decide for yourself why he did.
You are parroting left wing BS. Sad to see such crap on FR. Read this and get informed.
https://uncoverdc.com/2022/05/09/2000-mules-and-true-the-vote-debunk-ap-hit-piece/
Bookmark
“only had to come within 100 feet of a ballot box for that to be counted as a ‘visit’.”
Where did you learn that? Jemima, Biden’s Press Secretary? Democrat Underground? Maybe 100 feet was correct 10 years ago, but we’ve evolved.
Saving.
Got it. Because they have a lot of the same numbers doing the same run during election season. Too many people, too many of the same mules doing the exact same thing and then they all stopped after election day. That was not random.
The pictures of mules holding ballots in front of drop boxes.
No, there is plenty of evidence that Barr ignored.
In that link she says:
”Oh, and, very important, driving by dropbox isn’t a thing. You have to get out of your car and walk up to it. That’s what we looked at in the study.”
Do you believe the data they purchased gave them that level of accuracy?
That’s much more granular tha 100 feet.
I answered that in post #31. I provided two links. I would appreciate it if you would look at both.
The question is not "Is Geospatial Data with Cellphones Precise?"
The question is "How precise was the specific Geospatial data purchsed by True The Vote."
See my links in post #31. In his interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza accepted the 100 foot number provided by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
It is more like a meter. GPS is very accurate. And when you add in the other variables to qualify as a mule, it is conclusive. The reality is that there were many more than 2000 mules if you are less conservative in setting the parameters.
This is a national coordinated and directed operation. Two of the AZ mules participated in the GA senate runoff elections according to TTV.
I have heard Catherine say the distance was closer to a meter. Why are you so fixated on the distance ignoring the other variables, which taken together are conclusive. These data are accepted as evidence in courts, yet we allow the Left and the MSM to dismiss the data. Try Googling 2000 mules and you will get a list of articles debunking it. Same with Bing. Big Tech is using algorithms to bias the search.
“Of course, there are ways to eliminate passers-by and county workers, of course, there are ways to confirm that the people in the videos are (or are not) mules. Larry Campbell, dropping off 6 ballots for his big family, wouldn’t be in our study. Going once to a dropbox wasn’t in our study. Our mules averaged 38 dropbox visits and 8 NGO visits. Any other combination (ex. going to NGOs and USPS boxes, for example, wouldn’t have been in our study. Or going to 100 dropboxes, but no NGOs. They weren’t in our study.) That’s how we know this is the tip of the iceberg.”
The numbers are stunning when the minimum criteria of 10 drop boxes, with 5 visits and a handful of ballots delivered per visit, are considered. By that calculus, it is a potential 380,000 illegal votes. When those criteria are lowered to fewer dropboxes and visits, another 810,000 illegal votes. In Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, the mules allegedly cast more than enough illegal votes to overcome the margin of defeat for Trump.
THANK YOU!!!
Do you understand the difference between a person in a video saying he has cellphone geo-location data on "mules" visiting ballot boxes and a person actually producing said data for examination?
On May 9th 2022, True the Vote posted this video: Pull the Ripcord. Three months later still nothing.
The movie is full of allegations, the data is the evidence. So where is the evidence? Absent evidence, this is just another "Release the Kraken" or "Absolute Proof".
“When I use the tracking capabilities for my own cell phone it tracks me to within one or two feet of my actual location.”
Exactly. When I travel I do location share with my husband so if there’s an emergency he can find me. He’ll call and ask me how lunch is at Texas Hots. He can see exactly where I am.
But I suppose my pitiful $300 phone is much better than the government’s woefully inadequate devices. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.