2000 Mules – Fact Check: Correcting the Fact Checkers

Life of a Mule - 1 Day

Democrats and the left wing state media will tell you that the 2020 election was “the most secure” election in U.S. history. Dinesh D’Souza opens his documentary 2000 Mules, a documentary about the theft of the 2020 election, with a montage of left wing media personalities and democrat politicians repeating the “most secure’ refrain – or some version of it. Among them are Joy Reid, Joe Scarborough, Chuck Schumer, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo and Joe Biden. But for such a supposedly secure election, a large number of people – estimated to be at least half the country perhaps more since many democrats are also suspicious – don’t believe it was secure. Further, a large number of people think the election was outright stolen from Donald Trump.

If this was such a secure election, one wonders why so many don’t believe it, and instead agree with the well know fact that mail in balloting invites fraud and vote theft. That is not just an American sentiment. A number of European countries have outright banned the main component of vote fraud exposed in 2000 Mules – mail in ballots. The Washington Examiner reports:

In the European Union, 63% have put a ban on mailing in ballots except for citizens living overseas. Another 22% have imposed a ban even for those overseas.

The title of the article, written before the 2020 US election, is equally revealing: “Developed countries ‘ban’ mail-in voting, US would be ‘laughing stock’: Report” The prediction of the US becoming a laughing stock for using mail-in ballots has come true. But that has not stopped the left wing state media and democrats from continuing the “most secure election” refrain.

But the “most secure election” refrain was dealt a fatal blow with Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary 2000 Mules. The documentary has been so successful there has been a virtual media blackout on it – from both left and right leaning news sites to contain the damage. But that was not sufficient to counter the devastating evidence in documentary so the left immediately tried to release their version of the Kraken against it: that would be left wing fact checkers attempting to debunk the clear evidence presented: not mere ballot stuffing, but orchestrated ballot stuffing sufficient to change the outcome of the election, and executed well enough to make an organized crime family envious.

But how can the fact checkers rebut such clear and conclusive evidence? They can’t so they turn to their standard bag of dirty tricks: lies, fallacious arguments and misdirection.  The fact checks – the most popular being those done by Politico and the Associated Press – really only have a few stones they can throw. But even their best attempts at stone throwing miss the mark. Following are the attempts that were made and why they miss.

Misfires from the 2000 Mules Fact Checks

Baseless Fact check Objection 1:
Dinesh is nothing but a right wing conspiracy theorist.
When you can’t refute the evidence, attack the witness. That’s a common tactic used by those hoping they can distract you from using reason by appealing to some emotional attraction that has nothing to do with the argument they’re trying to refute. This attack takes all forms – accusing a rape victim of asking to be attacked because of the way she dressed; or a victim of theft must be lying because she’s a prostitute. In both these cases blaming the person making the accusation of being immoral or a criminal has nothing to do with whether or not the accusation the person makes is true or not. The same is true with the matter at hand. Whatever problems the left wing has with Dinesh D’Souza are irrelevant to the charges made in his documentary.

Baseless Objection 2:
The Geo-tracking used to track the mules is not accurate enough to track as described

Fact checkers trying to undermine the validity of the data presented object that geo-tracking technology is not sensitive enough or sophisticated enough to track mules to the drop boxes as depicted in the movie. The problem with that is that both the CDC and DOJ are using geo-tracking for the same type of data, and it’s shown to be accurate to within six feet as Dinesh notes below. Catherine Engelbrecht, one of the researchers in the film notes even the supreme court has used and allowed geo-tracking in a 2016 case as noted in this article by Mike Huckabee.

Geo-tracking - within 6 feet

DOJ using Geo-tracking

Apparently the fact checkers never bothered to learn about the technology. If they had they would discovered that the information provided by a geo-tracking signal can be enhanced by triangulating using other signals as demonstrated below and described here.

Geo-tracking - accuracy, triangulation

Update – See the below linked New York Times article on Geo-tracking

Baseless Objection 3:
People claimed to be mules might be innocently delivering ballots for family.

The Politifact check suggests: “Many states have laws allowing people to return completed mail ballots on behalf of others, such as family members. Ballot drop boxes are more secure than standard mail boxes.” The Associated Press piece gives examples such as, “For example, Larry Campbell, a voter in Michigan who was not featured in the film, told The Associated Press he legally dropped off six ballots in a local drop box in 2020 — one for himself, his wife, and his four adult children.” This is supposed to be their silver bullet objection, but it’s laughable because it is wrong on so many levels. Let’s consider them:

Objection 3 Problem 1: The mules were paid to deposit the ballots. As D’Souza points out:

Paying mules to deliver ballots is illegal in every state. In Georgia you can give your ballot to a family member or caregiver to drop off. The mules are not family members or caregivers. Politifact is lying to cover up coordinated fraud by its own side in the 2020 election

The fact that the mules were paid invalidates the claim of an being an innocent family member, and instead puts them in the category of felon.

Objection 3 Problem 2: They ignore the definition of a mule.

The researchers knew this would be an objection. So they were careful to set a high bar for what a mule is to exclude legitimate box users or people legitimately in the vicinity of a box. Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote said they defined a mule as:

“A Mule is, by our definition, a person that is involved in picking up ballots from locations and running them to the drop boxes. So you have the collectors on the one hand, you have the stash houses – which are the non-profits, and then you have the mules that are doing the drops.”

So the mule had to pick up the ballot from specific locations – non-profit Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), then deliver them to drop boxes. And, they wouldn’t be counted as mules unless they went to one of the drop boxes that had been geo-fenced by True the Vote. Further, the mule had to meet the following criteria to be counted as a mule. The mule had to:

Visit 10 or more drop boxes
Visit 5 or more visits to an NGO
Visit one of the  geofenced drop boxes

How does a person innocently dropping of ballots for family ever meet that criteria?

Objection 3 Problem 3. They ignore the practices of a mule

Life of a Mule - 1 day, 1 Mule, 28 drop boxes, 5 non-profit NGOsGregg Phillips shows a “pattern of life” for a single mule on a single day. (Video Echo)

The AP hit piece stated, ““Ballot harvesting” is a pejorative term for dropping off completed ballots for people besides yourself. The practice is legal in several states but largely illegal in the states True the Vote focused on, with some exceptions for family, household members and people with disabilities.”

The “they’re delivering for family members” lie is blown wide open when you consider a day in the life of one mule in the Atlanta area. As documented above, this particular mule visits 28 drop boxes and 5 NGOs in the same day. What legitimate purpose can a person have for dropping off ballots for family at 28 drop boxes, and also visiting 5 locations where ballots are being distributed? Why were the ballots not all deposited at the first ballot box? And why did they visit NGO’s that were distributing mail-in ballots throughout their journeys? As Gregg Phillips explains, this “pattern of life” for a single mule demonstrates how ludicrous the “delivering for family” smoke screen is.  Additionally, some of these drop boxes were out of the way to get to. Why do you need to go to multiple out of the way boxes? And some of these drops were made in the middle of the night – like 1 or 3 AM. As Eric Metaxas sarcastically put it upon seeing one mule doing a 1 AM drop, “Don’t we all vote at one o’clock in the morning?”

Baseless Objection 4:
This theory does not prove fraud significant enough to change the election outcome

Both Politifact and the AP include verbiage indicating that if fraud was found, it was not “massive” and the amounts were relatively insignificant – certainly not enough to overturn the election. All that statement proves is that the fact checkers don’t know how to use math. The graphic above is clear evidence that the mules dropping off ballots are not doing it legally for family. That makes all the ballots illegal, and identifies the mule as an unconvicted felon. For those who can use math the evidence is clear:

Using the very conservative criteria for defining a mule:

10 or more Drop box visits
5 Illegal ballots dropped per visit

The data identifies 20,000 mules, and if their combined illegal votes (380,000) are removed, Trump wins the election 279 – 259 electoral votes.

Trump win with 2000 mules, 279 - 259
The Trump win with strict mule criteria: 279 – 259

Using a more realistic identification of mules of:

5 Drop box visits
3 Illegal ballots dropped per visit

The data identifies 54,000 mules, and if their combined illegal votes (810,000) are removed, the Trump win margin is extended to 305 – 233.

Trump win with more realistic mule criteria: 305 - 233
Trump win with more realistic mule criteria: 305 – 233

Thus the claim that the fraud is not significant enough to overturn the election is only believable if you don’t accept the results of elementary math. And the only reason not to accept the math is because you think it’s reasonable and believable that people go to multiple drop boxes – in the above case 28, and also visit 5 NGO who are distributing ballots, sometimes doing it often in the middle of the night – all on behalf of dropping ballots for family.

Baseless Objection 5:
Absentee Ballots were signature verified to help prevent fraud

The AP states, “Absentee ballots are also verified by signature and tracked closely, often with an option for voters themselves to see where their ballot is at any given time.” This ignores the changes in law in many states to weaken signature verification protections. For example, Peter Navarro in his report states:

In Georgia, contrary to state law, the Secretary of State entered into a Consent Decree with the Democrat Party that weakened signature matching to just one verification instead of two. This illegal weakening of the signature match test has called into question more than 1.2 million mail-in ballots cast in Georgia.

Further, election law expert Hans Von Spakovsky notes that democrats brought hundreds of lawsuits before the courts before the 2020 election each with a common goal: eliminating mail-in ballot security protocols – like signature verification. See his comments here. With these lawsuits (and likely even without a successful lawsuit), dems made sure their illegal ballots would be counted.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

The fact checkers who deny fraud in the election want to leave you with the impression that capturing cell phone data of people by multiple drop boxes alone doesn’t prove fraud. As the AP puts it, “A video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members.” We covered this in baseless objection number 3 above. While the statement is true, it is also a Red Herring. They want to you to consider only one piece of evidence alone, by itself. But that is not what happens in a court of law, and that is not how the evidence in this documentary should be considered. The evidence must be considered in totality.

Mule at 2 Drop boxes
Video captures a mule at 2 different drop boxes

The fact checkers who provide cover from the thieving democrats would have you believe that the video evidence is insufficient to prove election theft. But it’s not just the video evidence. It’s the video evidence (4 million minutes of surveillance video), and the geo-tracking (10 Trillion signals), and the pattern-of-life mapping (sample above) of the data that allows researchers to conclusively state that those identified as mules are in fact mules and not merely dropping ballots for family or for some other purpose are legitimately near the drop box. A proper use and understanding of the data shows they were illegally depositing fraudulent ballots in a (successful) attempt to change the outcome of the election. As researcher Gregg Phillips put it, “This is organized crime. You can’t look at this data in its aggregate and believe otherwise.”

There are other specious claims made by the left leaning fact checkers, but they’re irrelevant to the primary claim of the film which is this: a center piece of the cheating done by democrats to steal the election has been captured, analyzed and displayed for the world to see. That cheating was summarized and depicted in the film. Though there was much cheating that went on during the election, this one type of cheating – mail-in ballot harvesting fraud – was itself alone sufficient to steal the election.

At the end of the video D’Souza makes a number of appeals: don’t give up voting – or fraudsters will have won by default and won’t need to cheat. And don’t give up fighting. For the millions of people who have seen the video and have been convinced of the fraud and the need to do more for election integrity, the film was a success.

But further, the film was a success in completing the picture of how the election was stolen,  how the fraud took place. When you combine the data in this film – mules dropping off ballots, with the evidence of 1:00 AM vote spikes during the time they supposedly stopped counting, and videos of boxes of ballots coming from beneath tables and scanned in multiple times by Ruby Freeman and others, and the many of other data pieces that have been reported, you get a clearer picture of how the ballot scam operated that led to a stolen election.

Georgia 1:00 AM vote spike
Georgia – 1:19 AM Biden Vote spike


After counting supposedly stops in GA Ruby Freeman is caught
scanning ballots from under the table multiple times.

Add the evidence of 2000 Mules to long list of other types of vote fraud, among them: the 25 types of vote fraud identified by Peter Navarro across six broad categories, the weighted race feature identified by Dr Shiva Ayyadurai where Biden’s vote counted more (counted as 1.3 votes instead of 1.0) than Trump’s, and the electronic tampering and vote flipping identified by Matt DePerno and Mary Fanning, which was made possible by the fact the supposedly non-connected voting machines were in fact connected and reachable via the internet as documented by Jovan Pulitzer, and one can’t help but get the overwhelming impression that not only did the democrats leave no stone unturned in their efforts to steal the election, they were actually successful at getting sufficient illegal votes to steal the election. But one thing they failed at: they were not successful at being undetected. This documentary, and all the other evidences mentioned are testimonies that the votes stolen by the democrats were not done in an undetectable manner.

As D’Souza notes on his site where 2000 Mules is posted:

“They thought we’d never find out. They were wrong.”

With the stacks of evidence we now have, only those who participated, or have a stake in the in the steal would disagree. The election was stolen. We know it. And they know we know it. And D’Souza’s documentary is one of the many pieces of evidence that prove it. The only question remaining is, will anything be done to right the tremendous wrong and harm done to the American people, and ultimately to the world, as an unelected, lying thief sits in the White House, a puppet to those pulling his strings to enact polices that are destroying both the once great United States of America, and the rights of Americans.

♦♦♦  ♦♦♦  ♦♦♦

Update 5/23/22
Dinesh provided this New York Times article as a primer on Geo-Tracking:
“Twelve Million Phones, One Dataset, Zero Privacy” (Published 2019)

The New York Times: Twelve Million Phones, One Dataset, Zero Privacy
Geo-Tracking 101 – for those denying the technology

♦♦♦  ♦♦♦  ♦♦♦

Selected Sources

Documentary: 2000 Mules

Echo Check: Absolute Proof – Evidence Summary

Echo Check: Fact Check: Did Biden and the Democrats steal the 2020 Election?

Echo Check: Fact Check: Does the Navarro Report Prove Evidence of Vote Fraud? (Yes)

The Navarro Report: The Immaculate Deception:
Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities

Patriot Project: D’Souza Responds to Fact-Check of ‘2000 Mules’: Paying to Deliver Ballots Illegal in Every State

Politique Republic: Fact Checking the AP’s Fact Check on 2000 Mules

The Stream: 2000 Mules — Gaining Interest, Fending Off Critics

The Stream: 2000 Mules Update: Big Audience Despite Media Blackout

The Stream: The Brew: What Do the Fact-Checks of 2000 Mules Have to Do With Fish?

True The Vote: True The Vote And 2000 Mules Fact Check The “Fact Checkers”, Debunk AP Hit Piece

Uncover DC: 2000 Mules and True The Vote Debunk AP Hit Piece

 

 

Please follow and like us:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments