Summary of ‘2000 Mules,’ the documentary about 2020 election fraud

The following is a news analysis

Near the end of the documentary 2000 Mules, the filmmakers and their advocates anticipate the partisan criticism the film would draw. 

“They have two ways they’ll try to invalidate it,” predicts conservative leader Charlie Kirk. “One is minimizing. And then slander.” 

Then, speaking to cell phone data used to prove the alleged crimes, conservative military and intelligence analyst Sebastian Gorka adds, “I predict right now they will say, ‘What on earth is a conservative doing tracking private citizens? Gee how dare they? What is Dinesh D’Souza doing to voters? At 3 AM?’ And that will be part of it.”

Attorney Larry Elder adds, “This is a smoking gun. This is OJ Simpson being seen leaving the scene of the crime.”

It seems significant to remember that a jury found OJ Simpson not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend. He was later found Iiable for wrongful death in the same double murder as the result of a civil trial.

Smoking guns aren’t always cut and dry.

In any event, the response to 2000 Mules has been swift and largely predictable. Trump advocates insist it proves game-changing election fraud in 2020. Trump opponents claim it’s just another debunked conspiracy theory that proves nothing. 

In the predominantly left-leaning establishment news media, the figures who have addressed the documentary tend to promote the latter conspiracy theory interpretation— advising people not to see the film, while simultaneously assuring them there’s nothing to see. 

Meantime, it seems clear that many who are publicly commenting, including some of the harshest critics, haven’t actually watched the film.

Watch the trailer for 2000 Mules

So we’re left with a documentary that— if the evidence is true—would be one of the most important and impactful films of its time, but is likely being viewed almost exclusively by those in no need of conversion.

There was a time prior to 2015, before Donald Trump entered national politics, when the forensic work described in the film would have been done by credible news organizations and journalists, and by independent law enforcement bodies. 

Those days are gone.

Surveillance video shows an alleged “mule” delivering ballots to a dropbox

Most of the news media issued a collective shrug in the face of an election that was at the very least unusual, with unprecedented changes made under the auspices of Covid, with intervention by billionaire third party activists pouring money into projects like drop boxes, with positions and final calls getting switched, with polls that were wrong, with ballots that had no chain of custody, with a flood that never actually occurred but stopped counting at a Georgia precinct until the Republican observers went home, and much more.

Worse, some in the media insisted that questions and suspicious happenings should not be investigated even if the outcome would reassure a skeptical public the election was fair. To feel otherwise, we were told, was to be a conspiracy theorist of the worst kind bent on treason or the fall of democracy itself.

Journalists and political figures declared, without evidence, that there was no fraud. When fraud emerged, they said there was no widespread fraud. When there was evidence of widespread fraud, they said there was no widespread fraud that would have changed the results. Yet they had no firsthand investigation to support these positions. Whenever opposing claims were made or differing intepretations were possible, they sided with one and called the other “conspiracies,” as if they hadn’t noticed that, in the prior four years, so many conspiracies had proven true, and so many declared truths had proven false.

Law enforcement investigators did no better.

So, today, we’re left with a partisan group that did what nobody else wished to do and turned it into a film.

They unearthed and dug into data that anybody willing and able to spend the time and money could have gotten– and could still get. The data reveals, they contend, a coordinated election fraud operation prior to election day that flipped the results.

For those who are curious to know more about what’s presented in the film, this summary and analysis are offered. However, if you’re interested in this topic, I advise you to see the film and make up your own mind.

First, I think it is worthwhile. Second, it is common for people to form a firsthand take-away that differs from other people’s. In my own experience, I find myself rarely in agreement with popular analyses of news events and editorial content.  

Learning the information in 2000 Mules cannot hurt you. You are free to gather it and — as my grandmother used to say— take the information, “chew it up, swallow what you like, and spit out the rest.” Or, in less colloquial terms: believe all of what’s in the movie,  part of it, or none of it. It’s your choice. 

Surveillance video shows an alleged “mule” delivering ballots at night

Please note: This analyzes and summarizes information as presented in the documentary and is not intended to serve as independent verification.


2000 Mules is named for 2,000 alleged illegal ballot carriers or “mules” in the 2020 election as identified in the film.


Dinesh D’Souza narrates and serves as the film’s anchor. Born in India, he is a conservative filmmaker, speaker, and author who once advised President Reagan. He hosts a podcast sponsored by Salem Media.

Charlie Kirk is an author and speaker who started and heads up the student empowerment group Turning Point USA.

Sebastian Gorka is a British-born Hungarian-American military and intelligence analyst who advised President Trump.

Dennis Prager is a conservative radio talk show host who founded PragerU, an online site that produces videos in support of freedom, democracy, fairness, equality, and conservative principles. 

Eric Metaxas is a Christian author, speaker, and radio host.

Larry Elder is an attorney and talk radio host. He lost the 2021 race for governor of California in the recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsome.

Debbie D’Souza is Dinesh’s wife. Her appearance in the film seems to be explained by the fact that she introduced her husband to Catherine Englebrecht (below) and was a poll watcher who identified improper practices some years ago.

Catherine Engelbrecht started and heads “True the Vote,” a pro-election integrity group targeted in the Obama administration IRS scandal. True the Vote launched the data analysis project and claims to have “the largest store of election intelligence for the 2020 elections in the world.”

Gregg Phillips is an election and data analyst working with True the Vote. He formerly headed the Mississippi Department of Human Services. He describes having captured election fraud, including vote harvesting and vote trafficking in the past by a Republican, forcing a new election.

Gregg Phillips of True the Vote


Much of the film’s story is told through roundtable discussions with two groups. 

The first group is comprised of  Dinish D’Souza and some of his colleagues who are also radio talk show hosts employed by Salem Media. At the start, they give their views on allegations of 2020 election fraud. At the end of the film, they discuss their opinions in light of the evidence presented. At that time, they universally express alarm, and indicate they are convinced there was widespread and meaningful fraud.

The second group, also led by D’Souza, is comprised of his wife, Debbie; and True the Vote’s Catherine Engebrecht and Gregg Phillips. They present background, methodology, and findings. They also talk through descriptions of mobile phone location and tracking data, and surveillance video, and calculate the ultimate impact on the 2020 election.

Through the conversations, the following was established or claimed:

When trying to find evidence of election fraud, Englebrecht explains that the privately-funded drop boxes, location data, and surveillance video were chosen as a provable, trackable target. 

In two of the five states examined, ballots can legally be delivered by a family member or care giver (“vote harvesting”). But in all states, “ballot trafficking” is illegal. In other words, nonprofits and others may not collect ballots and give them, or pay, to have them delivered to drop boxes. 

Cell phones deliver location and time data to hundreds of thousands of apps. The data is used by military, law enforcement and intelligence. The data is also sold to brokers, who resell the data. 

True the Vote spent over $1 million to purchase ten trillion signals in selected battleground cities and states. The data was purchased around election drop boxes, where surveillance cameras were also supposed to be monitoring.

True the Vote also obtained four million minutes of publicly-available surveillance video of drop boxes through open records requests. The video dates from Oct. 1, 2020 through the presidential election or, in the case of Georgia, through the state’s Jan. 6, 2021 runoff.

True the Vote looked for people who directly visited 10 or more drop boxes and made five or more visits to nonprofit organizations or “stash houses” that presumably collected, produced, and/or handed out ballots and/or paid the “mules.”

The relatively high number of drop box and nonprofit visits required to fit the film’s definition of a “mule” was intended to establish an extremely high bar and leave less room for error.

The mules may have been paid $10 per ballot. It’s believed they were sometimes required to produce photographs of the drop boxes or their actions in order to get paid.

Surveillance video of drop boxes was required by law but was turned off or not available on certain drop boxes in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Fulton County, Georgia.

Survillance Video

The film highlighted the following clips from publicly-available surveillance video.

Surveillance video shows an alleged “mule” depositing multiple ballots

In Atlanta: One person who went to 28 drop boxes and 5 nonprofits in one day.

In Gwinnett County, Georgia: Election officials with duffel bags containing 1,962 ballots which, according to chain of custody documents were deposited by just 271 people during 25 hours.

In Georgia: A woman with S.C. plates stuffing 3-4 ballots into a box. She visited dozens of drop boxes during the general election and the runoff. She showed up wearing gloves starting Dec. 23, 2020 just after news the FBI had caught ballot-stuffers in Arizona based on fingerprint evidence. After putting ballots in the drop box, she removes her gloves, and throws them into a nearby trash can.

A man approaching a drop box on his bike, pulling ballots out of his backpack, depositing them, and taking a photo. 

In the middle of the day at a polling place, a man removing ballots from under his arm and a bag, putting them in a drop box, and photgraphing his actions.  


The film claims that for 2,000 illegal ballot carriers, with an average number of 38 drop box visits per person, and five ballots per visit, it amounts to 380,000 questioned ballots in five metro areas or states.

Detailed stats presented add up to slightly higher numbers: 2,150 mules impacting 464,000 ballots with a final electoral count for Trump of at least 279 to Biden’s 259. Stats calculated using a broader definition give Trump a final electoral count of 305 to Biden’s 233.  

Electoral Count: Trump: 279  Biden: 259

With a lower criteria to include those who visited 5-10 drop boxes and 3 ballots instead of 5, the number of mules increases from 2,000 to 54,000.

Electoral Count: Trump: 305  Biden: 233


As a matter of personal preference, I would like to have seen much more surveillance video. It’s interesting and convincing. Out of the many thousands of potential mules identified, and four million minutes of video obtained, only a relative handful were shown.

That having been said, I understand the technical challenge that must come with trying to match cell phone data precisely with people captured on surveillance video. It is impressive that the filmmakers were able to do it at all.

Interviews with two whistleblowers, including one “mule” said to be cooperating with authorities, were used with limited effectiveness. They raised more questions than providing answers, and left viewers wanting more information. 

A great deal about the mechanics of the alleged fraud was left to the imagination. Who signed the payment checks— or were mules paid in cash? What were the names of the nonprofits the filmmakers knew about— or why are the names not suitable for publication? How were mules recruited? Have they done this before? (One whistleblower implied there was nothing particularly new about the fraud in this election, and that ballot fraud in their region was longstanding and well known.) Were the ballots otherwise valid (i.e. legitimate votes from real people, or manufactured ballots, or real ballots filled out by someone other than the voter)? Who won votes on the ballots for president and in local races?

Surveillance video shows an alleged “mule” delivering ballots at night

The nonprofits considered to be “stash houses” were not named or described, nor was there a clear explanation as to how they were identified as potential guilty parties. Were all nonprofits, such as the YMCA, hospitals, and colleges, considered for the geofencing? Or did it only include nonprofits that would theoretically have motivation, funding, and infrastructure to pull off election fraud?

Who provided funding for the fraud, which would have cost millions of dollars in the limited area examined? Who is at the top of the organizational chain? Have they done this before?

In the case of the Republican drop box watcher who blew the whistle on Republicans failing to act upon irregularities he flagged: who did this person report to? What did that person say in response? What would be the reason why these Republicans would choose to sweep fraud under the rug?

Of course, lack of detail doesn’t disprove fraud. It is not the fault of the filmmakers that they could not answer every outstanding question. True the Vote spent a great deal of time and money to get what data and information they could get. The group did something that law enforcement and journalists could have done but chose not to. In this way, investigations that should be in the hands of those once seen as neutral parties are now left to those who can easily be dismissed by critics as partisan.

A scene from the documentary “2000 Mules”


Both candidates received more votes than any president in American history. The 2020 election was unprecedented in many ways with process and rule changes; and anomalies reported regarding absentee voting, poll observations, chain of custody, drop boxes, signature verification, and more. But logical and rational questions were swiftly dismissed by establishment media, politicians, courts and law enforcement.  Often, when critics dismissed questions, they claimed, without evidence, that the questions amounted to disproven conspiracy theories. In fact, most of the claims hadn’t been independently investigated. 

One lawyer involved in a 2020 election fraud claim was scolded by a judge for presenting evidence a day or two late. On that basis, the judge excluded the evidence. The lawyer explained to the judge that voter fraud cases typically take years to build. But the court was expecting him to do it in a matter of days, without the tools to force discovery or access documents and evidence.

2000 Mules illustrates how complicated a voter fraud investigation can be, and how much time it can take to gather evidence and proof.

It is significant to note that as much of a game-changer the alleged fraud in 2000 Mules amounts to, it encompasses only one relatively small slice of potential fraud claims: pre-election drop box activity. When one considers additional possibilities, it’s not hard to see that the scope could be even more massive.

The film makes a strong case that, at the very least, law enforcement authorities should have conducted— and still should conduct– a broad investigation using similar data including and beyond the five metro areas and states examined in the film. 

Investigators could also go a step further and obtain the identities of the mobile phone owners (hidden for privacy reasons from those who purchase data as was done for 2000 Mules), which allows them to potentially question thousands of people. 

State and local law enforcement bodies could conduct investigations in their own regions.

Surveillance video shows an alleged “mule” delivering ballots

Law enforcement bodies should also investigate cases where cameras required to record surveillance video on drop boxes were turned off or said to malfunction.

One complication to all of this is the notion that a majority of the American public no longer trusts those who would accomplish these investigations. Whether investigators verify or refute the information presented in 2000 Mules, they would be attacked as partisans. By not promptly conducting their own investigations in the wake of the 2020 election, they have rightly become viewed as conflicted.

How and where to watch 2000 Mules

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

60 thoughts on “Summary of ‘2000 Mules,’ the documentary about 2020 election fraud”

  1. It is sad that we simply accept the fact that it is not possible to conduct an investigation into what happened without charges of bias being raised and believed by many. This indicates a fundamental disunity in the country which may spell our doom. As Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

    This situation should have been investigated by law enforcement immediately. That it was not is a huge warning flag, and may not be something we can recover from. If all elections from now on are hotly disputed and integrity is in question we’re in trouble.

    1. I agree that we are divided due to a variety of causes. A deliberate Psyop was waged on the American people(please review the work of Reiner Fuellmich and the thousands of attorneys and doctors who have joined league). We have yet to adequately access the psychological damage done. We are not in actuality divided as a nation but are suffering from “mass formation psychosis” (RFK,jr has addressed this) and “cognitive dissonance”–all of which were expertly manipulated and exaggerated via a corrupt MSM. The division was predictable, and IMO: part of the plan. The MSM will not openly criticize a global criminal such as Gates or Sore’os(can I even type his real name here without thought police interceding?), even though both are considered criminals in other countries. As for the process of restoring the Republic–we must first realize that the DOJ is corrupt, and therefore not our ally. A state Grand Jury approach and people’s tribunal at the state level are critical. RICO may be applied, and we have enough evidence to prove that criminal intentions and actions occurred. [We’ve endured multiple psyops, health related and election related.]

      1. States retain primacy. States have the authority to push against federal inaction or federal interference.

    1. In my view that only gives the election to the democrats. I feel your frustration, but always always vote! It’s our only chance. The democrats would be extremely happy to see this comment of yours. In fact it may be one of their tactics.

      1. Pravda Broadcasting Service also claimed Hunters laptop was Russian “disinformation” and the Russian were conspiring with Trump in 2016.

        Believe Pravda Broadcasting Service and stay uninformed but well indoctrinated.

      2. Russia? Even finding out the truth about all the Democrat’s Russia lies? Russia? Wow! I gotta leave this one alone.

    1. Samuel Lawrence

      My disagreement is limited to the lead sentence. Human observers can work toward objectivity. The film is a case in point. Englebrecht and Phillips were open to the possibility that their hypothesis of vote trafficking was wrong. In fact, as their team dived more deeply into the data, they refined their hypotheses. The point is to let your data drive the conclusions, as opposed to letting a predetermined conclusion massage the data. Subjectivity is easy. Objectivity takes hard work.

  2. There is supposed to be an election “day”- not an election week or election month. If a legal mail in ballot is not received by the due date (election day) it SHOULD NOT COUNT- period.

  3. My husband and I went to see the movie last evening and it confirmed even more what most of the country already knows…the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
    We would encourage everyone to go see it for yourself! Wake up America!

  4. Re the film’s summation: that there would be slander and dismissal of the evidence as presented(if the reviewers even watched the film will remain unknown). We’ve already witnessed the MSM’s silence–especially considering how much traction the Depp/Heard trial has gotten over the last month(s) of mind-numbing circus antics. We’ve seen how the MSM promotes the next narrative from a preordained menu selection. Anyone possessed of adult intelligence can see that “2,000 Mules” is a threat to the established order. To understand where we as a nation are today, more folks will have to make the effort and review this nation’s history lessons(including the Act of 1871). Jimmy Carter stated in a german mag article(Der Spiegel) some years ago, that the US is “…not a Democracy, it is an Oligarchy.” Do folks realize that a former US president said this? The US Constitution is the fly in the ointment for Mr. Global, Inc. The US is under seige. Time to wake up folks!

  5. I understand True to Vote has many, many more hours of video that show many, many more mules in action. The movie just shows a few examples.

    Why aren’t criminal investigations being conducted by authorities? All of the difficult initial work is completed from this movie. In every state, vote harvesting is illegal. It seems the law has been broken. I have read that only one state (Utah) has started an investigation.

    Why aren’t democrats calling for an investigation claiming their party cheated? It’s OK to cheat as long as you don’t get caught? If someone accused me of cheating, I would go to great lengths to prove the accusation false. Silence from democrats are a strong message to our young Americans that’s it OK to cheat. Cheating and lying= perfectly acceptable. Who are we???

  6. Whatever the ultimate impact of trafficking, it is only one part of the fraud and maladministration that occurred in 2020. An entire film could be made on the problems with the voter rolls. 7 million registered voters in Wisconsin, which only has about 4.5 million voting age population, for instance. Seth Keshel’s data comparing registration increase/decrease correlated with election outcomes was a red flag in 2020 — things just don’t add up. The machines contain proprietary code, and no one knows what the code actually does — the great unwashed public are not allowed to see it. Even those in government are apparently shielded from examining it. The paper ballots are where the real answers lie — and if we don’t do something, they will be destroyed in September, and there will be no chance for a complete forensic audit of the actual ballots actual humans cast. This was not an election in 2020. It was a goat rodeo.

  7. A would-be viewer

    Once again your show was censored in my area last week. We tuned in at 5:30 and got infomercials for the first twenty minutes. Only the last segment aired. This is the second time this has happened. I think you are being shadow censored.

    1. Sharyl Attkisson

      Thank you for your support! Could you please let us know what television market you are located in and the station’s call letters. Our staff will investigate your inquiry.

      1. Here’s what I think this viewer in Oregon is experiencing:
        On the west coast, the networks’ live sports coverage on weekends usually ends at about 4:00 or 4:30pm, sometimes a little later. (Since this is a CBS station, I’m betting it was golf.).

        But because it is live coverage it starts earlier in the day than on the east coast– probably in the time slot when the infomercials would usually run..

        My guess is the local station has a more-lucrative priority to air the infomercials (because they are paid advertisements) over the “Full Measure”. show. Thus, as soon as CBS Sports’ coverage is over, the local station airs the complete infomercial(s), and only THEN do they “now rejoin regularly-scheduled programming, in progress.”

        I don’t think it is censorship, just the TV station doing what’s best for its bottom line.
        I hope the viewer will contact the local station. Let them know you want to see “Full Measure” in its entirety, even if delayed by network sports coverage. (just like they do the infomercials.)
        The challenge is, they only have so much time until they HAVE to get back to the regular schedule to hit the 6pm local news on time. The local news is THE biggest money maker for any local TV station.

  8. Well you didn’t write anything I didn’t think when I saw the film and watched the entire election and saw the drops in votes in the same state for Trump and the up for Biden. If the citizens do not receive justice for this fraud – regardless of who is shown to have won the election – then we don’t have a republic any longer and it is every man for himself. I thought you would have done more investigation on your own rather than reporting on a film most of us have seen.

  9. Yes, 2000 MULES is powerful. But I get tired of the film being viewed as a stand alone, an event separated from other campaign issues. It must be viewed within a context that is now well-accepted. We know about Zuck bucks, all 400 million of them, and the contracts that went with them, and the drop boxes purchased and used primarily in Democratic areas, We know that in Philadelphia six voting centers were OPEN FOR SIX WEEKS AND OPEN ALL DAY FOR THOSE WHO WANTED TO FILLIN IN THEIR MAIL IN BALLOTS. We know nursing homes is Wisconsin often had voting rate of 100%, including the infirm. We know about Democratic states that flooded the state with mail-in ballots. In 2000 films they guessed low, but still enough to turn the election. What the heck, let’s say it was a lot lower. When linked with all of the other stuff, Trump still won a major victory. Not really hard to figure anymore.

  10. Election Day, not days, weeks or months.
    Voter ID
    Very strict guidelines for mail-in ballots.

    Common sense, folks.
    Otherwise, cheating will occur.

  11. I have seen the film and it is compelling to me. They have EVIDENCE. I say they arrest every mule on film and threaten them with fraud if they don’t fess up as to who paid them. The fact they have proof should be enough for law enforcement to get involved NOW. Of course we know the DOJ will do nothing as they follow the lead of the corrupt Biden administration. If the Federal government won’t pursue it, I hope the individual states will step the hell up.

    1. I doubt that the states want to do anything about it because of many reasons, mostly because the will probably lose federal money and the intimidation from all of the scumbag lawyers , Dems and RINOS….The lawyers and lobbyists have ruined this nation permanantly.

  12. Sharyll, you are amazing. Always thorough and one of the few journalists I trust. Thank you for your work!

  13. The election was stolen before it began when the executive and judicial branches of multiple states changed their election laws–in open violation of the U.S. Constitution which says that state legislatures are responsible for making election law.

    But our cowardly Supreme Court refused to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, so now we have Mr. Biden as our “President”.

    1. I agree. The courts were cowards. Probably afraid for their lives….the Antifa riots were still going on.

  14. I bought the movie, watched it and have to say I was not surprised at all that this went on, they wanted TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE AT ALL COST, Did they cheat, hell yes they did, i knew it when i went to bed and it was confirmed when I woke up the next morning!! TRUMP IS OUR RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT AND THE DEMONRATS KNOW IT, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE RUINING AMERICA AS FAST AS THEY CAN.

  15. To begin with I love and appreciate your effort here Sharyl. Fair but your paragraph w/ questions – “I know, that you know, the answer to these. ” (your too smart…so did you just type them to lead or address the readers who less cognitive abilities)
    SA: As a matter of personal preference, I would like to have seen much more surveillance video.
    ANSWER – so would Dinesh, Catherine, Greg, DJT and any patriot / MAGA voter. The problem is states were so crooked or incompetent that they did not follow election law with proper surveillance. Worse many election officials “accidentally deleted or claimed “lost” footage. Hardly a “weakness” of the film but more of a damning additional indictment of the legitimacy of the election.
    SA : Out of the many thousands of potential mules identified, and four million minutes of video obtained, only a relative handful were shown.
    ANSWER – there is a balance of holding an audience 90 minutes and carefully demonstrating w/o leading to a liberal cheating ballot stuffers stampede to lawyers claiming somehow the movie “out-ed” them and their lives are threatened. However, TRUE THE VOTE has been sharing more and more clips on line and says more are coming but there is currently active conversations w/ local law enforcement. Sounds like….the dreaded “stay tuned”

    SA: Interviews with two whistleblowers, including one “mule” said to be cooperating with authorities, were used with limited effectiveness. They raised more questions than providing answers, and left viewers wanting more information.
    Answer – I have heard Dinesh mention this was made to get the ball rolling or force law enforcement officials to do what they are to do…..start tracking down, interviewing, gathering info. squeeze the mules, which tattle on the bosses which narc on bigger bosses ect. More info is to be provided by honest law officers.

    SA: great deal about the mechanics of the alleged fraud was left to the imagination. Who signed the payment checks— or were mules paid in cash? What were the names of the nonprofits the filmmakers knew about— or why are the names not suitable for publication? How were mules recruited? Have they done this before?
    ANSWER – may be wrong but, again how much the legal team at salem advised to divulge. I am sure there are answers that a man w/ a badge needs to apply pressure to the names, numbers, and addresses of “non profits”.

    Thanks Sharyl

    1. I also want to thank Sharyl as well. Great job. N stevens. I wonder if Zucker bucks were used for these non profits.

  16. THE MAN IN THE VIDEO FROM GWINNETT WAS INVESTIGATED AND CLEARED BY GA AND YET YOU INCLUDED HIM IN THE ARTICLE- THAT IS CALLED LIBEL-a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.


    1. As you point out, this movie doesn’t present a single shred of evidence. But I believe that producing evidence is not really the intent. The intent is just to take a few random pieces of information that could have any number of possible explanations and spin it into some massive conspiracy theory. It doesn’t matter if the story holds together logically or not. All that is required is that “it could be true”. That keeps the narrative about the many “questions” about the election that SA (and others) like to make reference to so much (without any mention of the clear bias on the side raising of those “questions” or any mention of the sorry record of that side when called upon to produce actual evidence). It’s journalism by innuendo. And, of course, if no evidence is ever produced, it’s not because there isn’t any. It’s because the MSM or the DOJ aren’t doing their investigative jobs. SA bemoans the lack of investigative zeal in today’s MSM. Perhaps that’s true, but it seems doubtful. But I can remember a time when the journalistic bar was high enough that this kind of conjecture and nonsense would (perhaps) be relegated to the newsstand at the grocery store checkout lines. Right next to the alien abduction stories (which, of course, “could be true” as well).
      But I’m not interested in anyone getting sued. I’m only interested in getting something approaching an even-handed, aka nonpartisan, telling of the tale. That’s not what we have here.

      1. They don’t present a single shred of evidence, they DO present a massive pile of evidence. The very same type of evidence law enforcement and our intelligence agencies use.

        The very same type of evidence that the FBI used to arrest anyone who was near the Capitol building on Jan 6th, even without any evidence that those people did anything other than walk around

        What Democrats call “conspiracy theories” Americans call facts and evidence.

        They presented the cell phone tracking data and then tied the cell phone data at the time and place of a drop box with actual video footage of someone stuffing the drop box

  18. A few quick comments:
    1) I have not seen this movie but I have read six reviews of it now (all by people I trust way more than SA), and they all say basically the same thing. This is all just conjecture and “it could be”. There is nothing approaching evidence (and if you think that there is evidence, ask yourself why D’Souza would charge people money to see it – wouldn’t a patriotic American just put it out there for free to let everyone see it? Wouldn’t Trump be willing to reimburse the film’s makers since he claims that they vindicated his position – OK, bad example. Even Fox hasn’t taken time out from flogging the “Great Replacement Theory” to publicize this movie – much to Trump’s consternation reportedly.). Even Ben Shapiro said this: “I think the conclusion of the film is not justified by the premises of the film itself”. What we do have is what we have always had with voter fraud conspiracy theories – a few random things that look suspicious to some but have many possible benign, more logical explanations. But since one possible explanation is that they point to voter fraud, those on that side say “well, that proves it”. So it was with the “mysterious” van delivering ballots at 3:30 in the morning to a Detroit vote counting center. Sure it could have been delivering fraudulent ballots. But that isn’t at all likely given that the head of elections in Wayne County publicly announced the delivery of the final ballots while the van was still at the counting center. But when that article was published in this newsletter, many responded that this was proof of fraud. Once again, the burden falls on those not believing in fraud to prove there was none (something that can’t be done) instead of the normal way things are done – you make an accusation, and you are the one expected to provide evidence.
    2) As even SA has admitted, there is nothing in this movie which ties anyone to massive voter fraud. What we have is people who happened to walk near ballot drop boxes (which by design are located in heavily trafficked areas). There is no tie to any particular organization that is supposedly behind this scheme. There is no paper trail for how these folks were paid. The people aren’t even identified. What if some of those people just happened to live or work nearby?
    3) The cell companies have said that using their geotracking data gets you in the vicinity of your actual location, but it isn’t exact enough to show that you were actually standing right next to a ballot drop box (and you’d have to be pretty close to one to put the ballots in).
    4) And here’s the kicker (from the Atlanta Journal Constitution): “Even if there were a ballot harvesting scheme, it wouldn’t invalidate legitimate ballots just because they were turned in by unauthorized individuals. Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered”. In other words, the only people who were possibly committing crimes were those who MIGHT have been harvesting ballots. The ballots themselves are fine (and, of course, they went through the same vetting process that every mail-in ballot did). I wonder why we didn’t read that in this newsletter?
    5) Most of SA’s write-up is laughably one-sided. We are told that the election was suspicious because, among other things, that “polls were wrong”. Well, they were big-time wrong in 2016 as well. Should we go back and litigate that election (it’s always been amusing/maddening to me that Trump did much better than expected in both 2016 and 2020, yet somehow his votes were pristine and pure when those for Clinton and Biden are soiled in some fashion even though they didn’t do nearly as well as expected – but I guess it’s the same mentality that the elections in states that Trump won were conducted perfectly while the states that he lost is where the monkey business was conducted)? We are told (again) about the flood in Georgia even though that was investigated and found to be nothing. We are told that “there was evidence of widespread fraud” which is interesting because none of that evidence has ever been produced (although, to be fair, it’s possible that SA’s definition of “widespread” might be “geographically widespread” as there have been a few cases of fraud found in many states spread throughout the country). We get quotes from Charlie Kirk, Larry Elder, and Sebastian Gorka but none from the rational side of the universe (yet somehow the “predominantly left-leaning establishment news media” appears to be at fault because they aren’t taking this seriously enough). We are told that a judge wouldn’t hear a case because the “evidence” was presented a day late, but we are not told about the many, many cases that were heard and thrown out for lack of evidence. But worst of all is the insinuation that charges of election fraud haven’t been investigated ad nauseam. Multiple states have conducted multiple audits, recounts, and deep dives and all have reached the same conclusion – no (widespread) fraud. The deck was stacked on the pro-fraud side as much as humanly possible in the Arizona audit, and even they admitted that Biden won. Tell me about any other election that has received anything close to this level of scrutiny. Yet not only do we not read about the results of those investigations in this newsletter, we are left with the impression that those investigations never took place at all. That’s just wrong.
    6) Does anyone really believe that D’Souza, et. al., really did an honest evaluation of this issue, that they didn’t go into this “knowing” that there was fraud and so they had to interpret everything that they found in that light, that they didn’t reach an already-reached conclusion? I sure don’t.
    7) Here’s a comment from Benjamin Ginsberg on election fraud that I stumbled upon the other day:
    “I spent 38 years doing Election Day operations for Republican party committees and candidates, so I have watched polls and done sort of roving squads, encompassing many precincts on Election Day. I’ve done the nationwide boiler rooms. And we’re always vigilant. We always tried to find that. The truth was we never did. And you have to be honest about the evidence, which is why I took exception to what Donald Trump was saying. But it points up a fact that there needs to be a lot of educating about the election system and the safeguards in it. The truth is you could not possibly commit fraud in the way that they’re saying, on a nationwide basis or even on a statewide basis. It would require an unbelievable number of people keeping a secret, which goodness knows we never do in this country about anything, let alone about stealing an election.”

  19. Stephen Triesch

    “2000 Mules illustrates how complicated a voter fraud investigation can be, and how much time it can take to gather evidence and proof.”

    Yep. It’s far easier for lazy, partisan “journalists” just to declare everything a “conspiracy theory.”

  20. Stephen Triesch

    In today’s (5/27) election news, two of the top Republican candidates for governor of Michigan might be dropped from the ballot because thousands of signatures on their eligibility petitions have been deemed invalid. This is extremely suspicious and suggests deliberate fraud by the canvassing agency. Thirty-two canvassers, not just one or two, submitted thousands of invalid signatures. This suggests either deliberate, organized fraud or a complete failure to hire reliable people for this critical task.

    1. Interestingly enough Democrat petition workers managed to get the only black candidate and 50% of the female candidates excluded from the primary election. So much for the Democrats being “inclusive”.

  21. It’s my understanding that two criminal investigations have been started based on information shown in 2000 Mules, we’ll see. I also read yesterday, 5/28/22 that they have found one or some of the names of the people behind the scam and I guess we’ll find out soon if that’s true or not. Do you remember when Trump became President? One of the first things he did was try and set up an election investigation department, or whatever they were calling it. Neither side wanted that. It was shot down and he and America were told to just move on. What conclusion do you draw? I can think of only one.

  22. Someone WhoKnows

    I watched the movie. A movie can only do so much. It’s up to law enforcement to do the rest. The movie opened the can of worms. It’s up to elected officials and law enforcement to pull the worms out and see just what they were up to. But in my opinion. it’s “case closed.” There was more than enough evidence to warrant a 100% nationwide investigation.

    Also, I can tell you from first hand experience… it took 4 years and more than one movie to get congressional hearings on what happened at Waco, Texas. Nearly 100 people died there including dozens of children. These things take time, but what I learned from that experience is, never give up. NEVER.

  23. I watched and enjoyed the documentary, very enlightening.

    I wish they would have included the addresses of the non-profits as well as where the mules spent a good amount of their non-fraud time (presumably their homes).

    The movie did a good job but I would have like to see it go further.

  24. Amazing how even with detailed proof of voter fraud that proves the election was filled with the need for a thorough investigation by our government the cheaters still seem to have government agencies refusing to even question the results? What harm can come from a full and thorough investigation if there was no criminal activity that effected the outcome?

  25. I’m a little late commenting on this to this due to using all my time trying to work as hard as I can to pay all the inflated prices at the pump, at the grocery store while I watch my 401K dwindle down the drain due to the current administration’s policies. That’s rich since I firmly believe that Donald Trump’s second term was stolen as outlined in the film.

    These two paragraphs in this article which struck me as not probably the best example of a comparison:

    “Attorney Larry Elder adds, “This is a smoking gun. This is OJ Simpson being seen leaving the scene of the crime.”

    It seems significant to remember that a jury found OJ Simpson not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend…”

    The Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman murders going unpunished criminally was another glaring injustice. In my opinion, the jury simply ignored the evidence because they liked “The Juice” and employed the technique of jury nullification on the basis of emotion, siding with the BS from the defense team.

    In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law.

    Of course it is generally presumed OJ committed the crimes, but his defense attorneys use race and prior police conduct in other cases to create an excuse (for the jury) of getting their client off because he was likeable, he was African American and the police couldn’t be trusted. What a circus that was. At least OJ did have to 3,287 days in jail for trying to steal back his memorabilia.

    And what a circus Washington is now. What a bunch of incompetent rodeo clowns. God save us!

  26. In my opinion, most media and Google had a heavy hand in influencing the election in favor of Biden and the Democrats. They did the same for Hilary, but with that earlier election the media gave too much time to Trump which legitimized him; i.e. their efforts backfired in the same way Archie Bunker became a loved character despite his bad behavior.

    The second time around, the media made sure to put out as much negative press that they could on Trump in addition to burnishing Biden’s image. Although I think Trump was a terrible president who deserved a lot of what was dished out and unfit for the position, I think the partisan nature of the media was unfair to everyone involved. (I also have a very low opinion of Biden since his shoddy treatment of Anita Hill that resulted in Clarence Thomas’s confirmation to SCOTUS. Bet he regrets his actions, now. Frankly, I think Trump & Biden are two sides of the same coin – arrogant, ignorant, egotistical, biased, power-hungry, etc. )

    As to more overt fraudulent activity like ballot-box stuffing, it happens and may have happened on behalf of either candidate in this last election, but I doubt it made the difference. That said, I’ve not watched the movie, yet. I will.

  27. The left did a little more than call us conspiracy theorists. They called us Domestic Terrorists. Take a review of the Forensic Paper Audit for Arizona completed by Jovan H. Pulitzer which was aired on RSBN last night. The mules were only part of the cheating that took place. Jovan’s numbers prove it. Liz Harris’s Canvas project backed up the numbers Jovan has. It is irrefutable evidence and we HAVE the Ballots! The rest of the States need to push as hard as possible as much as possible to obtain a stay on their ballot destruction which is to happen September 4th.

  28. I saw the movie and was convinced that enough fraud occurred to swing the election. Naysayers just can’t believe our system of governance has Banana Republic attributes that are actually occurring. By the time enough people wake up our goose may be cooked. The USA must be neutered for world government to be the new paradigm. Arriving very soon with digital currency and social governance scores. The problem is bigger than any of us regular people can possibly imagine.

  29. Republicans/Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for allowing the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election to be what it was.

    We got outworked. We got outsmarted. We got played. Of course there was fraud in these Democratic precincts. How do we know this? Just listen to Democrats for the past 20 years talk about election fraud since Gore lost to Bush in 2000. Democrats finally woke up and decided to use Republican laziness against them and win, baby, win and damn the rules regarding chain of custody and all the election laws that were cast aside by State Governors and Secretaries of State,

    We watched the Trump show from our couches while Democrats were volunteering to be poll workers in both in person and mail ballot centers, they were community organizers, poll observers, mules, whatever.

    They put their money into action to fund their cause to defeat Trump. They parlayed COVID to mobilize the fraud riddled mail ballot process over the far more secure in person system.

    Guess what? It’s happening all over again this year.

    How many reading all of this are actually volunteering to observe and monitor drop boxes (which are still being used in Democratic precincts)?

    How many are volunteering to be election workers and observers?

    My guess is probably .0001% of registered Republican voters are actually volunteering in any of those capacities.

    Contact your local Supervisor of Elections office and volunteer to be an election worker. Contact your local Republican Party and volunteer. Just voting is not enough.

  30. Thank you for this fair, even-handed summary. You are one of the few journalists who does not have a perceptible agenda.. Most are partisans, and heavily, they tilt left.

    The other problem which neither 2000 Mules nor any journalist or public official has addressed is that the Constitution specifies that electors shall be chosen “in the manner prescribed by the Legislature.” In at least five states, they were chosen in some other manner than that prescribed by the Legislature and should therefore have been excluded.

  31. Agree, a Part Two sequel is still needed:
    1. Identity of the stash houses
    2. Funding for the ballot harvesting scheme.

    Did they intend this to be a drip ,drip, drip to squeeze out confessions and/or patterns of rebuttal which in turn makes a stronger case when there is a later reveal exposing the information missing on both these two lingering points.

    Also agree, tracking the same person going to the multiple boxes, as shown on surveillance video, would also make a stronger case. But again, this refinement might be saved for Part Two.

    Heck of a good start. Since ballot harvesting is legal in California, we are already jaded how much this is already abused, mainly by public sector unions, including those who work in county election offices, since they have an immediately, direct and existential self-interest in election outcomes.

    A massive conflict of interests that must be cured. Public sector unions want to sit on both sides of the collective bargaining table which makes them “care” about election outcomes even more than mere tax paying citizens.

Scroll to Top