But one of the 2,000 alleged mules says he wasn’t stuffing ballot boxes all over Black areas of Atlanta, but merely depositing votes from his wife and children in a drop box, which is perfectly legal.
If that turns out to be true, he'll have my sympathy. I'll say that the filmmakers should have been more careful about putting an innocent voter in their movie about election fraudsters.
If his story checks out.
He has no legal case, because the first amendment clearly would cover a case of a journalist covering a person voting in public. What is the basis for a claim to remove the film makers' basic freedom? But, I'd agree that he was done wrong.
If his story is true.
But how many times have we drilled down into these anti-Trump and anti-Trump lawsuits and found them to be intellectually vapid, and based on false claims?
A guy collects ballots not only from his wife, but from his "children" as well? Not saying it could not happen, but it seems awfully weird that a father does that for his voting age young adults. Why rob them of the opportunity to personally participate?
My guess is one of three scenarios:
1) He truly was a "mule" dropping off many "harvested" ballots. Seems most likely, because why use a guy who would appear innocent only dropping off three to maybe six ballots at the most?
2) He was indeed dropping off ballots that were his wife and grown children's, but it was either without their knowledge or they let him have them to humor him since they weren't planning to vote anyway. Not hard to steal ballots from one's own mailbox.
or
3) He was not in the movie at all, but was selected due to resembling one of the ballot droppers and vetted for a clean record before the lawsuit proceeded. Anyone can file a lawsuit, no proof is required of anything, but it gets you in the news.
That last is the least likely given the Democrats laziness in vetting people like Letitia James and Fani Willis.
www.factcheck.org
