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?”
My distrust of 2000 Mules started when I noticed that nowhere in the film was it clearly specified how close a possible mule had to come to a ballot dropbox to count as a visit. That statement would have been something like this: "When a potential mule's phone came within two feet of a ballot dropbox, we counted that as a visit. We ignored any distance over two feet. " There is no such "distance" statement anywhere in the film, yet True the Vote must have used such a specific distance if they wanted to distinguish mules from non-mules.
The film clearly implies that there was no doubt after examining True the Vote's geospatial cell phone data, that specific mules visited specific ballot boxes, and were close enough to insert fraudulent ballots. How close would that have to be? Perhaps under three feet?
Dinesh D'Souza never gave a specific number in the film or in interviews I saw. He just kept repeating that geospatial tracking was very accurate. He never specified how accurate Trut the Vote's SPECIFIC data was. Why not? The number is critical to proving the mule hypothesis.
After looking on the internet to find a specific "distance" number, I encountered the 9/30/2021 letter sent by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to True the Vote, rejecting TTV's request that the GBI investigate TTV's findings as evidence of vote fraud. That letter is shown in its entirety here:
https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1451309892824936452/photo/1
Please read the letter.
Note this entry: "Devices within 100 feet of org or dropbox by day." Also, note this: "... the spreadsheets identify 229 cellphones which had made multiple trips to within 100 feet of a voter drop box."
Finally, I had found a "distance" number! The problem was, it wasn't two feet, it was 100 feet. That's enough distance to have included tracked phones in cars traveling on roads near the ballot dropboxes. 100 foot accuracy obviously cannot be used to place anyone within a couple of feet of a ballot dropbox.
Geospatial data can be much more accurate than 100 feet, so at first the number specified by the GBI puzzled me. However, when TTV purchased its geospatial data, they had so specify the diameter of the geofences being examined. TTV must have specified geofences that extended 100 feet around each dropbox and near each nonprofit organization. I expected that D'Souza would explain how TTV had narrowed that 100 feet down to a foot or two. It never came. However, he did permit himself to be interviewed by the Washington Post's Philip Bump. Bump repeatedly brought up the "100 foot" figure, and D'Souza did not object to it. Here's that interview:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza/
Please read the interview. Search for "100". This is the Washington Post, and nothing that Philip Bump says can be trusted, but I assume the Dinesh D'Souza quotes are accurate. If D'Souza's quotes were fabricated or altered, he had plenty of places to complain online or in interviews, and AFAIK he did not. D'Souza pretends in the interview that TTV tracked the paths of mules within the hundred foot radius, but that critical information was not mentioned or shown in the film. He also says that the data showed that mules were shown to have gone many times between particular dropboxes and particular nonprofit organizations, but that only meant that supposed mules came within 100 feet of both. So what?
No wonder the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said at the end of its letter, "As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed."
The GBI was being polite to call the data "curious." "Meaningless" would have been a better word.
I bet that the GBI letter came as a shock to True the Vote. They almost certainly submtted their data in good faith, believing they had discovered significant voter fraud. They had wasted a lot of money to purchase the worthless geospatal cell phone data. How were they going to recoup that loss? Enter Dinesh D'Souza.
There are plenty of other problems with 2000 Mules. Obviously this says nothing about real Democrat vote fraud.