2000 Mules Creators Are Ready To Defend President Trump Against Indictment With Research

Twiiter ^ | Aug 7, 2023 | Grace Chong

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

2000 Mules Creators Are Ready To Defend President Trump Against Indictment With Research.

[roving]

Giuliani did not say that. They twisted his words.

[jonrick46]

Is that the route that the ballot stuffers took by tracking cell phones? I appears there was a single vehicle used to stuff the ballot boxes. Were they able to track down the vehicle used using surveillance cameras and cell tower pings?

[joesbucks]

Actually the court is asking Rudy what he’s specifically saying because he submitted a word salad.

[joesbucks]

Here’s what the court is demanding:

MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING defendant Giuliani to CLARIFY his [84-2] "Nolo Contendre [sic] Stipulation" ("Giuliani Stipulation"), submitted in response to plaintiffs' 81 Motion for Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant Rudolph Giuliani For Failure to Preserve Electronic Evidence ("Pls.' Motion"), which unsworn stipulation signed by defendant Giuliani contests no part of plaintiffs' motion but rather purports to set out concessions sufficient to avoid further discovery demands and the risk of concomitant sanctions for failure to comply with discovery obligations, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, but simultaneously contains multiple caveats and limitations undercutting that purpose. For example, the Giuliani Stipulation concedes: 1. that defendant Giuliani "made the statements of and concerning Plaintiffs, which include all of the statements detailed in Plaintiffs['] [sic] Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22 at 57-101," 2. "that the statements carry meaning that is defamatory per se," 3. that defendant Giuliani "published those statements to third parties," 4. "that, to the extent the statements were statement of fact and otherwise actionable, such actionable factual statements were false[,]" and 5. that defendant Giuliani "does not contest... the factual elements of liability (subject to any retained affirmative defenses not expressly waived herein) regarding Plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and other related tort claims." Giuliani Stip. 1-4. Yet, these concessions appear to be significantly limited with caveats that the Giuliani Stipulation: 1. is made only "for the purposes of this litigation before this Court and on Appeal," id. 1; see also id. 2-4; 2. "does not affect... his argument that his statements are constitutionally protected statements or opinions or [that plaintiffs' claims are barred by] any applicable statute of limitations," id. 3, 4, despite denial of defendant Giuliani's 26 Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on these same grounds, in which motion plaintiffs' allegations were legally required to be assumed as true, see generally Freeman v. Giuliani, Civ. No. 21-3354 (BAH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197768 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2022), leaving no room for continued viability of such defenses, let alone reservation of such defenses, if plaintiffs' allegations are conceded as true, as the Giuliani Stipulation purports to do; 3. is "subject to any retained affirmative defenses not expressly waived herein," Giuliani Stip. 4, which affirmative defenses may include any one of the six such defenses asserted in Def.'s 33 Answer 193-198, that may provide a complete defense to liability and were not "expressly waived" in the Giuliani Stipulation; 4. "does not affect Giuliani's ability to seek setoff, offset or settlement credit, or that Giuliani's conduct, in fact, caused Plaintiffs any damages, and the amount of any alleged damages Giuliani's conduct may have caused," Giuliani Stip. 4; and 5. "does not affect Giuliani's argument [as to] any other legal defense not expressly waived by this Stipulation," id., which may allude to the six affirmative defenses asserted in Def.'s 33 Answer 193-198, or other unspecified defenses. Given the seemingly incongruous and certainly puzzling caveats contained in the Giuliani Stipulation, plaintiffs' counsel recounts efforts to obtain clarification from defendant Giuliani's counsel, see Pls.' 86 Reply Supp. Mot. For Discovery Sanctions Ag. Def. Giuliani For Failure to Preserve Electronic Evid., at 3-5 (recounting defense counsel's confirmation to plaintiffs' counsel that defendant Giuliani (1) stipulates to all elements of plaintiffs' claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy; and (2) "would 'not contest willfulness for purposes of punitive damages'"), but no such clarification has been submitted directly to the Court by defendant Giuliani or otherwise acknowledged by defendant Giuliani.Accordingly, for the above reasons, defendant Giuliani is DIRECTED, by August 8, 2023 at 4:00 PM, to submit to the Court either: (a) a superseding stipulation in which he(i) concedes, for purposes of this litigation, all factual allegations in plaintiffs' 22 Amended Complaint as to his liability for plaintiffs' defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims, and his liability as to plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, see U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. China Infrastructure Inv. Corp., 189 F. Supp. 3d 118, 128 (D.D.C. 2016) (Howell, C.J.) (noting that "[a] defaulting defendant concedes all well-pleaded factual allegations as to liability, though the court may require additional evidence concerning damages") (quoting Al-Quraan v. 4115 8th St. NW, LLC1, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1, 1 (D.D.C. 2015)); and (ii) concedes that entry of default judgment on liability is appropriate in this case, see Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 1718 (D.D.C. 2001) (entering default judgment after finding that plaintiffs "satisfied each element" of the pleaded cause of action); or (b) an explanation for declining to submit the superseding stipulation described in paragraph (a), above, that also provides clarification as to what precisely his original stipulation conceded regarding the plaintiffs' factual allegations and legal claims. Should defendant Giuliani not file the superseding stipulation described in paragraph (a), above, the parties are DIRECTED to appear in Courtroom 26A on August 15, 2023 at 11:00 AM for a hearing on both plaintiffs' 81 Motion, and the status of defendant Giuliani's compliance with the Court's May 31, 2023 Minute Order ("May Order") (as amended by the June 16, 2023 Minute Order), directing him to "search and produce all materials responsive to plaintiffs' RFPs... within the date ranges agreed to by the parties, with the assistance of a professional vendor." Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 4, 2023. (lcbah4) Modified on 8/7/2023 (zmac).

[rlmorel]

Those are all questions they address in great detail in the documentary, I watched it, then purchased it. I believe it is the most significant indicator of widespread fraud I have seen.

What you see in the graphic just above is geotracking data from ONE person on ONE night. (Ballot Dropboxes are the overlaid red dots, and the red circles are the NGO Get Out The Vote sites.)

Using their LOWEST bar for suspicious activity to define a single person as a "ballot mule" (someone stuffing ballot boxes with fraudulent votes) True The Vote found more than 2000 "ballot mules" in the battleground states they analyzed. Pennsylvana had, by far, the largest and most aggressive numbers of mules, I believe one was seen visiting up to 50 ballot dropboxes on a single trip in one night)

It is not locational data from cell phone towers (using triangulation via tower location and signal strength from the individual phone I believe, if I am wrong, somemone reading can correct me on that) which is far, far less precise.

It is geotracking data from the cell phone itself which is more specfic and gives five parameters (that I know of): Location (position) data, Speed data, Timestamp data, Application data, and...most importantly...the Phone MAC address. This is the alphanumeric code that identifies YOUR specific phone. (It may be those five data points sent, or it may only be three...Location, Timestamp, and Phone MAC Address. Whether three points or five is largely irrelevant except for the marketing value of the data

(Note: I am explaining this from my personal understanding of this technology, and am going to this depth just as much to cement my own understanding of it, and possibly use it in the future when explaining it, so I apologize for the length. Also, any person reading this who sees a hole or something wrong in my explanation, please, jump in and correct me. I would view that as a favor. I am doing this from memory, and my memory is absolutely fallible...)

IMPORTANT VALUES IN GEOTRACKING

1. LOCATION: GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky. However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees. (From GPS.gov) This is delivered in coordinates.

2. SPEED: The government provides the GPS signal in space with a global average user range rate error (URRE) of ≤0.006 m/sec over any 3-second interval, with 95% probability. (From GPS.gov) (Note: I assume this is delivered, but they may derive it from the physical distance between two location points and the subtraction of one timestamp at one location data point from the timestamp at the second location data point to get a duration-this I don't know for sure, but I include it anyway for discussion.)

3. TIMESTAMP: Recorded along with the SPEED and LOCATION, probably in ZULU time (UMT)

4. APPLICATION: What application on the phone delivered the data. (NOTE: I admit I don't know for certain if this Application identifier is captured and sent in the communication with location, speed, timestamp, and MAC Address, but I assume it is. It may be that the application installed does not transmit the Application information, but depends on the receiving end at Walmart (example below) to fill all that in. I include it anyway because it is germane.)
   1. This is where the really powerful marketing data acquisition takes place. This is enabled by individual phone users, or, enabled by default on their device. When you buy and set up an iPhone, for example, it will ask you if you want to enable "Location Services". Without this, you cannot use many features of the Map application, such as driving directions and features nearby.
   2. When you say "Yes" to Location Services, you are then being tracked.
   3. When you install applications, they often have features that leverage (such as a Walmart application that you can download and install) and it knows which Walmart is closest to you,what products you purchase, if there are new sales items in your store, how many in stock, etc.
   4. They can see, when you walk in the store, what entrance you used, where you went first in the store. What areas in the store you visit. They cross-match against your profile, age, sex, profession, marital status, number of children, all possibly stored in your Walmart profile you created when you installed the app. Furthermore, once you have it installed and you have given them permission to track you by enabling location services, they (Walmart) have information on you wherever you go. They know how far you traveled to get to the store. They know where you went before you went to the store. They know where you went after you left the store.

   5. But the point is, all that information, when you send the five pieces of information to Walmart, Walmart stores it. The payload of data your Walmart application sends to Walmart, location, speed, timestamp, etc. is extremely small. Takes up almost no space. And, because the data set on each location point is so tiny, and storage is so cheap...they store a lot of it.

5. PHONE MAC ADDRESS: This is most crucial, because without this information, in the absence of any applications, just using the built in location services on the phone iteself, there is no way to identify the movements of an individual user.
   1. This data is anonymized. This Phone MAC Address tell you exactly what phone is going from point A to point B, but it doesn't tell you what person is carrying that phone, or even if it is the SAME person.
   2. This is one of the most contentious aspects of Geotracking.
   3. The identity of the human connected to that specific phone (MAC Address) is blinded (masked) and typically...only the seller of the phone knows who purchased that phone.
   4. Law Enforcement or other agencies may get a subpoena from a judge to force a phone manufacturer such as Apple or Samsung to hand over the name and address of whoever purchased the phone, and can then purchase additional geotracking data from various vendors, and minutely track the movements over time of anyone who carries that phone, almost always the owner.

Here is the kicker in this Geotracking data described above, and we shouldn't forget this: THIS IS BIG BUSINESS. VENDORS, INCLUDING MANUFACTURERS OF PHONES, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, BUT ALSO ENTITIES LIKE WALMART DESCRIBED ABOVE, WILL GATHER AND ***SELL*** THIS DATA TO GENERATE REVENUE.

And ANYONE can buy this data. All you need is MONEY. When I heard that the Biden Administration was looking to set up contracts with private business to get data like this, my FIRST impression was that they were going to use this type of geotracking data to bypass the restrictions in goverment that protects private citizens from government surveillance. This is likely their way around it. No doubt in my mind.

But as I said, if you have money, you can buy the data, and it is used for gazillions of purposes, marketing, planning, construction, etc. To get it, all you need is money, and the vendors of the data offer that data in a large variety of ways, depending on how much, over what period of time, and what detail or richness of information is desired.

One of those variants of geotracking data is called "Geofencing". This is the drawing of geographic (location coordinate) boundaries, and buying data on who enters, transits, and navigates that area. You set up the "area" you want to look at with the vendor of the Geolocation data, and they extract it and sell it to you. You may use it in any way you wish.

Which is what brings us to True The Vote, their methods, their detractors, and the "2000 Mules" documentary.

METHODOLOGY
In "2000 Mules", Catherine Englebrecht and Gregg Phillips discuss how they got a $2 million dollar grant, and used it to purchase specific geotracking data from the battleground states.

1. They gathered data for one month before the election, and one month after, and in Georgia, they purchased data all the way up to the runoff elections in January 2021.
2. They drew geofences around key areas suspected of vote fraud (such as Fulton County) and tracked ALL cell phone movements in, out, and around.
3. They drew geofences of their own around all voting Dropbox locations (including any and all funded by both the state and Jeff Zuckerberg) so they could track any cell phone movements to each Ballot Dropbox.
4. They drew geofences of their own around all NGO "Get Out The Vote" political organizations within that county. (I assume they were all Leftist, because...well, they are OVERWHELMINGLY Leftist. This conclusion is NOT rocket science, just a statement of fact.
5. They ran their data through an Artificial Intelligence algorithm that analyzed the geotracking data as follows:
   1. Because each phone could be individually identified (even if the ower of the phone remained unknown) they were able to determine the path of a single phone, in any time frame, which is what the graphic above showed.
   2. That graphic shows ONE user, on ONE evening, driving that route.
   3. All parameters were deliberately chosen to NOT include cell phone traffic where the movements of the person with the phone might be completely innocuous.
   4. They set AI to only flag cell phones whose traffic visited ten or more ballot dropboxes and one or more NGO "Get Out The Vote" locations in a single day. The graphic above shows a day in the life of one mule in the Atlanta area. This particular mule visits 28 drop boxes and 5 NGOs in the same day. This was deliberately done to exclude innocent traffic.

VIDEO
True The Vote requested, via FOIA requests (or the various local equivalents) all surveillance video from the dropboxes in all the areas they monitored. I forget the exact number, but it some ridiculous number like 4 million minutes of video footage.

1. IMPORTANT NOTE: BY LAW, ALL BALLOT DROPBOXES MUST HAVE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE.
2. Some video was forthcoming, but some was simply not acted on. When specifically asked why, were just told there was no video footage available. (Ignored the law)
3. The vast majority of the footage obtained was useless.
   1. Camera had low resolution or was blurry
   2. Camera was poorly situated looking directly into a street light or ballot dropbox was in shadow, or not even in the picture
   Suspicious minds like mine believe all these things are deliberate. This is not complicated technology. But, they were able to get video footage of plenty of people who they could recognize going to various dropboxes and stuffing ballots but getting the same person at multiple ballot dropboxes was challenging because even though they could work hard to identify them, (by clothing and such) footage was generally so poor they could rarely include it without having to include how and why they determined it was the same person in the video.

ANALYSIS
They did various analyses, making assumptions such as each "ballot mule" dropping only five ballots at a time in each box, and how many boxes on average a mule would hit in their analysis, that even in the low-ball estimate of one NGO and five ballot dropbox visits, Trump would have still won. If they made more reasonable estimates such as visting ten ballot dropboxes, It turned into an electoral landslide for Trump.

SUMMARY

• There was and is 100% a media push to hide the conclusions of "2000 Mules" from the public, or to discredit it. Just do a search, and every single media hit that comes up in Duck Duck Go or Google for at least the first two or three pages of returns are "fact check" websites that "debunk" the claims of "2000 Mules".

• Detractors claim that GPS data is not precise enough to distinguish someone pulling over to check a tire versus someone pulling into a ballot dropbox location to stuff ballots. Then they cite cell tower triangular precison to buttress their claim, likely knowing full well they are not using cell tower triangulation. Triangulation via phone signal and three cell towers has a precision of about 300 feet at best, but in areas where tower coverage may be spotty, it could be up to a mile. But they know all this. Go out and look at nearly any "debunking" done by "fact check" website, and in the majority of them, they cite this stupid, deliberate lie.

• Detractors claim there are no incidents of ballot stuffing. Yes. They have the unmitigated gall to just baldly state that lie. "2000 Mules" shows multiple footage sequences of people stuffing ballots. Even in broad daylight near a polling place with people standing in line watching them do it. Someone even calls them out on it.

• Detractors claim that that the phone traffic tagged is innocent and explainable activity, such as someone going to the corner for a jug of milk. They say this with a condescending smirk, knowing full well the traffic in the graphic shown above is not someone going to 28 different stores looking for a gallon of milk. Furthermore, many of these ballot dropboxes are in locations where they are off on a side road, and are the only reason for going down that side road.

• Detractors claim that people shown making stops could just be passing by and pulling off the road.

• Detractors claim that dropping off ballots for family members is legal in some states, including Georgia. While this is true, these people were dropping off multiple tranches of ballots at multiple locations, and...why would they be doing this at 3:37 AM? And going from box to box? Why not just put them all in one box. And you are only legally allowed to drop FIVE ballots off.

• In at least one case, a woman was shown wearing latex gloves, stuffing the ballots, and then going back to a trash can she could not have seen when she came in unless she had been there before, and peeled off the gloves and threw them in the trash. The Left's explanation (even on some of these "fact check" sites that "debunk" this is that it was cold in those areas, and people were wearing the gloves to keep their hands warm. However, they only began seeing people wearing latex gloves in the video they got via the FIOA requests only days AFTER there was a national story showing that people had been nailed for voter fraud based on fingerprints taken from ballots. Suspicious minds might see a cause and effect there.

  Ballot Mules get paid by ballot stuffed, and they had to demonstate via a phone selfie with the ballots in their hand in front of a dropbox so they could get paid. I think the going rate was $10 a ballot.WHETHER DROPPING OFF FIVE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS IN GEORGIA WHERE IT IS LEGAL, OR DROPPING OFF 50 IN PENNSYLVANIA AS FRAUD, IN ALL CASES EVERYWHERE IT IS 100% ILLEGAL TO BE PAID FOR DOING IT. VERY IMPORTANT.

In light of this, when I hear a politician such as DeSantis, Ramaswamy, every Leftist and media outlet, every judge, every "fact check" website say there is "no evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election" I brand them immediately, wholly, and unreservedly as denizens of the Deep State. Either that, or they are simply ignorant, or too stupid to hold a job, much less public office a job.

Again, this one graphic sums it all up.

There are people even here on FR who dismiss this graphic, in which it displays the journey of ONE phone user through the geofenced area, on ONE night, and overlaid it with the locations of ALL ballot dropboxes and ALL NGO Get Out The Vote organizations in the area who discount it.

If some simpleton ANYWHERE has a viable explanation for this, which the True The Vote team says was repeated with THOUSANDS of people in ALL the battleground states exhibiting similar patterns of behavior in the geofenced areas, well, I am willing to hear it. And we have ignorant simpletons even on this website who discount this.

THIS SIMPLE GRAPHIC IS THE PROOF RIGHT HERE. I AM WILLING TO ARGUE THIS WITH ANYONE:

[rlmorel]

If anyone is interested, I did a summary of some elements from “2000 Mules” in the post above.

[rlmorel]

If you do a search for “2000 Mules” and read some of the “fact checks” that purport to “debunk” the documentary, they are wholly fraudlent. As I said in my post above, most of them spout things they read in online news reports.

The one example I saw was an article saying the Georgia Election Commission found no evidence of fraud.

Some people might believe that. Some people are ignorant, stupid, or ideologically driven, so there is that.

I have a reasonable understanding of the technology, and I would be ready and willing to discuss the methodology and findings with anyone who wants to debate.

What I have seen, though, is nobody wants to actually debate it. They want to “debunk” it, throw spaghetti at the wall, ignorant or stupid people see the “debunking” and just classify it as “Oh. I guess “2000 Mules” was just a partisan propaganda piece by people who didn’t want to accept the results of an election. What’s for dinner?”

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

There is ZERO GPS evidence. None. Nada. Never was.
There are only claims of possessing GPS evidence.
Anyone with any intelligence or honesty would be screaming:

[rlmorel]

Nice graphic you posted, but I am not sure what that has to do with this subject. What “money” do you wish to be “shown”?

Please explain the data conveyed by True The Vote in the animated GIF.

What is your explanation for that? (And for the several thousands of others who displayed similar or even more suspicious traffic?)

Are you asserting (or baldly stating) that they made up that graphic (and thousands of other similar data sets which defined individual “ballot mules”) out of thin air?

[rlmorel]

I just want to make sure we are on the same page-you aren’t mixing up Mike Lindell’s efforts with the efforts of True The Vote are you?

If you are, you should keep them separate. These are two wholly, completely, and drastically different sets of data, acquired for different reasons and purposes, in different ways.

Mike Lindell and his operation is quite a different matter.

[GOPJ]

Sometimes people value something higher if they have to pay for it.... I know it’s counterintuitive...

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Nice graphic you posted, but I am not sure what that has to do with this subject. What “money” do you wish to be “shown”?

The GPS data. I just want to see the actual GPS data of just one of these so-called mules.
Pull the Rip cord.

Please explain the data conveyed by True The Vote in the animated GIF.

What data? A graph is not data. You do know what GPS tracking data is don't you?
After being confronted with the fact that the ballot box locations are not correct, Greg Phillips said in a Washington Post interview, “the movie graphics are not literal interpretations of our data.” So the creator of that graphic, Greg Phillips, says the graphic is not REAL DATA. It's made up.
Even the geolocation maps in ‘2000 Mules’ are misleading

Since it's trivial for myself and I assume many programmers to create a graphic from GPS data, one has to wonder why they would fake it for the movie. The purchased data is already anonymous.

[Yardstick]

*bump*

That graphic really gets the point across. I hadn’t seen it before.

I wonder what the current state of the debate over the 2000 Mules methodology is. I’m guessing its creators have fired back at the debunkers. I wonder whose arguments have stood up better.

I still need to see the movie. I recommended it to a friend at work who saw it and found it convincing but I’ve managed to miss seeing it myself.

[joesbucks]

Thnx

[rlmorel]

You know, you can actually purchase exactly the same geolocation data from the same place True The Vote purchased it from, who also happen to be the same entities the government purchases it from, the Police purchase it from, and even intelligence agencies purchase it from.

People create images out of data all the time to portray something that people can grasp. Literal portrayals of data are done all the time, although your “So the creator of that graphic, Greg Phillips, says the graphic is not REAL DATA. It’s made up.” is not the quote from Greg Philips. Your representation is not a literal interpretation of what he said. So people do this all the time to varying degrees.

You said “there is no GPS data”. What do you mean by that? As I said above, you could get the exact same data yourself if you were inclined to do so.

That said, how do you explain the video footage they have of people actually stuffing ballots, footage which was located and examined directly using the GPS data for location, date and time, and showing them doing exactly what the GPS data showed those people doing?

Do you assert that video footage, matched up with profiles that displayed suspicious activity are faked?

[rlmorel]

”…I wonder what the current state of the debate over the 2000 Mules methodology is. I’m guessing its creators have fired back at the debunkers. I wonder whose arguments have stood up better…”

I would take it as a positive that True The Vote (as this article states) is ready and willing to go into a court of law, presenting their data and methodologies to the thrust and parry of an adversarial legal process.

I am usually more inclined to feel confidence and affinity towards entities who are ready to place all the cards on the table and subject it to scrutiny as True the Votes appears to be, and less confidence in the entities who are going to engage in the subterfuge we see engaged against Trump.

It isn’t my confidence and affinity that will tell the story, and both Gregg Phillips and Catherine Englebrecht seem pretty confident going into this that if given their chance in a high profile case, they can make their case.

There are some who brand them as mercenaries who are in it to make a buck off it. I view those kinds of things as ad hominem attacks and don’t see that as constructive in any way to a civil or useful discussion.

I am fully comfortable viewing those in charge at True The Vote as Patriots. Even though there are many people who would rather just see Trump locked up and put away, both literally and figuratively (and we have those type of people right here on Free Republic) I look forward to this legal process.

[rlmorel]

You are most welcome, FRiend...

[jonrick46]

You have successfully debunked the debunkers who say “2000 Mules” is a fraud. My Son believes it when I asked him where was my copy of “2000 Mules.” He said, “Don’t waste your time, it’s all a big lie.” I think his head has been filled by the Big Liers—Marxist version.

[rlmorel]

When you do that Google search on “2000 Mules” you see those kinds of people spouting the same stuff.

It is what they depend on.

They DEPEND on people just swallowing whole the “nothing happened here” narrative.

If they can, by isolating and minimizing them, sideline the segment of people who use their own eyes and ears to determine there was an actual problem in the 2020 election (rather than depending on the likes of The Washington Post to tell them “the truth”) then their job becomes far easier at stealing the next election.

[Fai Mao]

So which of the Biblical patriarchs would you vote for?

Abraham was a bigamist, and a Liar Jacob a bigamist and swindler Moses a murderer King David, a murderer King Solomon sort of invented the term philanderer Hezekiah a braggart and bigamist

Let's move to the New Testament Paul, an accomplice to murder Peter, denied the Lord publicly

It isn't the man/woman it is the platform.