There is plenty of evidence and wrong doing in the video already released for state law enforcement to open up investigations. They have everything they need to identify and question these "mules" to get the answers they need. Showing additional video footage publicly just to satisfy a few folks who won't do anything constructive with that evidence anyway isn't necessary to move investigations forward.Keegan99 said:
It's called making a sound case. Circumstantial evidence is nice, but it's no silver bullet.
If you say you have the video, show it.
If you say you have it and then don't show it... But do a lot of talking... Well... That's suspect.
Making an airtight case isn't hard. Or it shouldn't be. If they have the evidence they claim to have. But we haven't seen such a presentation.
2000 Mules
65,915 Views |
897 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by aggiehawg
This. True the Vote is doing what investigative journalists used to do. They saw something which didn't look right and built a plan to test their theories. They Built their database from a mixture of publicly available data, data for purchase, and FOIA requests. They developed a very reasonable set of criteria to reduce petabytes of data into a subset of the outliers. This included only focusing on those individuals whose daily patterns changed during the these drop boxes were in service.Quote:
There is plenty of evidence and wrong doing in the video already released for state law enforcement to open up investigations. They have everything they need to identify and question these "mules" to get the answers they need. Showing additional video footage publicly just to satisfy a few folks who won't do anything constructive with that evidence anyway isn't necessary to move investigations forward.
Video, or not, this is all circumstantial evidence until it is followed up with a formal investigation from state/local officials. It doesn't make sense to release all the information public, it should be turned over to the authorities.
As to Dinesh, the movie, the money, etc. It cost money to buy the data, do the research, and build the evidence so I don't have any issue with them trying to recoup those costs. With regards to Dinesh and the marketing of the movie, he needed to resonate with those who could be swayed. I don't know how you couldn't be prepared for the attacks, and I damn sure don't know why you would give your attackers ammo.
I would also add in the work of Garland Favorito in Georgia. In particular, the lack of chain custody records for drop box ballots. Some drop boxes had really good records, some had bad records and some had no records at all.
If you listen to D'Souza's response to criticism about making money, he says he's really happy that he's able to pay back his investors. This isn't supposed to be some Hollywood box office blockbuster smash.
The old saying 'It is a feature, not a bug."aggiehawg said:
I would also add in the work of Garland Favorito in Georgia. In particular, the lack of chain custody records for drop box ballots. Some drop boxes had really good records, some had bad records and some had no records at all.
People should be skeptical about the data. Investigate it, review it, find holes, etc. If it is all a load of BS, it could be proven as such.
What the heck is circumstantial about phone GPS tracking?! Again...maybe you don't understand the accuracy of it, but why do you need to see video of a person at a drop box when their cell phone shows them to be at the dropbox? You make no sense.Keegan99 said:
It's called making a sound case. Circumstantial evidence is nice, but it's no silver bullet.
If you say you have the video, show it.
If you say you have it and then don't show it... But do a lot of talking... Well... That's suspect.
Making an airtight case isn't hard. Or it shouldn't be. If they have the evidence they claim to have. But we haven't seen such a presentation.
Actually, it's the opposite.oh no said:
Listen to D'Souza's explanations that have been linked. He's responding to your exact question, which is a common DEBUNKED!!!! fact-check!!! question he's been getting from the establishment propagandists at Politico, NYT, AP.
D'Souza admits that they don't have multiple videos of the same person going to multiple drop boxes in the "Response to Ben Shapiro" video linked above. Not only that, he says that producing that evidence would be "unreasonable". He says that the GPS data is more conclusive and compares it to DNA evidence.
He then compares it to a serial killer whose GPS data places him at five different crime scenes. This analogy is extremely flawed. The main problem is that in the serial killer case, you have five scenes where you know a crime has occurred and you are trying to prove who did it. In this case, you have people going to places where you think they committed a crime. You really haven't even established that a crime occurred. That's why the video is absolutely necessary, it shows the crime being committed.
All that the cell phone GPS data proves that someone carried the same cell phone to ballot boxes. Without video, you have to assume that they dropped off ballots. A safe bet, but still an assumption. Facts not in evidence. With one video, if there is a legal way to do it in that state, they will claim that's what they were doing and you have no way of disproving it.
How do you know they were dropping off ballots?Enviroag02 said:What the heck is circumstantial about phone GPS tracking?! Again...maybe you don't understand the accuracy of it, but why do you need to see video of a person at a drop box when their cell phone shows them to be at the dropbox? You make no sense.Keegan99 said:
It's called making a sound case. Circumstantial evidence is nice, but it's no silver bullet.
If you say you have the video, show it.
If you say you have it and then don't show it... But do a lot of talking... Well... That's suspect.
Making an airtight case isn't hard. Or it shouldn't be. If they have the evidence they claim to have. But we haven't seen such a presentation.
His whole point is, you have proof he visited 5 drop boxes. Only one drop box has surveillance. You can't show video of the other four because it doesn't exist, but that's what people are demanding and that's not a good argument to say "reee DEBOOONKED!" Most secure election evvvaaarr!!!"
The whole point to be gleaned from the movie is fraud is too easy - mail in and insecure drop boxes only disenfranchise whoever loses the election. We need to fix our sheet.
The whole point to be gleaned from the movie is fraud is too easy - mail in and insecure drop boxes only disenfranchise whoever loses the election. We need to fix our sheet.
Just keep your head in the sand....it's entertaining for sure.
I wish they'd just dump all 4 million minutes of video and 10 trillion pieces of data. The autistic army at the chans would get to the bottom of it before COB.
Answer the question.Enviroag02 said:
Just keep your head in the sand....it's entertaining for sure.
How do you know they were dropping off ballots?
Because they have video of them dropping off ballots at one drop box then driving to organizations then directly to 10 more drop boxes. I know the conclusion that a logically thinking person would make here, but maybe that's not you.
If a woman hired a private investigator to track her husband's car, and they got him on camera meeting a woman at a hotel one time, then the tracking showed him to be at the same hotel or other hotels don't you think the woman can safely conclude that her husband has cheated more than once?
If a woman hired a private investigator to track her husband's car, and they got him on camera meeting a woman at a hotel one time, then the tracking showed him to be at the same hotel or other hotels don't you think the woman can safely conclude that her husband has cheated more than once?
Correct. And that's all you have.oh no said:
His whole point is, you have proof he visited 5 drop boxes.
You have not established any wrongdoing at all.
I believe that's what they were doing.Enviroag02 said:
Because they have video of them dropping off ballots at one drop box then driving to organizations then directly to 10 more drop boxes. I know the conclusion that a logically thinking person would make here, but maybe that's not you.
I also acknowledge that it requires an assumption on my part.
no jokeTheHulkster said:
I wish they'd just dump all 4 million minutes of video and 10 trillion pieces of data. The autistic army at the chans would get to the bottom of it before COB.
They were probably just doing a little dance at the drop boxes....totally normal
my post on reddit r/conservative asking where the 2000 mules movie discussion was located was blocked...
.
In a video it shows the person stuffing ballots into the drop box and the cell phone data matches that person.Dr. Teeth said:How do you know they were dropping off ballots?Enviroag02 said:What the heck is circumstantial about phone GPS tracking?! Again...maybe you don't understand the accuracy of it, but why do you need to see video of a person at a drop box when their cell phone shows them to be at the dropbox? You make no sense.Keegan99 said:
It's called making a sound case. Circumstantial evidence is nice, but it's no silver bullet.
If you say you have the video, show it.
If you say you have it and then don't show it... But do a lot of talking... Well... That's suspect.
Making an airtight case isn't hard. Or it shouldn't be. If they have the evidence they claim to have. But we haven't seen such a presentation.
On the same day this mule's cell phone went to more drop boxes with stops at non-profit organizations.
The cell phone tracking outside of the election time frame proves this was completely aberrant, non-typical behavior.
I guess this mule was just playing peep eye with all those other mail-in drop boxes.
There is more than enough evidence for each of the cities involved to open investigations.
The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, the public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
-- Cicero, 55 B.C.
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
-- Cicero, 55 B.C.
My google search for "2000 mules reddit" turned up this hit:3rd and 2 said:
my post on reddit r/conservative asking where the 2000 mules movie discussion was located was blocked...
https://www.reddit.com/r/2000MulesMovie/
It looks like there are over 20 threads (if that's the right word on reddit) discussing the movie.
This one appears to have over 1,000 comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/2000MulesMovie/comments/ul14sm/2000_mules_proves_the_2020_election_was_rigged/
Faustus said:My google search for "2000 mules reddit" turned up this hit:3rd and 2 said:
my post on reddit r/conservative asking where the 2000 mules movie discussion was located was blocked...
https://www.reddit.com/r/2000MulesMovie/
It looks like there are over 20 threads (if that's the right word on reddit) discussing the movie.
This one appears to have over 1,000 comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/2000MulesMovie/comments/ul14sm/2000_mules_proves_the_2020_election_was_rigged/
I received a message, "your post to r/conservatives is blocked pending investigation"
When I googled '2000 mules on Reddit' not but 2 hours ago, only the discussion on r/quit_headquarters came up
.
Maybe they were suspicious you were trolling them, since of course the movie discussion would be under the movie title. However that's just a guess.
I only use reddit to read game and post-game threads of the losing team after Astro wins. Some of the fans are quite witty, which when combined with schadenfreude makes for a fun read.
I only use reddit to read game and post-game threads of the losing team after Astro wins. Some of the fans are quite witty, which when combined with schadenfreude makes for a fun read.
Are you googling it, or searching on reddit itself? Maybe that was the difference. My links appear to work.3rd and 2 said:Faustus said:My google search for "2000 mules reddit" turned up this hit:3rd and 2 said:
my post on reddit r/conservative asking where the 2000 mules movie discussion was located was blocked...
https://www.reddit.com/r/2000MulesMovie/
It looks like there are over 20 threads (if that's the right word on reddit) discussing the movie.
This one appears to have over 1,000 comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/2000MulesMovie/comments/ul14sm/2000_mules_proves_the_2020_election_was_rigged/
I received a message, "your post to r/conservatives is blocked pending investigation"
When I googled 2000 mules on Reddit, not but 2 hours ago, only the discussion on r/quit_headquarters came up
but showing someone visiting all these drop boxes in the middle of the night, date/time stamping surveillance footage from one of the drop boxes showing them stuff multiple ballots, and data showing that they visited Stacey Abrams NGO's that received a million dollars from Mr. & Mrs. Zuckerberg, should at the very least raise questions and trigger law enforcement to look into it just a little bit... and this evidence should make it plainly clear and obvious to anyone (other than those who choose to keep their heads in the sand because their team won this time and they hate America and wanted it destroyed), that mass mailing ballots and large numbers of insecure drop boxes (for voters who don't want to put their mail in ballots in the mail) is horribly flawed and in no way can be considered "most secure election evvvaaarrr!!!"Dr. Teeth said:Correct. And that's all you have.oh no said:
His whole point is, you have proof he visited 5 drop boxes. Only one drop box has surveillance. You can't show video of the other four because it doesn't exist, but that's what people are demanding and that's not a good argument to say "reee DEBOOONKED!" Most secure election evvvaaarr!!!"
The whole point to be gleaned from the movie is fraud is too easy - mail in and insecure drop boxes only disenfranchise whoever loses the election. We need to fix our sheet.
You have not established any wrongdoing at all.
In honor of my 1,000th post, I will pledge to watch 2,000 mules.
And this is why law enforcement should pay ALL of these folks a visit.Dr. Teeth said:Correct. And that's all you have.oh no said:
His whole point is, you have proof he visited 5 drop boxes.
You have not established any wrongdoing at all.
Odds are some will give themselves up and name names. This isn't going to be solved on discussion forums no matter how much video we watch.
From what I gather about this threads critics of the movie is that we should ignore everything we do know because of what we don't know. In other words, if we can't know everything about a subject, it is discredited. Let's apply that same line of thinking to climate change then.
Seriously, I would like to see everyone here who is taking a negative critical view of this movie state that law enforcement should not investigate the subject and information covered in the movie if you do not believe it is legit. Go on record. If not, and you believe that law enforcement SHOULD seriously investigate, then your criticisms have more to do with your personal desires for more information and not about discrediting the movie.
Seriously, I would like to see everyone here who is taking a negative critical view of this movie state that law enforcement should not investigate the subject and information covered in the movie if you do not believe it is legit. Go on record. If not, and you believe that law enforcement SHOULD seriously investigate, then your criticisms have more to do with your personal desires for more information and not about discrediting the movie.
that's what they do.. ...like the laptop that contained proof the D candidate for POTUS was in fact, as was obvious and long suspected, corrupt asF. ...just get some cronies to sign a letter saying it looks like it could be russian "disinformation" and then boom... shout it from the rooftops, hell, lie straight up live on stage at a national debate: "IT'S BEEN DEBUNKED!!!!".
I was very disappointed by the movie. But nope, I'd like to see a proper investigation of this by someone who has the wherewithal to do it right. Start fresh, and cut Dinesh and True the Vote completely out of it. It leaves a lot of important questions that need answering by more competent people. Obviously my preference would be the justice department to do it.
I feel like this would be a fairly simple case to unravel by law enforcement if they were so motivated. If you really got 2000 mules out there, you'd think you could get a few dozen to snitch and turn state to avoid pound-my-A prison.
I feel like this would be a fairly simple case to unravel by law enforcement if they were so motivated. If you really got 2000 mules out there, you'd think you could get a few dozen to snitch and turn state to avoid pound-my-A prison.
Quote:
From what I gather about this threads critics of the movie is that we should ignore everything we do know because of what we don't know. In other words, if we can't know everything about a subject, it is discredited. Let's apply that same line of thinking to climate change then.
It is so easy to be wrong—and to persist in being wrong—when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
American Hardwood said:
From what I gather about this threads critics of the movie is that we should ignore everything we do know because of what we don't know. In other words, if we can't know everything about a subject, it is discredited. Let's apply that same line of thinking to climate change then.
Seriously, I would like to see everyone here who is taking a negative critical view of this movie state that law enforcement should not investigate the subject and information covered in the movie if you do not believe it is legit. Go on record. If not, and you believe that law enforcement SHOULD seriously investigate, then your criticisms have more to do with your personal desires for more information and not about discrediting the movie.
They should.
But i also know that the very first question their defense attorney will ask is: "Do you have any proof this person actually dropped off ballots at all of these locations?"
It shouldn't be hard to trace $ from Zuckerberg to his "charity" the "Center for Tech and Civic Life" to NGOs such as Stacy Abrams' Fair Fight Action Inc. to the hands of these drop box ballot stuffers- receiving payments for both bringing harvested ballots to them and for stuffing ballots in drop boxes. But who's going to do it? The politicized Feds - DOJ? The Atlanta PD? The Fulton County Sheriff's office? Raffensperger's office? That's the problem. No one will do the law enforcement, even though True the Vote has provided all the data analysis and leads they need to make it easy.
The target is the people they worked for, not them. Get them to roll on who hired them..follow the food chain.Dr. Teeth said:American Hardwood said:
From what I gather about this threads critics of the movie is that we should ignore everything we do know because of what we don't know. In other words, if we can't know everything about a subject, it is discredited. Let's apply that same line of thinking to climate change then.
Seriously, I would like to see everyone here who is taking a negative critical view of this movie state that law enforcement should not investigate the subject and information covered in the movie if you do not believe it is legit. Go on record. If not, and you believe that law enforcement SHOULD seriously investigate, then your criticisms have more to do with your personal desires for more information and not about discrediting the movie.
They should.
But i also know that the very first question their defense attorney will ask is: "Do you have any proof this person actually dropped off ballots at all of these locations?"
It is so easy to be wrong—and to persist in being wrong—when the costs of being wrong are paid by others.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
That is the hope. The problem is one of leverage.Funky Winkerbean said:The target is the people they worked for, not them. Get them to roll on who hired them..follow the food chain.Dr. Teeth said:American Hardwood said:
From what I gather about this threads critics of the movie is that we should ignore everything we do know because of what we don't know. In other words, if we can't know everything about a subject, it is discredited. Let's apply that same line of thinking to climate change then.
Seriously, I would like to see everyone here who is taking a negative critical view of this movie state that law enforcement should not investigate the subject and information covered in the movie if you do not believe it is legit. Go on record. If not, and you believe that law enforcement SHOULD seriously investigate, then your criticisms have more to do with your personal desires for more information and not about discrediting the movie.
They should.
But i also know that the very first question their defense attorney will ask is: "Do you have any proof this person actually dropped off ballots at all of these locations?"
Featured Stories
See All
58:43
9h ago
5.6k
Ask Liucci: Blue Bell Park's big weekend, mascot madness & more
by Billy Liucci
26:30
11h ago
3.6k
Comparing A&M's 2024 NCAA Tournament resume to clubs of the past
by David Sandhop
9:24
12h ago
1.4k
8:25
13h ago
1.8k
TAMUHighlights
Cool Baseball Experience Today (Aggie Baseball Related)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
123
TAMUHighlights
Cool Baseball Experience Today (Aggie Baseball Related)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
109
cityagboy
Coach Elko on Workout Attendance Now compared to the Past
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
86
EastTX_Ag21
Coach Elko on Workout Attendance Now compared to the Past
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
73