Hacker Cinema
2000 Mules
2022 · Film · 86 min
Directed by Dinesh D'Souza, Debbie D'Souza, Bruce Schooley
Bestselling author and award-winning filmmaker, Dinesh D’Souza, exposes widespread coordinated voter fraud in the 2020 election sufficient to change the overall outcome. Drawing on research provided by the election integrity group, True the Vote, “2000 Mules” offers two types of evidence: geotracking and video. The geotracking evidence, based on a database of ten trillion cell phone pings, exposes an elaborate network of professional operatives, called mules, delivering fraudulent votes to mail-in boxes in the five key states where the election was decided. Video evidence obtained from official surveillance cameras corroborates the cellular positioning data. The film concludes by exploring ways to assist in the prevention of election fraud in future democratic elections.
1 positive8 negative5 neutralfrom 14 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
14 comments on Hacker News
Minuscule number of potentially fraudulent ballots in states with universal mail voting undercuts Trump claims about election risks ~ https://archive.md/gLi2e
analysis of data collected by three vote-by-mail states with help from the nonprofit Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) found that officials identified just 372 possible cases of double voting or voting on behalf of deceased people out of about 14.6 million votes cast by mail in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, or 0.0025 percent. ( 2000 Mules (2022) is a US conservative horror movie, not a factual documentary )
scrolling through that list of thousands of results, only 6 or so have an actual match for the search term (lol). that explains why i never heard about it. the rest seem to be articles that are about elections, generally related, but do not mention 2000 mules. there are no debunking in those search results, only descriptions calling the movie "widely debunked" (by who?)
i just read the one article on that list that appears to directly address the movie.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/1121648290/a-publisher-abruptly-recalled-the-2-000-mules-election-denial-book-npr-got-a-cop
it links two articles that claim to debunk the movie, both of which are behind a pay wall. it then goes on to basically say nothing. they contact the groups that the movie accused of helping stuff ballots and those groups say "thats malarky." thats it.
2000 mules is utter BS from a source that specializes in such things. If there were a shred of evidence about even a single claim made by this film, the conservative super majority in the supreme court would be all over it.
Wikipedia summary: 2000 Mules is a 2022 American conspiracist[4][5][6][7] political film from right-wing political commentator Dinesh D'Souza. The film falsely[8][9][10] claims unnamed nonprofit organizations supposedly associated with the Democratic Party paid "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. D'Souza has a history of creating and spreading false conspiracy theories.[11]
Or, if you want better examples, how about the massively promoted "2000 mules" movie?
It was literally all lies, just proven in court, and the producer just apologized to one of the subjects for those lies and pulled it from distribution.
When one of the primary architects of right-wing strategy advocates a key tactic of "flooding the zone with bullshit", that side has no complaint. Particularly when that tactic is derived specifically from Russian dezinformatsiya techniques, where the goal is not to get people to believe the lies (the few who do are a bonus), but to exhaust reason and get people to give up and say "we can't tell what is true". At that point, they are most manipulable.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2024/05/31/g-s1-2298/publisher-of-2000-mules-election-conspiracy-theory-film-issues-apology
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/31/media/salem-will-stop-distributing-2000-mules/index.html
How is this legislation a reaction to that movie?
Are you suggesting that Massachusetts legislators watched 2000 Mules, realized that their efforts to throw the election in favor of Biden had been detected, and then sought to make it impossible to catch them next time?
This is likely a consequence on the 2000 Mules movie
https://dineshdsouza.com/films/
> I think that you are severely overestimating the number of people who believe the political bullshit.
I come from a very, very red part of America, and I can assure you that many of them do believe it, or at least did in early 2021. A couple years later, we've seen the investigations turn up none of the evidence that was described, but people still believe it. Close relatives of mine were raving about the 2000 mules documentary earlier in the year, which was completely debunked.
I think a lot of those same people are getting tired of being told that the next big shoe to drop is just around the corner, but if we're being honest, it's not all that different from how the left treated the Mueller investigation. Everyone was so convinced that they were going to rattle Trump's presidency and Mueller totally punted on Trump in his final report.
It feels like we're living in a non-stop JJ Abrams movie where we're constantly being triggered to follow one anxiety-inducing story after another.
I saw the film "2000 Mules."
Amongst the claims of this film was an assertion of open drop boxes on public streets with no cameras for surveillance. Several FOIA requests for camera footage also failed, as the cameras "malfunctioned."
While there may be innocent explanations for the odd cell phone location tracking, this fact remains:
"The most secure election in history" cannot be as claimed with unmonitored and publicly-accessible drop boxes.
This cannot continue if an honest election is the goal.
p.s. I regularly split my voting ticket, so I am not as biased as some might suppose.
This is a weird comment because yes, that's exactly what the above person was saying. It shows results that google won't give you.
Secondly, I've yet to see any criticisms of 2000 mules data that aren't addressed by the stringency in the analysis they claim to have done.
I thought the information they presented was extremely valuable. Are we going to overturn an election at this point? No. But the vulnerabilities to the mail-in ballots were obvious, then lied about, then ignored, then clearly taken advantage of. I want to live in a democracy because voting matters. I especially don't want NPO's destroying this by taking advantage of flawed voting infrastructure.
If there are legitimate criticisms of the methods, the data, or anything else coming out of this film I expect a legitimate presentation that can break it down using the actual data in question. All I've seen so far is shilling and gas-lighting.
Google: 118M results. Top link is the best resource on verified election fraud cases.
Yandex: 9M results. The top two links are pretty suspect. Top link promotes Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules documentary in the banner which at best is a one-sided take on election fraud. At worst, very misleading.
https://i.imgur.com/n5a9LOd.png
I should start off by saying 2000 Mules is a film by Dinesh D'Souza, noted scumbag. It's also a conspiracy theory. Asking "how can you prove this conspiracy theory false" isn't productive.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ
The movie is another attempt to use circumstantial evidence without actually having a proper investigation. Then all the Republicans angry that Trump didn't win will go to forums, like this one, and say "watch 2000 mules" without providing any details because when Trump lost they didn't get what they wanted and can't deal with it.
You'd have to watch the full video in order for us to discuss it properly, you seem to be missing key details. However it is only available paid on demand (2000 mules dot com), not on a free streaming service.
The location analysis is explained throughout the film, but it's mainly after the intro and before going into the state security camera footage / general discussions.
The main point I was making it the location path and frequency of dropbox points is how they filtered people out. They only took people that went from one dropbox location to another dropbox location, at least 10 times. Then they analyzed how many times those devices went on those routes and how many devices met that criteria in total.
It's so interesting seeing this.
There is currently a film making the rounds in right wing/election-interested circles called 2000 Mules.
In the film, the narrator/host purport to have purchased several trillions of points of tracing data from the time around the 2020 election, and claim to have identified "ballot mules", that is: people who appeared to be going from various Democrat affiliated non-profits to many different ballot boxes in their city.
The conclusion being: these people were stuffing ballot boxes.
However, the "technical" take downs of these claims are that this location data is not accurate enough to support them.
But then articles like this come out, or many of the comments below, which do support the idea that you could purchase highly accurate GPS tracking data of "anonymized" cell phone users.
It's just interesting how the technical analysis on these things seems to change so dramatically based on what the context is.