I watched it three times. The important stuff in 2000 Mules is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. Finding what was left out took three viewings.
This thread has died, but I wrote the little piece below, so I might as well post it:
Here's my fantasy of a Dinesh D'Souza speech after he ingested a healthy slug of truth serum just before the release of 2000 Mules.
"Before you pay to see my film, I'd like to clear up just what you will and will not be seeing.
"My friends and I have pretended that 2000 Mules will show Democrat operatives putting multiple illegal ballots in multiple ballot dropboxes. You are probably paying to see that, but the film never shows it. Not once. The videos do show some people putting multiple ballots into the boxes, and dropping a few on the ground, but it is legal in some states to mail other people's ballots. Whether or not it is legal, people do it as a favor for friends and family. The videos obviously do not prove the grand conspiracy we are trying to sell, but we pretend that they do, and say 'Trust us!'"
"We call the ballot-inserting voters in the videos 'mules.' We contend that the mules were tracked on their cell phones, driving between multiple dropboxes and nonprofit organizations. In the film we offer no proof of that. Mules are defined by their movement via cell phone tracking. TTV has geospatial tracking data and it has dropbox video, but the two do not overlap. The "mules" exist only in the tracking data. We provide no proof that ANY voters in the videos were the same people who were tracked. We bet very few people will notice."
"We tracked the motions of cell phones that came within 100 feet of particular ballot dropboxes. In the film we pretended that for a mule visit to a dropbox to count, the phone had to come within a foot or two of the dropboxes. Unfortunately, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation caught that lie and forced us to admit that our data showed that a mule only had to come within 100 feet of a dropbox for a visit to count. Obviously, we could not mention that number in the film. Our mule hypothesis would go down the drain along with our profits, so we do not mention it. Also, we could not mention that the GBI had rejected our geospatial data as being merely "curious" and unworthy of pursuit. So we deliberately kept the GBI out of the film, thereby lying by omission to our viewers. Also, we did not give our raw data to any expert who was qualified to replicate our results. We were afraid of what would happen if we did."
"We emphasized in our publicity that we had a huge amount of video of the dropboxes, and implied that the videos confirmed the crimes of ballot-dropping mules who we had supposedly identified from our geospatial tracking. Nope! Nowhere in the film will you see an identified mule's position on a True the Vote computer screen that corresponds to a single real person shown in the film.
"We pretended to have done a sophisticated analysis of 25 terabytes of geospatial data that allowed us to create mule travel maps, that showed the paths of mules between ballot dropboxes and non-profit organizations. We hope that no one will notice that creating everything we showed onscreen would have required only a simple graphics program and a few hours of work. In the film we introduced no one who was claimed to have the training and experience to have done this analysis of a huge amount of data. We interviewed no independent experts on evaluating geospatial data who might have rated our efforts, and made the film more credible. We could have asked such an expert to try to replicate our results with our data, but we did not. We did not want to know the results. We calculated that we would be able to get away with all this, because our viewers desperately want to believe us."
"After the film's profits start rolling in, I hope that Gregg and Catherine can be reimbursed for the small fortune they spent for all that useless data."
"Please enjoy the film."
zzzzzzzzzz. you bore me