91 thoughts on ““2,000 Mules” Documentary by Dinesh D’Souza – 2020 Election Fraud”

  1. As a fellow graduate of Dartmouth College, I feel strong personal embarrassment over D’Souza’s lifelong career as a right-wing conspiracy theory troll. Not to mention his being an election law felon, gay basher who outed people who did not want to be outed, and alleged wife-beater.

    This film fits in well with his past works blaming the American left for 9-11, defending slavery, defending colonialism, attacking the character of President Obama, and claiming the “Nazi roots of the American left.”

    As for this specific piece, it is based on absurdly flawed methodology where the “mules” have been counted based on their repeated presence near a ballot drop box. Never mind that they may have been passing by on the bus or living nearby.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/05/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-movie-alleging-ballot-fraud/

    https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/

    https://worldnationnews.com/fact-check-holes-in-the-election-fraud-claims-of-2000-mules-movie/

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “As for this specific piece, it is based on absurdly flawed methodology…”

      I don’t see any flaws in the methodology, nor is enough information given in the film to show that the methodology is flawed. One might, of course, draw different conclusions from the evidence True the Vote has compiled, but that is not the line of attack you have chosen. Like I said, the film is a good test for cognitive dissonance.

      I think the tracking data and video described in the film is worthy to be evaluated by law enforcement.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Are you kidding?

        I should waste an hour and a half of my life watching this kind of bullshit which anyone who is not a fool knows to be such from the get go. By their works shall ye know them. D’Souza is a known troll and the premise of thousands of organized people (“mules”) unknown to any competent authorities stealing the election is laughable on its face.

        I understand that this bullshit fits in well with the Big Lie which people who hate America and hate democracy are determined to spread but it remains bullshit.

        To answer your deliberately insulting question, I rely on real journalists to provide accurate fact checking. I found several and posted three who debunked the nonsense methodology at the heart of this fraud.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. “So, your opinion is based on what you were told to think and not on a personal evaluation.”

            So, your opinion is based on your having watched the entire 1:28:41 film? Sure it is!

            The critique of the underlying methodology that I linked to is clear. Can you rebut that critique or is all you have insults?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. When and if I watch it, I will state an opinion. But I haven’t.

            I won’t claim the methodology is valid or not based on the evaluations of advocates on either side of the issue.

            Going down that road only leads to exchanging dueling links no one can validate to the other’s satisfaction.

            Like

  2. Sadly, the next election in 2024 is being set up for stealing, literally, by the Trump minions.

    DoSouza and Carlson are trying so hard to tell a fantasy tale about 2020. Court cases, SCOTUS, recounts, and audits to and extent never before seen in any election have yet to turn up even a scintilla of fraud evidence excepting the handful of Trump voters who dug up dead mothers.

    The most ludicrous part is that if the elections were rigged, why did Democrats lose so many down ballot races, both federal and state. No one has even bothered to explain that inconvenient fact. Clearly, there is a gross disconnect in the cult between truth and wishes.

    The fact is that Trump and his supporters are unhappy and would be fine with a Putin at the helm of our country. 7 out of 8 of the most recent presidential elections had the GOP losing the popular vote. So let’s keep changing the laws so they can truly rig the elections.

    Meanwhile, there are right wing motions in place to outlaw even birth control in some states. What is next, 5 years for masturbation?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. “Have some faith in your fellow citizens. .”

        You people should try it.

        Approximately 75% of your fellow citizens oppose the ending of Roe Vs Wade. They seem to have the odd idea that fundamental rights should not be subject to the whim of religious fanatics controlling Gerrymandered legislatures. And, autonomy over one’s body IS a fundamental right. Or, as Mr. Roberts might prefer, a “natural right.”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutionality

          As I have maintained for decades, the problem with Roe v Wade was not the decision but that it was decided. Defining the beginning of life, which is the deciding issue, was always the proper task of the legislatures.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “Defining the beginning of life,”….

            The issue with that concept is it has been based on religion. Judaism say that life does not begin until the first breath is taken. Catholicism says that life beings at conception. If a legislature makes a determination, one way or the other, one religion will have taken precedence over another. A violation of the First amendment.

            The 14th Amendment guarantees privacy. It was under that Amendment that Roe was decided. If Alito believes that Roe was decided incorrectly, he removes the 14th as being Constitutional.

            What other medical decision made between a patient and a doctor can now be delegitimized by this decision?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Why would the legislature base its decision by choosing one religion over another?

            You assume a binary decision, conception or birth. (I thought most Jews held that life begins at quickening, but I’ll take your word for it)

            I am neither Catholic nor Jewish. I draw the line at 4.5 months, but the legislature’s job is to find a consensus most people can live with.

            Once that line is drawn, the issue becomes much simpler.

            Like

          3. “. . . the legislature’s job is to find a consensus most people can live with.”

            Well if we are going to let fundamental rights be subject to politics, let’s let the legislature “find a consensus that most people can live with” about your gun rights.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Read more carefully

            The legislature’s job there is to determine when for legal purposes a person exists.

            Not to determine if a person has a right to live once one exists. That is a fundamental right.

            So is the right to self defense.

            The legislature must find consensus on when there is a person and then under what circumstances self defense applies.

            But neither is the job of the courts.

            Like

          5. Read more carefully?

            Again?

            The fundamental issue is NOT about when a legal person exists. It is about what must people sacrifice for the benefit of other legal persons. If you need a drop of my blood to save your life, there is no penalty for me refusing to undergo a pin prick on your behalf. I can CHOOSE to suffer on your behalf, but I do not have to.

            So, what is different about a woman. Why can she be compelled to sacrifice and suffer for another legal person if she does not CHOOSE to do so? Does she own her own body, or does the state?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Again, I refer you to the lawful treatment of stowaways.

            The baby is there through no fault of his own. Ince he reaches personhood, he deserves the protection of the Rule of Law.

            But by all means, get your candidates to run on that theory.

            Like

          7. Stowaways end up turned over to the proper authorities. They are not a lifelong commitment by the crew. When the legislatures start forcing women to have babies they do not want, they should then be obligated to take care of those children once they are born.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Stowaways?
            Really?

            You have dodged the point. If I am protected by “the Rule of Law” from being compelled to sacrifice my bodily autonomy to help you, then why can a woman be compelled to sacrifice her health and risk her life for “someone else?”

            A man’s body is his, but a woman’s body belongs to the state? Funny position for a Libertarian. Or is Libertarianism only a guy thing?

            As for the election you can rest assured that the Democrats will run on the idea that it is wrong for the government to usurp a woman’s right to control her own body. It will be a winning issue. Roe vs Wade accurately reflects the consensus view shared by strong majorities. As the old saying goes – be careful what you wish for.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “And, autonomy over one’s body IS a fundamental right. Or, as Mr. Roberts might prefer, a ‘natural right.'”

          I don’t prefer, as it happens. Autonomy over one’s body cannot be a natural right unless it can be exercised without — in the case of abortion — killing a child.

          Like

          Reply

      2. “Have some faith in your fellow citizens. .”

        You first. You display that lack of faith every time to condemn those who vote for Democrats and the fact that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

        Interesting how many of the new voting “integrity” laws that have passed include similar thoughts.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. When have I written that Democrats not be allowed to vote?

          Once.

          While alive.

          While citizens.

          Where they live.

          And are still in possession of their right minds.

          Like

          Reply

          1. And what about Republicans? So far they have voted their dead parents and very prominent ones are registered to vote in multiple states.

            I know, whataboutism.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Now you got it.

            And there have been effectively no fraudulent voting found other than a few hundred, and most of those were found to be errors, mistakes, misunderstandings or temporary malfunctions easily and quickly corrected.

            Add in the always conveniently overlooked fact of down ballot GOP victories on split ballots, there was no chicanery.

            Yet Republicans are spreading messages of voter fraud still today. Why? So they can complicate the voting procedures. Texas primaries were packed full of rejected ballots. Not because of fraud, but because the ink on the new rules not even dry and honest Americans could not “dot all the tees and cross the eyes”😎.

            It is the Republicans who are really rigging the next election. And they will keep doing so until they win. Unless we set national standards for voting rights and regulations.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Did he vote in multiple states? That would be a crime.

            When I moved from Louisana, I was still regestered there for a while. States are supposed to communicate with each other and cull their voting lists, but that lags for years sometimes.

            Like

          6. “Did he vote in multiple states?”

            Not sure one way or the other. YET. But how many times have we been told that multiple state registration is a ticket to fraud-land? Oh wait. That’s only if a Democrat does it.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. When you register to vote, there is a question asking what other state you might be registered in. Your new state is supposed to notify your old state electronically so you can be deleted.

            But many states do not follow through.

            Like

          8. “When have I written that Democrats not be allowed to vote?”

            About once per elections cycle, which in VA is seemingly every 6 months. Comments such as separate election days ( you actually seemed to approve of the idea of emails sent out that Democrat election day is the day after the General election. Whether sarcasm or not, it indicates a willingness to support the idea of lying to voters.)

            “And are still in possession of their right minds.”

            When you consider that the GOP has lost its collective mind, your position stands that they should not be allowed to vote.

            Like

          9. The election day joke is older than you are. Anyone fooled by it should stay home voluntarily.

            By right minds, I refer to whot now appears to be hundreds of thousands of votes harvested nationwide from dementia patients in nursing homes.

            Like

          10. Yeah, still waiting for proof of that instead of your usual speculation.

            And what would you be saying if half (or more) of those votes went to Trump? Then the conversation stops and you move on to your next speculative thought.

            Like

          14. “Did he vote in multiple states? That would be a crime.”

            We do know that one of his three active registrations was at a NC address where he had NEVER lived. And that he cast an absentee ballot for that address while actually a resident in Northern Virginia.

            Sounds like voter fraud to me.

            Liked by 2 people

      3. …”it’s just paranoia.”

        When laws are being proposed in state legislatures that are looking to ban contraceptives in violation of Gooding, are you going to state they they are valid because Gooding was decided wrongly?

        They don’t have to pass. Just the fact that they are being proposed is an issue.

        It ain’t paranoia when it is true.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          4. What does that have to do with it?

            As an appeals court judge, he voted against binding precedent on gun control, but that was not about passing a law, it was about disobeying one.

            Like

          5. …” he voted against binding precedent on gun control,”…

            You mean Roe v. wade isn’t binding precedent?

            Hypocrisy clean up on aisle Compound.

            And to Garland, it is the same thought process. You though he had no chance (or should have no chance) of being confirmed, yet you beat your gun drum over the entire episode.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. No, Roe is not. It is binding on the lower courts, but not on the Supreme Court. Otherwise Plessy V Ferguson would still be law.

            Garland bucked SCOTUS on Heller while an appellate judge.

            Like

          7. “Garland bucked SCOTUS on Heller while an appellate judge.”

            Uh, no he did not. Another day, another fib.

            He never had a single occasion to rule on a case where Heller was at issue. Not once.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Had to go back and look that up.

            You are correct, the precedent he sought to overturn was Parker V DC, which was later incorporated into the Heller decision.

            Nonetheless, he bucked clear precedent.

            Like

          10. “Had to go back and look that up.”

            So, even after looking it up you continue to fib?
            WTF!

            He did not buck ANY precedent.

            Parker vs DC was decided by a three judge panel. Garland was one of the four judges who voted for the entire case to be decided en banc. That’s it. Period. Such a vote tells you nothing about what was in his mind. So, maybe, stop making stuff up?

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Not sure how. It was the longest paragraph in answer to your “it’s just paranoia” comment.

            When laws are being proposed in state legislatures that are looking to ban contraceptives in violation of Gooding, are you going to state they they are valid because Gooding was decided wrongly?

            Like

    2. RE: “DoSouza and Carlson are trying so hard to tell a fantasy tale about 2020.”

      What is the fantasy tale? D’Souza’s film documents an analysis that may or may not hold up under further review. Your claim, like Murphy’s, that the analysis must be false is the real fantasy.

      Like

      Reply

        1. I don’t think so. The film isn’t scientifically rigorous. There’s not enough information in the film to debunk True the Vote’s analytical work. That’s why, for example, Mr. Murphy’s three links are worthless.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The title and substance of the film comes directly from the “analysis” done by True the Vote. That this “analysis” is shown by several reviews to be fatally flawed (and for very obvious reasons) the links I shared are the opposite of worthless.

            The simple fact is that you people do not care one whit about the truth. If a piece agrees with your preconceived ideas – in the case the Big Lie – you do not care if it is built on a foundation of nonsense. You will spread it anyway as you have done with this transparent piece of trash.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. ” The film isn’t scientifically rigorous. There’s not enough information in the film to debunk True the Vote’s analytical work. That’s why, for example, Mr. Murphy’s three links are worthless.”

            Then it is NOT worthy of discussion.

            Mr. Murphy’s links lay out the idea that the film is just more “Stop the Steal” propaganda, which you insist on being accurate.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “That this ‘analysis’ is shown by several reviews to be fatally flawed (and for very obvious reasons) the links I shared are the opposite of worthless.”

            You say the analysis is fatally flawed, but neither you nor the reviews you cite have access to the technical details. Your criticisms are based solely on your own assumptions about the analysis. That is, you are attacking the idea that the analysis might be valid, but you cannot substantiate your assertion.

            Like

          4. RE: “Then it is NOT worthy of discussion.”

            I think it is as worthy of discussion as any other hypothesis.

            The film proposes that cell phone data and surveillance video can be used to reveal voter fraud. D’Souza claims that True the Vote’s analysis of such material proves that substantial voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election. We’re now in the peer review stage for D’Souza’s report.

            You and Mr. Murphy have yet to make any substantive criticism as peer reviewers.

            Like

          5. “I think it is as worthy of discussion as any other hypothesis.”

            We disagree. And the hypothesis has been proven wrong too many times to count. But D’Souza and the like are keeping the drum beat alive to taint the next election. That includes yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Reading the releases by True the Vote, their geotracking data shows some of the “mules” traveling back and forth between Stacey Abrahms election headquarters and the ballot collection boxes multiple times in the same night.

          How does that look in the bright light of truth?

          Like

          Reply

          1. I can answer that by quoting Mr. Roberts’s own words concerning the film.

            “The film isn’t scientifically rigorous”.

            Yet here you are trying to make it true.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I’m not tlaking about the film, I’m referring to the releases by True the Vote.

            When they release the underlying data and analysis we’ll be able to check the rigor.

            Like

          3. So we have thousands of paid ballot harvesters in a handful of states and not one leak.

            We have cell data that pings every time anyone passes within a few yards a ballot box for than a preordained number of times. Even on busy streets where people work, live and play. They wear gloves…because it is winter and a pandemic perhaps?

            And, again, stuffing boxes with ballots that give wins to the GOP, but not Trump.

            Even a child could poke holes in this ridiculous premise designed to convince the choir that the preacher is sleeping with the sexton and stealing from the collection plate.

            The whole strategy of the Big Lie is to sow doubt, even if patently absurd, by repetition ad nauseum. The 60 lawsuits were all about that. None were even plausible or verifiable and some were pulled before witnesses could testify under oath. But 60 suits? Hey, there must be fraud.

            The Oval Office and select Congressmen are up to their asses in swamp water as more and more testimony and digital communications come to light.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Sure, people go back and forth from Stacey Abrahms office to ballot boxes to sneak in Trump votes.

            Note that I don’t say overturn the election. But if the information can be verified, Stacey Abrahms might want to consider what makeup goes with orange.

            Like

          7. That was a separate election I believe. The one Trump told Republicans not to vote because election was rigged.

            Try again.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. RE: “How does that look in the bright light of truth?”

            It looks to me like something law enforcement should investigate.

            Like

          11. How does it look?

            It looks like people traveling past a box on the way to a campaign office.

            Why do you ask?

            Again, down ballot wins for GOP, but not Trump.

            Did you even consider it might be Republican operatives who wanted to get rid of Trump, but stay in power?

            Of course not.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. I expect we will see a lot of racist and misogynist attacks on Stacey Abrahms before this year is over. How dare she get out the vote and frustrate the efforts of those nice old white men to keep it down.

            You call this horseshit “the bright light of truth?”

            How many is “some?”
            What were their names?
            Did they actually have ballots to deposit?
            Were the ballots they had legally cast?
            How many ballots were deposited in those boxes that night?
            Is there ANY evidence that ANY illegal ballots were put in those boxes?
            Did they even go to the deposit box or were they doing donut runs?

            Once again, I am going to invoke Brandolini’s Law on you people.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. RE: “So we have thousands of paid ballot harvesters in a handful of states and not one leak.”

            A whilstleblower is interviewed in the film.

            RE: “Even a child could poke holes in this ridiculous premise…”

            Not really. You need advanced technical competence in a number of areas. Before debunking the premise on the basis that a child could do so, you might ask yourself, “What do commercial businesses use the cellphone GPS data for? Do they find their use of it productive?”

            Like

          14. “A whilstleblower is interviewed in the film.”

            There was one from the post office in PA in 2020 and he proved to be .. what is THAT phrase? Oh, yeah: “Full of shit!”

            Liked by 1 person

          16. RE: “Good review of movie.”

            No thanks. I have already watched the movie and done my own thinking about it.

            Like

          17. How much thinking did you really do? It sounds to me like you watched the movie, took it as fact because it fed your preconceived notions, and ran with that.

            Even Tucker Carlson isn’t promoting it. THAT might tell you something..

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Did you consider why down ballot Republicans won and Trump lost?

            If there were 400,000 illicit ballots, Democrats could have picked up seats rather than lose them if down ballot votes matched the lack of votes for Trump.

            Newsmax and Carlson both disavowed much coverage or praise for the film probably because the premise is so incredibly speculative and full of wishful thinking. And considering the down ballot results kind of kills the entire conspiracy theory.

            Kind of like the corrupted lawsuit against the battleground states by Paxton that had a one in septillion chance of Biden winning based on mega-extrapolation and bad math.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. “Did you consider why down ballot Republicans won and Trump lost?”

            You and others have asked the question repeatedly and NOT ONCE has the conspiracy theorists and believers here have answered. Because they can’t.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. “No thanks. I have already watched the movie and done my own thinking about it.”

            No surprise that you are not interested in the evidence. Or logic. Or common sense. The review DEMOLISHES the phony and palpably dishonest claims made in the movie point by point. It is compelling evidence that those who believe and spread this trash are – at best – being conned or at worst Lying Liars themselves who do not care for the truth.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. That bastard targeted election volunteers so they have been under death threats for just trying to help run free and fair elections.

      Clinton was spot on about deplorables.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

Leave a comment