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

Yes how dare Dinesh D' Sousa have free speech.

You're not allowed to talk against the government in this country apparently especially when they're doing corrupt and evil things.

 

The attempt to prosecute our band any kind of language or expression that doesn't affirm the narrative is totalitarian.

You just call things you don't like misinformation or incorrect.

 

The laughable propaganda flick wasm obviously, made by Trumpies for Trumpies.

The reason that none of its content can stand up to judicial scrutiny anywhere is that it is just Trumpy propaganda, not a valid analytical undertaking that any court would take seriously.

 

This post has no substance. Do you have anything to say other than screeching autistically about Trump?

 

It is obvious that you are unable to confront the reality that the Trumpy felon's propaganda flick is intended to entertain hardcore Trump idolaters, and offers nothing that could ever be used as credible evidence in any court anywhere.

That is why not even the most fanatical Trumpy has tried using anything in it as credible evidence in any court anywhere.

 

Translation: "REEEEEEEE REEEEEEEE REEEEEEEE!

 

You'll have to read the lawsuit for that information. I don't think any lawyer would have taken the case if there were no case, eh?

 

Okay, now that you pinned me down, just add a word, CNN or another reputable source.

Better?

My gawd, if you are going to nitpick for perfection, I'll expect nothing but perfection from you.

No more mistakes of grammar, nothing. I'll be watching your posts for it.

But, for all the lies that 2000 mules told, your only post is about my grammatical error?

And you complain about Biden's lies all day long, but nothing on D'Souza, when there's a whole thread on it?

You're really not interested in lying, unless it's a democrat.

Right?

 

That would be the Biden administration

 

Please substantiate your claim

 

Please substantiate your claim about the 1%, and after you substantiate it, explain what you imagine it's evidence of. Thank you.

@Cybred

 

Nothing spells incompetent jackass than lying to your base that your opponent stole the election, and saying it so many times than on 1/6 it caused a juggernaut of rage in which several died and it led to the conviction of 1200 insurrectionists and 45 felony counts for your incompetent guy.

And nothing spells incompetent jackass than an old man with dementia whip your guy's but in the last election.

And nothing spells incompetent jackass like Republican administrations committing all the crimes.

 

Substantiate that claim, please.

 

Whether it's true or not, I think this is one of the many salient reasons why mail-in voting should not only not happen but should be federally illegal. The only people who should be engaging in mail-in voting are soldiers serving overseas. Everyone else get off your ass and get to your local polling station. The transmission method is too tenebrous. Perhaps the guy was delivering his wife's and kid's ballots to the drop box, but who knows? And whose to say if he tampered with those ballots in any way. Mail-in voting is too fraught for fraud.

 

That is so wrong.

Mail in voting has been around since the civil war. Until Trump came along and lied about Democrats stealing the election, making hay out of every little damn thing in an election where irregularities happen all the time, no one ever cared about it, not that I can remember. Only since Trump are republicans whining about mail in voting.

Mail in voting makes it easier for people to vote, that expands democracy. There is no evidence it results in a higher percentage of fraud than other methods. not everyone can make it to the voting both on voting day.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/20/mail-in-voting-us-election-the-facts
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/does-voting-mail-increase-risk-voter-fraud

Another benefit of vote-by-mail is that you can cast your ballot in the comfort of your own home, and you can take the time to learn about all the offices and candidates, meaning that you might actually cast a more informed vote than you would at a polling place.

If this is right, and there is some research to support it, it means that even if mail voting doesn’t meaningfully change the composition of the voting population, it could improve electoral selection and accountability, and most voters should be happy about that.

That is precisely why it is better. I can sit down with my ballot and check out all the issues on the internet, look up all the folks on the ballot whom I've never heard of, get an idea on their policies, and cast a more robust, more accurate, and democracy works so much better with mail in voting, I swear, I don't know where to begin. Republicans don't want mail in voting because they want fewer people to vote. They don't want informed voters because the more informed voters are, the least likely they will vote for Republicans. Now, that may or may not be true, but it sure sounds like it, from where I sit.

 

Depends whose fitting the bill for the lawyer fees. If, for example, it was a quasi-political group funded by a pac with donated money or something like that, seeking merely to create campaign fuel or possibly even just harass D'souza with lawfare and attempt to bankrupt him with legal fees, then ya, absolutely certain lawyers would take the money to lose a case.

 

A lawyer that takes a case when there is no case to be found, is a fool.

I suspect that the fellow suing D'Souza is not a rich man. He's just someone trying to regain his reputation.

Losing cases for a litigation lawyer doesn't lead to more clients. That doesn't make sense.

It's more likely that this fellow found a lawyer to take the case on a contingency fee, given that the movie grossed $10 million and has such egregious lies, he probably feels he can win the case without too much trouble.

So, if that is the case, and it probably is, he's going to go for the wallet, D'Souza's wallet, because his client has none.

 

"2,000 Mules" is in the right-wing dust heap making room for Liz Collin's "The Fall of Minneapolis"


Evidence Gaps in '2000 Mules'

FactCheck.org
https://www.factcheck.org › 2022/06 › evidence-gap...


Claim: The film "2000 Mules" is "determinative, definitive, whatever word you want to use," of voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Claimed by: Donald Trump
Fact check by FactCheck.org: Unsupported

Feedback

FACT FOCUS: Gaping holes in the claim of 2K ballot 'mules'

AP News
https://apnews.com › article


May 3, 2022 — Praised by former President Donald Trump as exposing “great election fraud,” the movie, called “2000 Mules,” paints an ominous picture ...


Fact-checking “2000 Mules,” the movie alleging ballot fraud

The Denver Post
https://www.denverpost.com › 2022/05/08 › 2000-m...


May 8, 2022 — A film debuting in over 270 theaters across the United States this week uses a flawed analysis of cellphone location data and ballot drop ...


'2000 Mules,' a key piece of election misinformation, has its ...

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2023/10/03 › jud...


Oct 3, 2023 — A defamation lawsuit against the creators of the conspiracy film alleging voter fraud can proceed, judge rules ... When identifying the ...


'2000 Mules' offers the least convincing election-fraud ...

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2022/05/11 › 20...


May 11, 2022 — A religious text for true believers, the film completely fails to create any chain of evidence making the case Dinesh D'Souza claims is ...


'2000 Mules' fact check: Michigan experts debunk election ...

MLive.com
https://www.mlive.com › public-interest › 2022/08 › 20...

Aug 8, 2022 — Some Republicans see the movie as proof of widespread ballot drop box fraud in 2020, but experts say claims in “2000 Mules” range from ...









'2000 Mules' but No Evidence

Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com › Opinion › Review & Outlook

Jul 23, 2023 — True the Vote stiff-arms law enforcement as it faces a defamation case.


'2000 Mules' Repackages Trump's Election Lies

The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › U.S. › Politics

Jun 8, 2022 — A new documentary from Trump allies makes the latest case the election was stolen, but the group behind the claim has been assailed even by ...

 

Republican/ Conservative/right-wing pundits chimed in negatively..
So....How many of the "2,000 Mules" have been captured to date?

snip:

"Media outlets such as PolitiFact, the Associated Press and The Washington Post criticized the film for its factual errors and omissions, making implausible claims, and promoting conspiracy theories about the supposed theft of the 2020 presidential election. The Post characterized the film as presenting "the least convincing election-fraud theory yet".[8][7][9][15][20][42]

Writing in The Bulwark, Republican author and political advisor Amanda Carpenter characterized 2000 Mules as "a hilarious mockumentary" that "doesn't survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims". Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire said, "I think the conclusion of the film is not justified by the premises of the film itself. There are a bunch of dots that need to be connected. Maybe they will be connected, but they haven't been connected in the film."[43] The Dispatch, a conservative publication,[44] wrote that "The film's ballot harvesting theory is full of holes" and that "D'Souza has a history of promoting false and misleading claims".[45] Philip Bump summarized a discussion with D'Souza as "D'Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted."[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Mules

 

Do the same rules apply to the New York Times, WAPO, etc? Hardly.
This is just more lawfare.
BTW, why can't lawyers eliminate lawfare? "Ca'ching!"

 

Then sue NYT/WAPO just like Fox, OANN and gatewaypundit was/is for defamation.
Big money is suing for defamation as we've all seen.
It's a free country to sue.. lol

 

Would you say that the littany of Trump's legal cases are defensible, then? According to many members of this forum, Trump is obviously guilty and can't win. He doesn't seem to have any problem finding lawyers tho... maybe a lot of lawyers ARE fools. ...or maybe a lot of lawyers will take 'loser' cases just to get paid, or perhaps even when neither winning nor getting paid are the actual goal.

And I'm not aware of any law that forces a lawyer to be paid only by their client. In fact, I often hear about people asking for donations for their lawyer fees in all sorts of cases, often politically charged cases, and they seem to often get the help they need. What's to prevent a PAC, for example, from donating to someone's legal fees if they believe the decision (or perhaps just the trial) could assist in the PACs political goals?

 

A number of dems I know weren't crazy about Bragg's indictment. I think that one could have slid. But,. Leticia's? I don't know, I will read the facts of the case, but it's a big one, lots of figures, and I'll have to study it. I'm not real crazy about putting a lot of innocent folk (who work for Trump) out of a job, either. But, if Trump is, indeed, running a fraud enterprise, I suppose it's necessary.

Willis, and Smith's two trials I support. These are the main ones.

We can hold that opinion, based on the facts that are known. As to win/lose? All trump needs is one guy on a 12 person jury to hang the verdict, and there's a 50/50 chance of it. I think the odds are pretty good that he'll get a unanimous verdict on one of them, at the minimum. If that one is the docs case, there's a good chance he won't do time, given how friendly Cannon is to Trump. If it's Willis or Smith's (Wash DC trial), he's going to the big house, and it's not called Mar A Lago.

He has a very hard time finding the top flight lawyers that specialize in big name politics. None of the prestigious Wash DC law firms want anything to do with him. A number of his lawyers, i feel, weren't that bright. Babba is stupid, how she passed the bar is beyond my comprehension.

Trump is a difficult client, doesn't follow his lawyer's advice, won't keep his mouth shut, etc., and he is his own worst enemy. Not only that, he's notorious for stiffing lawyers, throwing them under the buss, and several of his 'lawyers' are being indicted.

He'll throw you under the bus in a NY minute, if you cross him. These facts are widely known and why the prestigious law firms don't want his business, which is very telling, because 'normally' a law firm would LOVE a US President's business, it's supposed to be an honor. Not in Trump's case. Trump is probably alone, among all the US presidents, in this regard. This should tell you something very important about the man.

He'll get the hungry, the stupid, the bulldog type, the NY hustler type, of lawyers.
Men and women of gravitas won't touch him.

Trump rarely pays for lawyers out of pocket. He grifts his base via his leadership PAC, and most of it I think is illegal, but the DOJ has bigger fish to fry than bothering him about how he is being paid.

 

Yeah, Dinesh's conservative group source for his fantasy film, truth the vote, just admitted to the judge today that they have absolutely no evidence of fraud.

LMAO....MAGA

 

No they didn't.