It was claimed in the movie that the "mules" were persons who visited a drop box on ten or more occasions. There were 12 videos shown of individuals making drops, but not of any of their other visits. This is the same question that Ben Shapiro asked of D'Sousa who did not answer it and instead answered a different question than the one that was asked; answering instead that there were drop boxes that did not have video. Well we already knew that. But of the ones that did have video, how come there was shown only one "mule" drop, when they claimed the "mule" visited on ten or more occasions?
We need something to confirm the theory in 2000 mules. More videos, GPS data used, the identity of the "collection houses".
No, we don't.
NOTHING will ever be enough for you and your fellow vote-fraud scoffers, RWC.
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/
So the movie won't be 10 hours long.