Dinesh D’Souza, Creator of ‘2000 Mules,’ Must Defend Film’s Election Denial Claims in Court

why we should not elect Fraudster Trump

 

American jurisprudence is predicated upon credible evidence.

If a movie's content cannot be substantiated by credible evidence, even the most dogmatic believer is unable to prosecute the matter in a court of law,
only in sympathetic media.

 

I asked "Was the individual singled out in the film?" Clearly you don't know the answer (or you know that he wasn't...), so I have to wonder why you keep replying to my question with no attempt to answer it...

 

As I noted, I ignore the propaganda flick's content because it has been thoroughly discredited.

That is why even the most fanatical believer in its dogma cannot use it as credible evidence to further their agenda in any court of law,
despite their obvious desire to do so.

‘2000 Mules’ Repackages Trump’s Election Lies
​

 

It has never been discredited at all.... Dinesh's research is the same cell phone triangulation and Google Geofence technology used by the FBI 2 years later to identify all devices in a 4-acre area, including the Capitol and its immediate surroundings, between 2 pm and 6:30 pm on January 6.? They are still making arrests from that data. So Dinesh's research is spot on, unless you want to use that very agrument to discredits the FBI's findings..

 

Only Trumpbots swallow the nonsense.

That is why its propaganda is useless to any Trumpbot who would try to foist it off as offering credible evidence in any court of law in the land.

Why else would none of them try it?

 

We watched the movie... you obviously have not...

 

Speaking of 'propaganda'... your insistence on replying to my comments without actually addressing any of their content is telling. It appears that you suspect as much as I do that this lawsuit is being presented under false pretenses, an attempt to use lawfare to reframe dissenting political speech as 'defamation' when no one was actually defamed.

 

This was the direct result of D'souza defaming this individual.

 

No one defending this "movie" actually watched it. Obviously.

 

No, I'm offering a choice of reputable sources.

Please don't project into words meanings which are not there.

 

Fraud exists as a percentage of the whole. It's a small percentage.

If the whole expands, the percentage will be constant,but the numbers will increase.

But that fact doesn't prove 'making fraud easier', because we've had mail in voting since the Civil War.

Moreover, the 'fraud' is minimal and never enough to affect the outcome of the general election.

 

@Natty Bumpo

It is in the movie... watch it and educate yourself.... anything less is just pushing misinformation and propaganda.

 

So this individual was specifically named or depicted by D'souza?

 

You said "CNN or a reputable source". Seems clear to me that CNN is not a reputable source.

 

No one has ever proven that the election was NOT stolen.... There was never any honest and thorough investigation into election fraud to determine one way or the others.

DOJ investigation = evidence and proof... Please show us the an honest and thorough DOJ investigation and related report...

and NO, Barr request was never initiated or completed per statements by those states...

 

Please reread the post you just quoted

 

You already support the fraudster, bribesters, and the most incompetent jackasses to ever run the country,

 

And all of sudden in Georgia we went from ten percent discarded due to errors to less than 1% in spite of a more than doubling of mail in ballots with many being first time. If you believe those numbers are accurate then you believe that Mallards share living quarter with moles.

 

That's still not evidence.

 

Oh but it is.

 

I told you that II have not wasted any time on D'Souza's transparently feeble propaganda movie after multiple fact checks discredited its fake claims.

In any trivia game about the convicted felon's flick, I would do miserably.

 

Repeatedly and thoroughly discredited. The Trumpy convicted felon and "True the Vote," a Trumpy cheerleading outfit, failed to concoct evidence that provided even the most Trumpy Republicans in even one of the targeted states with any legitimate pretext to challenge their certified vote totals.

No one other than the Cry Baby Loser's worshippers actually take it seriously.

None of its fake claims has stood up to the disinterested scrutiny that the minimal demands of actual evidence would require.​

Multiple concerns were raised by experts speaking to Reuters about the "geotracking" portion of the documentary. It was unclear whether the same test was applied anywhere other than the swing states in question (to prove a unique phenomenon had happened), along with data validity, accuracy, and discussion about other possibilities that could explain the findings.

“The entirety of the claim rests on cell phone location data, which doesn’t remotely show that people were actually using the drop boxes (it doesn’t have the granularity to show that, as opposed to just walking or even driving by),” said Kenneth R Mayer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison...​

‘2000 Mules’ offers the least convincing election-fraud theory yet
​

​

 

speak for yourself, I do not support the MAGAs

 

What "information" in the Trumpy felon's flick has been seized upon by Trumpy advocates for any litigation or legislature to challenge certified election results?

What "information" in the Trumpy felon's flick has stood up to judicial scrutiny anywhere?

It would be laughed out of court, but diehard Trumpies embarrass themselves by falling for the farce anyway.

[https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/]