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/
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".