JDR

[chillerdab]

@dad, @gkekoa, and others who support the 2000 mules narrative. You've issued a challenge and as some might know, I absolutely harbor no deflective instincts when such things are presented and, in fact, take them to heart out of respect for you all.

So, here's what I did but first let me apologize for not being very responsive or not responsive at all to more recent posts. What follows should be a sufficient explanation regarding why my participation waned and/or disappeared.

@gkekoa's and to a lesser degree @dad's challenge was for me and others to watch 2000 mules. My absence was directly related to this challenge because I did exactly that, in fact viewing it 3 times over the last few days. In my first viewing, I watched without interruption from beginning to end. In my second viewing, I took many notes pausing the video in order to assure that my notes weren't interrupted by the next thing that followed and that I had absolute clarity on that particular piece of the presentation. Finally, in the 3rd viewing, I sought answers to the notes and queries previously taken in my 2nd viewing.

What follows, I type guardedly because I now realize that there's a dis-ease (note the distinction from the commonly used disease) that flows through the minds and hearts of people that I've come to feel comfortable with and I want to take great care in presenting my findings.

2000 Mules

The very first thing that I noted was the premise which the presenter made clear was one in which if accepted at face value, all else was believable. The reverse of that of course is if not believed what followed was either dubious or total nonsense. Believe it or not, I took a different tack and chose to not be dismissive nor accepting but merely curious. I was not happy that it cost me a few dollars to watch the full video, but that aside, it was nicely edited, and perhaps there's going to be some sort of reward for documentary film editing in time. For those who are unaware, the premise is simply... "the 2020 election was stolen via a huge network of fraudulent voters who stuffed ballot boxes in key states." Please correct me if I haven't accurately outlined this premise.

As a result, one side says voter fraud, and the other insists on declaring it the fairest, most secure election in US history!! WOW!!

In the first 30 to 40 minutes of the film, the filmmakers present very interestingly, some might say compelling allegations that IMO should merit further investigation (if they haven't already) Now the organization behind this is True the Vote, which I also looked at and to be honest, don't have a lot of unbiased credibility behind its brand. You'll have to research them for yourselves in order to understand what I refer to here.

Beyond this first 30 to 40 minutes, we get into geo-tracking and its involvement in being seen as "proof" of voter fraud. For those who don't know Geo-tracking shows where an individual travels during the course of a day. As part of their stated premise, they have determined that on many occasions in key voting districts it proves that a large number of separate individuals visited multiple drop boxes in order to leave handfuls of ballots, illegal ballots. This is where the connection between allegation and evidence separates as the narrative goes on. The technology is absolutely creditable, but the evidence that it provides is sorely lacking. Again, this is the point of no return, if you choose to believe it will largely depend upon your inability to refrain from jumping to conclusions without evidence.

In the film, they show videos of various individuals dropping multiple ballots off at different times of the day or night. Now, this might seem somewhat suspicious at face value but remember, geo-tracking as they insist shows individuals visiting multiple drop boxes, and yet in their own acquired CCTV surveillance video, not once did they show the same individual on the same night or day doing what geo-tracking says that they did. To be clear, there were some strange behaviors exhibited by some of these people but who knows why people act the way that they sometimes do, and even then strange behavior does not constitute "evidence."

The premise is that they have identified hundreds of "mules" (similar to drug mules only this time with ballots) in hundreds of areas sometimes visiting 50 or more ballot boxes on the same night. This ends all credibility on their part as they offer zero proof that any one person, on the same night ever stopped at and/or visited more than one ballot box. This could have been easily done had they used their geo-tracking information with the over 4 million hours of CCTV video that they obtained in conjunction with one another. BTW: they also ONLY focused on states where ballot harvesting was illegal. Rather than going into all of that I ask, if you're curious, please look "ballot harvesting" up.

For the entirety of the rest of the film, despite having time-stamped geo-tracking and millions of hours of CCTV surveillance video, they failed to show one instance in which the same individual, on the same night, visiting more than one ballot box. This destroys their premise!! Oh, but wait, there's more... I want to talk about geo-tracking again because I tried an experiment with that premise in mind. Here's what I did, and perhaps you can too, I mapped out my most frequently traveled routes that had me going from my home to the in-laws, to my daughter's home, and perhaps a business or two, in all totaling 36.8 miles. I then contacted the state of Maryland and obtained the locations of ballot boxes during the 2020 election. Does anybody want to guess how many of them I drove past in my routine travels? Answer 7!! So, by their reasoning had I been out and about doing routine stuff on the evening/night of the election, geo-tracking would be the smoking gun that proves that I participated in ballot box stuffing.

To be fair to them, millions of ballots were mailed out because of the Covid pandemic, and some states deeming it more convenient for voters. I will admit that there may have been more than a few that weren't eligible for return but that discounts the ballot checkers and counters from doing their jobs in assuring that a proper, legal ballot had been cast. OK, let's say that lots of ballots slipped past these folks, but how then were they missed on recounts, court-ordered reviews, and inventory in the many challenges post-election? Answer: They don't, especially since many of these were both done by and supervised by republicans and republican representing groups (MAGA).

Here's my conclusion, the film presents an interesting premise relating to voter fraud, if they have evidence, they absolutely could have presented it in the film, but for whatever reason, be it monetary or as I suspect, they couldn't, I invested a whole lot of time in order to open a pathway for those who might deem it necessary to reconsider what's happened/happening to them. If it helps anyone, it was time well spent. Thanks!

Long story short: DeSousa presents enough of an interesting story to fool those not capable of reflective thinking, but doesnt offer proof.

Just like I said.

Thank you, Sty, for doing the hard work of concluding what most of america already knows.

 

[Stymietee]

Long story short: DeSousa presents enough of an interesting story to fool those not capable of reflective thinking, but doesnt offer proof.

Just like I said.

Thank you, Sty, for doing the hard work of concluding what most of america already knows.

You're welcome chill!

I have to tell you that when I first began looking at it, somewhere during the first 40 minutes, I actually sat up in my seat in anticipation of what was sure to follow. Have you ever looked at the preview of a movie, most of them beginning with the voiceover... In a world..." and they show snippets of the movie designed to get you interested and you note at the conclusion that, "hey when that comes out I want to see it!" Well, the time comes and you have your ticket, you're seated and the movie completely disappoints! That was 2000 Mules!! BTW: A more proper title would have been "2000 suppositions"

BTW: there was another motivation for the construction of this film... M.O.N.E.Y!! It cost me $30 to watch the full video, but after the fact, my son told me that he probably could have found it somewhere on the net. Shame on me, I should have asked him first and saved a few bucks. Oh well!!

 

[skinsdad62]

I think Sty ‘s analysis is dicy
So you passed 7 locations at normal time . I pass through that many every day at normal time but rarely at 3 am. Why did they stop ?

Do you know how recounts are conducted ? Each party has a rep with no independent body ruling . Your ballot can be DQ’d easily for something very small and many are not conducted with signature verification.

Numerous ballots were from dead people , people not from the voting district they are assigned to and people who have moved out of state .


Does being stopped at a ballot box in of in itself constitute guilt ? No but being there at odd times with multiple ballots makes it interesting

Then we get to state legislatures who are solely in charge of making election law via the constitution. Not governors , not secretaries of states etc . And covid doesn’t change the fact that state legislatures have to change the law

Chain does custody is an issue with mules taking multiple ballots without any paperwork

 

[gkekoa]

I think that it's a matter that you don't want to admit that what you and I saw in that film wasn't proof of anything. Btw: I saved some of my ammunition for this post-presentation debate. So to your points...

Stopped at or near a ballot box doesn't prove anything, they had actual CCTV surveillance video and could have easily presented any one of these same people ACTUALLY going to and dropping off ballots at different locations. That would have been extremely convincing. BTW; they SAID it a lot, but saying it and showing it are vastly different things....agreed?

Very different agreed. It doesn’t mean it was not there.

3 am... might seem an odd time for some people but for others who either get up early in the morning or work the late shift, I assure you that doing things at 3 am is very routine.

OK

Have you ever taken a picture of yourself or someplace you've been? Why did you do that? Does taking a picture of a ballot box constitute evidence of foul play? How?

You are looking at it as criminal evidence. It could be supporting evidence to continue an investigation.

I found that part showing the woman with gloves on interesting, and in fact, it might be suspicious given the tone of the film, however, people are quirky, especially given the pandemic, but let's dismiss that and go a bit further. Let's say that this woman's action gave rise to those suspicions which in turn gave cause to follow her as she pinged using geo-tracking going to or near other ballot boxes, they absolutely had cause but no CCTV video evidence was presented as a follow-up. Out of all of these people, she would have been an ideal subject to follow, show her elicit activities, and give standing that they had irrefutable evidence. As it stands now, she is merely a lady with quirky tendencies.

It is a movie. You can only make it so long.

I don't think that the authorities have an issue with the truth, because the truth is there's zero evidence of massive voter fraud. In fact, let me leave this with you. Let us suppose that everything in the film was true, and they have the smoking gun evidence of voter fraud, with me so far,? Well, let us also consider the fact that Donald Trump did better than he did in 2016 in these same areas, still with me,? Then who's to say that these people, even in supposed democratic districts, weren't in fact committing voter fraud on behalf of the former president? (I told you I saved some ammunition for this follow-up debate)

Sure…I love it. Let’s investigate it and find out the truth. So you agree it needs to be investigated to ensure fair elections.

 

[Rowdy]

You are awesome…seriously.

You can admit it was very interesting. There is a slight difference in one key area for your experiment. You said you drove by several ballot locations. The movie doesn’t say ”the mules” simply drove by these locations. It states they stopped.

The movie also shows this occurring frequently around 3 AM.

The movie also shows people taking pictures as proof they were there.

My favorite part was the woman with gloves, the day after another person was convicted by fingerprints, immediately disposing of the gloves right after dropping off the ballots.


Now, we may wonder why the authorities will not pursue this on a grand scale but it is obvious. They simply don’t want to know the truth, or at least don’t want the truth to get out. It would cause all kind of legal headaches and distrust in the process. It would not surprise me if there were not deals in Congress that simply assure each other that this won’t happen again.

Exactly no one will ever admit our elections are corrupt, if they did the US would be looked at as a 3rd world country

 

[skinsdad62]

For the BILLIONTH time: nobody on the right thinks Jan 6 was okay. We just don’t agree w/ the left’s ridiculous claim that there was an attempt to overthrow the most powerful government on earth led by a guy in a Chewbacca bikini.

 

[Stymietee]

Exactly no one will ever admit our elections are corrupt, if they did the US would be looked at as a 3rd world country

Until now I would agree with you but then again we've had more contentious, corrupt, and divisive elections. Until now there was a collective will to come together in order to preserve the nation. Today as a collective there's too much finger-pointing and assigning of blame to which side is destroying the nation. Unless, there's an agreement to take a step or two back, some reflection upon what's gotten us to this point, and active solutions to advance beyond this division, the survival of the nation remains in the balance. Here is a list of the 8 worse elections in our history.

8 Contested Elections in US History - HISTORY​

https://www.history.com/news/most-contentious-u-s-presidential-electionshttps://www.bing.com/search?q=The+m...901j0j1&pglt=171&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531&ntref=1#

 

[Stymietee]

For the BILLIONTH time: nobody on the right thinks Jan 6 was okay. We just don’t agree w/ the left’s ridiculous claim that there was an attempt to overthrow the most powerful government on earth led by a guy in a Chewbacca bikini.

There are no ridiculous claims anywhere that there was an attempt to overthrow the most powerful government on earth led by a guy in a Chewbacca bikini. That's either an attempt at humor or a total mischaracterization of facts. Once and for all this is the threat to democracy.

 

[Stymietee]

Very different agreed. It doesn’t mean it was not there.

OK

You are looking at it as criminal evidence. It could be supporting evidence to continue an investigation.

It is a movie. You can only make it so long.


Sure…I love it. Let’s investigate it and find out the truth. So you agree it needs to be investigated to ensure fair elections.

I'm not sure who would conduct an investigation like this. Who do you think should and would be willing to do it?

 

[chillerdab]

Perhaps the reason authorities arent investigating what is in 2K Mules is because all of that evidence is circumstantial, and there is literally no reason to investigate something when there is no evidence that any crime had been committed whatsoever.

Just because DeSouza has some odd behaivor on tape doesnt mean that there’s a reason to investigate anything at all.

 

[gkekoa]

I'm not sure who would conduct an investigation like this. Who do you think should and would be willing to do it?

Actually, the FBI should be investigating because it involves interstate commerce and organized crime.

It should also be conducted by the individual states because each state is responsible for the enforcement of their own election laws.

 

[gkekoa]

Perhaps the reason authorities arent investigating what is in 2K Mules is because all of that evidence is circumstantial, and there is literally no reason to investigate something when there is no evidence that any crime had been committed whatsoever.

Just because DeSouza has some odd behaivor on tape doesnt mean that there’s a reason to investigate anything at all.

Actually, there is more than enough evidence to support an investigation. How do you think legal evidence is obtained for court cases? It is obtained through an investigation, not through accusation. Accusation leads to investigation.

 

[chillerdab]

Actually, there is more than enough evidence to support an investigation. How do you think legal evidence is obtained for court cases? It is obtained through an investigation, not through accusation. Accusation leads to investigation.

No, evdence is obtained when an investigation is opened due to probable cause. Investigations are not opened because a bunch of people took photos of other people acting erratically at odd hours of the night.

Go to the center of town - or outskirts of town for that matter in any moderate sized town or city at 3am and you will find somebody acting strangely close to 100% of the time. Not all who are acting strange are up to no good. Some are just strange. Or crazy. Or both.

 

[gkekoa]

No, evdence is obtained when an investigation is opened due to probable cause. Investigations are not opened because a bunch of people took photos of other people acting erratically at odd hours of the night.

Go to the center of town - or outskirts of town for that matter in any moderate sized town or city at 3am and you will find somebody acting strangely close to 100% of the time. Not all who are acting strange are up to no good. Some are just strange. Or crazy. Or both.

I don’t think you understand the job of the police. Investigations are opened by accusation of misdeeds with some level of evidence.

The evidence collected does constitute probable cause but you wouldn’t know…you haven’t seen the movie.

 

[chillerdab]

You think the police should investigate voter fraud? You think that’s what their job is - investigating voter fraud? Based on what, exactly? Oh yes, people randomly stopping by - but not necessarily touching or tampering with - ballot boxes at odd hours.

I dont think you understand “probable cause.”

My source tells me that there is no probable cause. He’s seen thr movie. Three times.

There is no probable cause, just a weird fascination with a totally debunked theory that drumpf cant let go of.

 

[skinsdad62]

You think the police should investigate voter fraud? You think that’s what their job is - investigating voter fraud? Based on what, exactly? Oh yes, people randomly stopping by - but not necessarily touching or tampering with - ballot boxes at odd hours.

I dont think you understand “probable cause.”

My source tells me that there is no probable cause. He’s seen thr movie. Three times.

There is no probable cause, just a weird fascination with a totally debunked theory that drumpf cant let go of.

My mistake I thought law enforcement investigates possible crimes

 

[gkekoa]

You think the police should investigate voter fraud? You think that’s what their job is - investigating voter fraud? Based on what, exactly? Oh yes, people randomly stopping by - but not necessarily touching or tampering with - ballot boxes at odd hours.

I dont think you understand “probable cause.”

My source tells me that there is no probable cause. He’s seen thr movie. Three times.

There is no probable cause, just a weird fascination with a totally debunked theory that drumpf cant let go of.

So police should not investigate crime? You do realize they are called law enforcement correct? What do you think they do?

Actually, I am pretty sure you do not understand probable cause.

Your friend may not be the brightest.

How was it debunked? Just because some fucking idiots say it was?

 

[chillerdab]

So police should not investigate crime? You do realize they are called law enforcement correct? What do you think they do?

Actually, I am pretty sure you do not understand probable cause.

Your friend may not be the brightest.

How was it debunked? Just because some fucking idiots say it was?

Voter fraud does not fall under police jurisdiction, especially since there has not been any voter fraud.

You like to deflect what is written to you that you either cannot or will not answer to something tangentially related to the topic at hand.

There have been hundreds if not thousands of hours of investigations into potential voter fraud led by some of Drumpf’s most deranged and rabid followers and they’ve uncovered exactly zero cases of fraud.

Even Criminal DeSuzie cant quite close the cognitive loop, preferring to let his dimwitted audience make the cognitive leaps for him.

Just like the police shouldnt investigate the presence of the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster (which doesnt exist and hasnt committed any actual crime), they dont need to investigate “voter fraud” just because some poor saps on the right really really really really really really really really want it to be so.

 

[chillerdab]

My mistake I thought law enforcement investigates possible crimes

As there has been no crimes, there is nothing to investigate.

 

[skinsdad62]

As there has been no crimes, there is nothing to investigate.

Oh there most definitely was , it’s just a matter of scale