First, absolutely feel the same about you. It’s refreshing to have a civil discussion. The movie shows some of the data True to Vote has complied. I’m assuming they cant show everything within a 1.5 hour documentary. I have mentioned in other post True to Vote needs to provide everything to authorities. If they won’t do anything about it, make it all available online for everyone to see. Put up or shut up. I know they mentioned they paid a lot of money for geotracking data. If they truly care about election integrity and feel they have substantial evidence, they would do the right thing and provide everything they got.
Because their claims only insinuate actual voter fraud. Their entire argument is based on the false premise that people who went by non-profits and ballot boxes multiple times in a day were mules conducting illegal ballot harvesting. But this premise is speculation at best, clearly driven by their own biases. The lack of anything being amiss in the vote is a telling (if predictable) counter to their bad assumptions. Add to it, biased impressions of how they all acted etc...to fill it all in. IOW, their effort is to turn what is much more likely normal travel behaviors of people they don't know into behaviors that are seen as criminally suspicious, ie, start with conspiracy to find conspiracy. You have to wonder that if they were truly interested in illegality at all. If they were, they would have checked locations where Trump won, testing their premise against whether people in those locations behaved similarly or differently. Leaving out that context out obviously helps further the conspiracy.
The question in the scenario you describe is why use multiple drop boxes on a run if that were the case? Drop them all in a single drop box return to work and be done with it. When the the ending point is a not for profit campaign organization and you have video of the same individual putting ballots in multiple drop boxes taking pictures on a single run I would say this is an issue that needs attention. The drop boxes are dispersed throughout the area and miles apart. The other factor is geolocation has a time stamp and how long an individual spends at that location. Passing by a drop box versus stopping at a drop box location dropping of ballots and moving along a specific route to the next can easily be determined. Some might argue well they stopped to pick clothes from the laundry, they stopped to pick up dinner for mom, they stopped to drop off dinner for mom working the grave yard shift etc.. Moving about town for various errands but even then the amount of time spent at each location would be varied in length as opposed to stop put ballots in the box and move on. Could it be a coincidence that everywhere this individual stopped there was a drop box? Not likely in my opinion. We don't know who the mules are with exception of two people who were interviewed. The reasons they gave for doing it were financial which suggests to me people on the lower end of the economic scale trying to get by. It's also not hard to understand why anyone who participates in this activity would keep their mouth shut about it. They needed extra money for various reasons and this was an easy gig. Another suggestion was using people that are homeless but even I find that to be a stretch. Homeless with a car? Highly doubtful. People from poor neighborhoods trying to get by is much more plausible. As to disputing the findings the first half of the film dealt with obtaining the geolocation of the drop boxes, the methods used of geolocation of the phone ID, how data and video were obtained, the parameters used for analysis, discrediting single occurrences only focusing on occurrences of 5 or more iterations of the routes for a single phone ID. I will state as with any film of a political nature the point of the film is to advocate for your position with the data you have available. It goes without saying that format is used on all sides of the political spectrum. The discussion of the findings that takes place at the end of the film is biased with people drawing their own conclusions. If that bothers you my suggestion is watch the first half of the film and when the discussion starts turn it off and draw your own conclusions. I also understand people are leery of the person who created this film and the political bias but the main point of the film is not that person, Questioning the people who did the work and how it was done is of course fair game. Nursing homes and even homeless shelters where voter harvesting occurs has it's own issues. This link outlines support for and opposed to ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting (ballot collection) laws by state Whether states should restrict who may return mail ballots is the subject of debate. Specifically, whether people affiliated with political campaigns and unions should be allowed to collect and return mail ballots is the subject of debate. Those who support restricting who may return mail ballots often refer to the practice of campaign and union workers returning ballots as ballot harvesting.
Just no. You can’t attach logic to nonsense, the video is nonsense. Trying to have an intelligent, legal, academic discussion on nonsense is just ridiculous and/or partisan ideology with a sprinkle of mental illness They took a bunch of data and attempted to attach relevance, meaning and conspiracy to it in order to fit a narrative. There is zero evidence of any of this occurring other than in the minds of the true believers. The video is also causing the Rehashing of the ole ballot counting conspiracies that the Ga GOP shot down as well as every court. If they had true evidence, it would be in court and released on every media platform in the world but they don’t All they have is the grift.
Here's the thing, there are a lot of people in these 5 states, and the likelihood that some people fit a pattern of movement (but have nothing to do with dropping off multiple ballots) isn't zero, and then you have people like this guy who was accused of being a mule, but instead was dropping off ballots legally for family members... of course, this guy, even though he was confronted by True the Vote, didn't make the movie ... wonder why? It's because people like him show their methods are crap: A video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members. For example, Larry Campbell, a voter in Michigan who was not featured in the film, told The Associated Press he legally dropped off six ballots in a local drop box in 2020 — one for himself, his wife, and his four adult children. And in Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office investigated one of the surveillance videos circulated by True the Vote and said it found the man was dropping off ballots for himself and his family. Then you have this guy who is sure he was counted as a mule but in fact never deposited a ballot: Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street, who was there for the group’s testimony in March, told the AP he was confident he was counted as several of the group’s 1,155 anonymous “mules,” even though he didn’t deposit anything into a drop box in that time period. During the 2020 election season, Street said, he brought those devices on trips to nonprofit offices and drop box rallies. He also drove by one drop box up to seven or eight times a day when traveling between his two political offices. Fact-checking '2000 Mules,' the movie alleging ballot fraud
23 pages and counting (...but hey, who's counting...) of.... ***DON'T WATCH THIS IRRELEVANT, MEANINGLESS NONSENSE!!!!***
^^^gosh, that seems like a whole lot of "...well, they could have been sending out their Christmas cards early, or Valentines Day cards, real early, you know, ya' just can't tell with these things...". LOL!
True believers have resorted to making up endorsements for the film. Former US Rep. Gowdy didn’t praise film alleging election fraud
