JDR

[skinsdad62]

“You’re a part of it,” absolutely, positively does NOT sound paranoid.

It’s this type of diversity of thought that should DEFINITELY be tolerated, right gkeoka?

Skinsdad: how much time on a daily basis, would you say, do you devote to research of any kind - sources that you agree with and “oppositional” resource? Just curious.

For example, maybe you define “research” as “angrily yelling at the tv,” as you flip channels bewteen OAN and MSNBC?

You watched some Michael Moore videos did you? Good for you. Probably learned something from them too.

Remember what “or “ means ? Look it up

 

[skinsdad62]

Jeff Fisher Defends Jack Del Rio on OutKick the Tailgate, Says He's 'Disappointed' In Ron Rivera

Michigan Panthers head coach and GM Jeff Fisher joined OutKick the Tailgate and talked about Washington Commanders DC Jack Del Rio's fine of $100,000 for comments on the U.S. Capit

www.outkick.com

I can’t wait for the response to this

 

[Stymietee]

All I have are facts…

just keep lying.

Well that puts us in a real bind because all I have are facts...

This means that we are in agreement or someone other than myself isn't being honest.

If you go back and look at your "definition" take note that it is the dictionary one, we both gave that, however, the dictionary doesn't inform of its full application.

For the record a successful insurrection doesn't end with the takeover, there must be an installation of someone or something in its place.

 

[skinsdad62]

No influence at all

 

[Skinsfan21]

Well he did, people hated the tyrant in waiting and voted against him. BTW: where's the evidence that he didn't get 81M votes? How is it that you can believe that the Lil dick-tator got 73.6M and Biden couldn't top that?

Simply enough there weren’t that many registered voters in 2020.

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[gkekoa]

Well that puts us in a real bind because all I have are facts...

This means that we are in agreement or someone other than myself isn't being honest.

If you go back and look at your "definition" take note that it is the dictionary one, we both gave that, however, the dictionary doesn't inform of its full application.

For the record a successful insurrection doesn't end with the takeover, there must be an installation of someone or something in its place.

So you agree I gave the definition; therefore, either both January 6 and the riots were insurrection attempts or neither were. Thanks.

I don’t think anybody claimed anybody was successful.

Life was so miserable with mean tweeter…I’m sure happy we replaced him with incompetence and poor policies.

 

[skinsdad62]

Trust the govt

 

[Skin'EmAll]

Yeah, I noted that in my previous response, but I also pointed out what far too many others do as well.

In big businesses such as the NFL, owners own, but what you're failing to realize is... it takes a whole lot of people who are not owners to run and keep that business afloat. Owners didn't build the business alone and it's impossible to keep it going without the aid and assistance of many. People often make blanket statements that sound good on the surface, but honest, thinking, considered men and women know better than to look at the surface. Let me give you an example.

You wrote: "So the owner should not be able to control the business he has taken all the risk to start or continue?"

At face value that seems logical or at worse a non-starter in terms of debate, but allow for this and your question becomes moot. So, I ask you, which of these owners started or really took any risk to continue owning their franchises? (green Bay excepted)

Arizona Cardinals: Bill Bidwill (inherited it from his father)​

Atlanta Falcons: Arthur Blank (bought the team for $545 million 2002)​

Baltimore Ravens: Stephen Bisciotti (Acquired $325 million deal with Art Modell in 2004.)​

Buffalo Bills: Terry Pegula (bought the Bills for $1.4 billion 2014)​

Chicago Bears: Virginia Halas McCaskey (Inherited it from dear ole' dad 1983)​

Cincinnati Bengals: Mike Brown (Inherited it from dear ole' dad 1991)​

Cleveland Browns: Jimmy Haslam (bought from Randy Lerner for $1 billion 2012)​

Dallas Cowboys: Jerry Jones (bought them in 1989 for $140 million)​

Denver Broncos: Pat Bowlen, now deceased, (family purchased the team from Edgar Kaiser for $70 Million,1984)​

Detroit Lions: Martha Ford, (Inherited team from late husband William Clay Ford, Sr. 2014)​

Green Bay Packers: Green Bay Packers, Inc. (An exception and only socialist NFL team was formed in 1923)​

Houston Texans: Janice McNair, (Inherited it from her late husband Robert McNair 2018)​

Indianapolis Colts: Jim Irsay, (1972 he bought the Los Angeles Rams for $19 million and traded teams with Carroll Rosenbloom for the Baltimore Colts.)​

Jacksonville Jaguars: Shahid Khan, (Bought for $770 Million 2011)​

Kansas City Chiefs: Clark Hunt, (Inherited it from dear ole' dad Lamar in 2006)​

Los Angeles Chargers: Dean Spanos, (Inherited it from dear ole' dad 2018)​

Los Angeles Rams: Stan Kroenke, (bought the team for $750 Million in 2010)​

Miami Dolphins: Stephen M. Ross, (On January 20, 2009 Stephen Ross bought out Wayne Huizenga)​

Minnesota Vikings: Zygi Wilf, (Wilf and his partners bought the Vikings in 2005 for $600 million)​

New England Patriots: Robert Kraft, (bought the Patriots for $172 million in 1995)​

New Orleans Saints: Gayle Benson, (Inherited it from her late Husband Tom)​

New York Giants: John Mara and Steve Tisch, ( Both inherited their share, Tish November 2005, Mara, Oct 2005)​

New York Jets: Robert Wood Johnson IV, (bought the Jets in 2000 for $635 million.)​

Oakland Raiders: Mark and Carol Davis, (Inherited it from dear ole' dad and late husband AL 2011)​

Philadelphia Eagles: Jeffrey Lurie, (bought the Eagles in 1994 for $195 million)​

Pittsburgh Steelers: Rooney Family, ( Inherited after the death of Dan April 2017)​

San Francisco 49ers: Jed York, ( Inherited from the DeBartolo family, He's their nephew)​

Seattle Seahawks: The Paul G. Allen Trust, (Created after his death in 2018)​

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Glazer Family, (bought the Bucs for $192 million in 1995)​

Tennessee Titans: Amy Adams Strunk (Half owner and controlling partner inherited from dear ole' dad)​

Washington Commanders: Dan Snyder (In May 1999, Snyder bought the team for $800 million)​

One correction, its Debartolo crime family. Thank you. I've learned a ton from this debate, wow

 

[skinsdad62]

look i can understand completely about george floyd anger and legit cases of police brutality amongst minorities . but the billions of dollars of destruction , people losing their businesses , politicians bailing out violent protestors to include kamala harris , the squad and others is BS . attacking federal court house , the white house chaz and others things is straight up rioting and in the case of chaz insurrection . the MSM gave this a pass and called it peaceful protests . i am sorry but that isnt peaceful and its a outright lie the media portrayed . anyone with a brain and eyes can see that . patrice collurs , an admitted marxist has like 3 mansions now and BLM is in deep trouble because of how ( or better yet how not ) donations were used . it seems they enriched themselves when they were supposed to be helping black victims

jan 6 shouldnt have gone down like that . the press always fails to tell you that trump said point blank make your voices heard peacefully most of you never saw that . during that sham broadcast monday nite liz cheney used a tweet by trump making him look bad but she edited the tweet and left out the part where he says go home . the MSM didnt correct that . now the congressman and woman admit they " made a mistake which really means they lied and got caught . why was ray epps taken out of that film clip they showed ? most of you dont know who he is and will have to google it

trump offered troops , he didnt do anything official because he was told by pelosi and rino mitch they didnt want them . a fact your fact checkers omit

how many more times are we going to be told 5 cops lost their lives on that day when in fact none did? . the MSM either passes that lie off or fails to correct politicians when they pass that outright lie . i find it interesting how you could have so many unhealthy cops protecting one of the most important seats of govt in the world at a time when many thought the election was a sham ( rightly or wrongly )

in fact the only person killed was was an unarmed air force female vet who was shot and killed for no justifiable reason .

i am an election official in MI , i didnt witness any shenanigans at my polling place . we checked out voting machine and set it to the right settings . some did not whether ignorantly or on purpose . i cant tell you what happened after we gave up custody of the ballets . i can tell you that custody of ballots i have seen in other states was absolutely horrible . i know some states violated the constitution on how voting laws were implemented

i know Arizona wisconsin and GA are questioning their certifications . doubt anything comes out of that and that is why you have a jan 6 because people feel dems can break laws without a care in the world . anyone want to explain to me how there is no prosecutions for the riots? how about why there isnt any release of or prosecutions for epsteins clients for sex with underage children ? hell i know there has to be republicans on that list

many people see this comparable

 

[chillerdab]

Barr worried Trump was ‘detached from reality’ in aftermath of 2020 election

Former Attorney General William Barr said he worried in the aftermath of the 2020 election that then-President Trump had become “detached from reality” as Trump made repeated claims about voting fr…

thehill.com

That's your boy Barr calling Drumpfy "detached from realit."

Let that sink in, Skinsdad.

A slightly less insane lunatic is looking at Drumpf and saying ' That guy's crazy!"
Bwahhaaa

 

[skinsdad62]

Barr worried Trump was ‘detached from reality’ in aftermath of 2020 election

Former Attorney General William Barr said he worried in the aftermath of the 2020 election that then-President Trump had become “detached from reality” as Trump made repeated claims about voting fr…

thehill.com

That's your boy Barr calling Drumpfy "detached from realit."

Let that sink in, Skinsdad.

A slightly less insane lunatic is looking at Drumpf and saying ' That guy's crazy!"
Bwahhaaa

so what ? its Barr , nough said

 

[gkekoa]

Barr worried Trump was ‘detached from reality’ in aftermath of 2020 election

Former Attorney General William Barr said he worried in the aftermath of the 2020 election that then-President Trump had become “detached from reality” as Trump made repeated claims about voting fr…

thehill.com

That's your boy Barr calling Drumpfy "detached from realit."

Let that sink in, Skinsdad.

A slightly less insane lunatic is looking at Drumpf and saying ' That guy's crazy!"
Bwahhaaa

Watch the movie.

You may not like D’Souza but if it is all a lie, where are the defamation lawsuits?

 

[Stymietee]

@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!

 

[Stymietee]

Here's a little more support for the conclusions that I derived from the film "2000 mules."

News about 2000 Mules Bill Barr​

Bill Barr Cracks Up During Jan. 6 Testimony While Dismantling Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Indefensible’ Big Lie Doc 2,000 Mules
Bill Barr featured prominently during …
Mediaite · 6m

 

[gkekoa]

@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!

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.

 

[gkekoa]

Here's a little more support for the conclusions that I derived from the film "2000 mules."

News about 2000 Mules Bill Barr​

Bill Barr Cracks Up During Jan. 6 Testimony While Dismantling Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Indefensible’ Big Lie Doc 2,000 Mules
Bill Barr featured prominently during …
View attachment 298973Mediaite · 6m

Like I said, back room deals because they are not going to throw it out.

There needs to be investigation into this, and they need to follow the money. People claim they want proof or there is no proof. Private individuals cannot give you the evidence you want. This movie is more than enough to start an official investigation.

Also, for Barr‘s information, it was ten, not five. There were more than 2,000 mules that were tracked to at least ten locations. There were likely many more mules.

 

[Sportster 72]

...... and the debate goes on

 

[Stymietee]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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)

 

[Stymietee]

Watch the movie.

You may not like D’Souza but if it is all a lie, where are the defamation lawsuits?

Who would sue him? What would be the underlying grievance detailed in such a defamation suit?

It's a for-profit piece, They legally obtained the Geo-tracking information and the CCTV video was legally obtained through the freedom of information act. I'll check again to see if someone's likeness was shown but even then we don't know if they sought and were granted permission to use those images in the piece.