Posted on 05/09/2022 8:07:06 AM PDT by rlmorel
Last night I watched the Dinesh D'Souza documentary 2000 Mules and was quite impressed with it.
From an integrity perspective, I think the True The Vote team did the right thing, setting the bar for judging movements of mules engaged in illegal actions very high (Criteria: A person had to have visited 10 ballot drop boxes as well as at least the location of a single non-profit stash house) and showing even that high bar would have changed the election. If they lowered the bar to say, fewer drop boxes visited, the election was a Trump rout of Biden.
I thought it was well produced. Of note to me was the attention to the production sinc conservatives have long come off as comparative amateurs when it comes to addressing people regarding issues from the media/entertainment space, which is no surprise to anyone who pays attention. And this was not only the exception, but hopefully a harbinger of things to come from conservative messaging.
For example, the intro to the documentary with the beat of the music (well chosen) and the CGI, showing a satellite streaking across space, and on the earth far below, appearing and disappearing red circles representing "geofencing" areas where data was purchased from legal commercial providers of cellular tracking information, was very well done.
It was as good as and worthy of any thriller movie produced at a higher budget that I have seen, and was impressive in that respect. (Unfortunately, this is necessary and not fluff. There are too many people who, if not hooked by a mechanism like that, don’t have the attention span to stay tuned, and will switch to something else. Sad but true.)
I also admired he logical presentation of the issue, followed by the various data elements used, layering and time synching the video evidence they obtained, how it affected the election, and ending with where they got the ballots from.
It was compelling to see the videoed reaction from the family of the elderly woman in the nursing home who has been in a mostly unresponsive state for years (according to the family sitting with her) to recount how astonished they were to find she had been voting in elections.
The led the observer along, deliberately explaining things (even some simple things they didn’t need to) which allows a wider distribution of the citizenry to follow along.
What I found in searching in Google, and visiting various links supplied there, is that the Google shaping of query results (Google was deliberately chosen, not some other engine which might return something less biased) to return to the user was very slanted. Google completely buried, obfuscated, and de-prioritized (placed on search result pages further back that might not be visited) results for me.
To anyone paying attention, this in not in the least surprising, though I suspect the vast majority of Google data consumers have no idea the returns on their queries are shaped to conform to Google's own ideological specifications.
What also was not surprising was the articles that came up at the top of the list, from Politifact, The Denver Post, The Mercury News and so on.
But what I was mildly unprepared for was the uniformity of the "rebuttals" in their language and approach, and the flat out boldfaced lies used to "debunk" Dinesh D'Souza's documentary.
In watching the documentary, one cannot deny this election fraud was widespread, targeted at key battleground states, and carried out in nearly the exact same fashion, in the same way, in the same time frame which indicates the efforts were coordinated at some level. (The pattern, repeated verbatim across the key battleground states and expressed the exact same way in the data (Non-Profit pickup points >> mules making rounds >> mules stuffing boxes with small numbers of ballots over time)
What surprised me was the uniformity of the rebuttals, all completely fallacious and having nothing to do with what was shown in the documentary, which is the surprising thing. In reading the rebuttals from various places, the similarity makes one think that not only did the source not view the documentary, but that they willfully ignored obvious and major parts of the documentary such as the key criteria they used to flag the cell phone in motion as being that of a "mule".
The Denver Post and The Mercury News: "Fact-checking “2000 Mules,” the movie alleging ballot fraud" (NOTE: both of these sites use the same AP output on this, but the key points of ignorance are):
I am curious to see how others feel on this subject of trying to find information and discussion on the Internet about this, and the seeming uniformity of the responses from debunkers:
There was no evidence people were paid to do it. (Apart from the person they interviewed who said, on the record, with the world seeing her face, that people were being paid)
I welcome any thoughts on this.
We need more of these mules to come forward and spill the beans. Since money was the motive for many of them that shouldn’t be hard to do.
Someone going by a drop box is not an indicator of someone stuffing ballots.
What is several people going by multiple dropboxes after going to the same Democrat voter NGOs?
There was no evidence people were paid to do it.
That’s coming later. The NGO’s are about to be named. Also, why did Zuckerberg donate $400 million to exclusively blue counties?
It is okay in many places to drop off ballots for family members and such.
We’re talking multiple drops. Not one drop for family. Also in multiple locations.
There is no proof the “alleged” (discounting the actual video and eyewitnesses) stuffing affected the outcome of the election, because it assumes it was all done in Biden’s favor
Time Magazine already stated there was a bipartisan conspiracy against Trump. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
What is being pushed as "refutations" are essentially the Bart Simpson defense:
I didn't do it.
Nobody saw me do it.
There is no way you can prove anything.
Makes sense, which is why the media will ignore it totally and if asked about it will blackball and censure comment about it.
Informative post. Thanks.
You say evidence was presented that there was enough “muling” to actually throw the election?
D’Souza now needs to do a documentary on the biased searches done by Google and the like.
They showed the video proof of them stuffing 10s of thousands of ballots (likely illegal ballots) in these boxes. And they sit and say it didn’t happen or if it did it wasn’t enough to swing the election. The ballot stuffing was enough. Not to mention there is video proof of them running the ballots in the middle of the night when no one was around. Some stacks ram through multiple times. I am also sure if they would have been allowed to check the machines it would have shown plenty of ballots sent out for cure. That’s another way they cheated. Those 2 methods were for sure enough to change the out come. We all know biden had no shot but in the middle of the night things changed. Midterms will be interesting.
As far as I can tell this is only being shown in a few theaters. The only people watching this are those of us who already know about the steal. So it may end up just preaching to the choir.
They have discovered that their "Fact-Checked And Debunked" model works for the 30-40 percent of dupes that they need to carry The Narrative forward.
The dupes will spew their ignorance all over Twitter and Facebook. Opposing voices will be throttled or banned.
People should keep records of where and when they are asked for a photo ID and report them to see if the media would conclude all of these locations are racists.
Not only liberal media. Maria Bartiromo was thunderously silent on it. Mark Levin spent his weekend show bashing the New York Times for their World War 2 era reporting on the holocaust. Bongino discusses it on his radio show, I don’t know if he mentioned it on his FOX weekend program. Ingraham hasn’t mentioned it.
It’s obvious that FOX wants this story to just go away and their supposed conservative hosts are assenting with silence.
Right.
Our side is building up to a crescendo with this into the election season.
The deniers are the rear guard for the election lies, and what will happen to them is what usually happens to the rear guard.
Ugh. Like you, I fear they have done the math and figured that is enough, sadly.
Those who are guilty or in league with the guilty are not always honest about the crime? Who knew?
Bartiromo is one of the people named in the Smartmatic suit. Claims against some who were named have been dismissed, but not the claims against her, last I heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.