Dinesh D’Souza’s film “2000 Mules” opened in theaters across the country this week and has garnered a firestorm of criticism from those on the left who deny that voter fraud is a problem and continue to declare that 2020 was the most “secure election in history.” D’Souza and others featured in the film disagree, citing evidence collected from geolocation data as well as film footage from dropboxes in key states.
The movie was co-produced by Salem Media (the parent company of PJ Media), and features D’Souza, along with Katherine Engelbrecht from True the Vote, and Gregg Phillips, who has worked all over the world in data intelligence for 40 years. It also features conservative luminaries Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, Seb Gorka, Charlie Kirk, and Eric Metaxas, all of whom D’Souza and Englebrecht attempt to convince that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Early in the movie, the five conservatives appear a bit skeptical about what they’re about to see.
“I am agnostic on this question and I’m awaiting more information,” said Prager. “Show me the proof … I have not gone on board of ‘I know for a fact that this was fraud.'”
Metaxas said, “Most Americans know we don’t know what happened and are not okay with that.”
“We have crumbs, we have evidence here and there, but the picture is far from complete,” added Charlie Kirk.
Larry Elder explained, “The reason many Republicans are saying ‘let’s move on’ is that bold accusations need bold evidence, and they haven’t seen it … show me the money.”
“The people who say that, ‘let’s move forward,’ are people in the elite who see Trump as an anomaly,” said Gorka.
By the end of the film, the men were much more certain that widespread fraud had occurred in the 2020 election.
“I think that if every American saw [the evidence presented in the movie], I think it would move the needle,” said Prager. “However, [the Left’s] ability to keep their side ignorant is total. They have ruined Election Day in America. That’s provable. And that’s enough for me to fight the left with every fiber in my body.”
“It’s ballot laundering,” declared Kirk. “Looks pretty convincing to me. I don’t think we’ll ever know the full story, and what makes this so compelling and unique is once the ballot enters the system, it’s really hard to reverse-engineer it. But when you have the cell phone geolocation data and then the actual footage of them doing what you expect them to be doing, taking pictures of the ballots, taking gloves off, visiting multiple times, I mean, it seems pretty clear to me.”
“This is a smoking gun,” said Elder. “This is O.J. Simpson being seen leaving the scene of the crime. I don’t care how partisan you are, you can’t dismiss all of this. How do you explain somebody going to a whole bunch of dropboxes with a whole bunch of different ballots on the same night at 3:57 in the morning? How do you explain that? That alone! I’m sorry, I think a whole bunch of people in this country are going to go, ‘Oh my God.'”
“What do we have empirically?” Gorka asked. “We have data, geolocation, we have video of people harvesting ballots. Do we know who those ballots were for? We can’t know who they were for. However, you have to inject common sense. Are we saying that in the centers of Democrat-held districts we are seeing hundreds and hundreds of visits to dropboxes with pro-Trump ballots? It beggars belief. ”
Metaxas didn’t offer a final comment but seemed to nod along in agreement with the comments of others.
“2000 Mules” offered some compelling evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election. Although they were not able to prove empirically that mules were delivering ballots by the thousands to dropboxes in key states, it sure looks suspicious. Unfortunately, geolocation technology has limits and cannot pinpoint an exact location, such as a ballot box. While it appears that there were individuals who were indeed traveling between ballot dropboxes and various non-profits at rates that would defy common sense, it’s possible that there are other explanations for at least some of them, e.g. delivery drivers, cab drivers, etc. And D’Souza and Engelbrecht both admit that the ballots were legal ballots, even though they were delivered illegally.
“The ballot itself is legitimate. It’s not a fake piece of paper,” said D’Souza. Englebrecht added, “These are not phony ballots.”
So while ballot-harvesting is illegal in about half of the states, including the ones featured in the film, ballots delivered by mules still must count if they were cast by eligible voters. The mules themselves may be prosecuted for their crimes, but that still would not invalidate the ballots they submitted. Therein lies the problem.
“When you mail in a ballot, you have a security envelope with a signature verification standard that’s been all but washed away,” explained Engelbrecht. “And as soon as it’s taken out of that envelope, then you have a disconnect and the ballot is private.”
“Let’s say we got access to every single ballot thrown into the ballot boxes. Would we be able to prove this is a fraud?” asked Prager.
“It’s the perfect crime because … the evidence has no connection to the person who’s meant to be voting,” Gorka added. “That’s the problem. As soon as it gets taken out of the [security] envelope, the identity disappears.”
D’Souza said there’s an easy way to “bust it” but “it’s not the way you think.”
“It’s not to go find the ballots in the ballot mix. You can’t do that. The way to find it is these guys [True the Vote] have the cell phone identification of all of the mules. All of them. So law enforcement has to step in at this point, and the next step is to go and interview the mules. Who paid you, where’d you get the money?”
If that seems like a stretch, remember that the FBI has a history of using such data to identify and prosecute individuals, as they did in the wake of the January 6 protest at the Capitol. Wired reported:
Court documents show that the initial Google geofence warrant included the US Capitol building and the stairs leading down to Capitol plaza. They also reveal that within days or weeks, the FBI had access to personal information about many of their owners, including at least the account name, email, and phone number. None of the legal experts WIRED spoke with had heard of another case where the personal data for devices in a geofence warrant had been unmasked at this scale…
…However the FBI secured the information, court documents show that before the end of January it had a trove of personal data from Google that it could use to easily identify suspects, or confirm their presence inside the Capitol in a narrow window of time. Investigators first excluded anyone authorized to be in the Capitol on January 6, such as members of Congress and their staffs, law enforcement, first responders, and government employees. That left the FBI with a set of Google accounts and related data that it could search as its investigations proceeded.
While the breach of the Capitol included a handful of bad actors, most who were in attendance that day were peaceful protesters — grandmas and grandpas from the Midwest and other ordinary citizens. If the FBI can use (abuse?) its power to secure warrants to unmask Americans who wandered past some barricades at the Capitol, they can surely wield it to round up vote-traffickers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
At the conclusion of the film, D’Souza says, “Without free and fair elections, we are not a democracy; we are a criminal cartel masking as a democracy. Never before in history has a presidential election been as thoroughly corrupted by coordinated fraud across multiple states as we now know took place in 2020.”
It’s well past time for the FBI to investigate claims of widespread ballot harvesting. Our constitutional order hangs in the balance.