Documentary Proves Rampant Illegal Vote Trafficking in 2020

[Stryder50]

Filmmaker: Documentary Proves Rampant Illegal Vote Trafficking in 2020​

...
Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza believes that evidence presented in his new documentary, “2000 Mules,” proves that large-scale, illegal vote trafficking occurred in the 2020 election.

D’Souza told The Epoch Times: “2000 Mules will settle the issue beyond a shadow of a doubt by using two powerful, independent modes of investigation. The evidence is so conclusive, so decisive, that it leaves nothing to argue about.”

The film opens in 300 theaters on May 2 and May 4.

D’Souza, who is a contributor to The Epoch Times, said an investigative team used cellphone tracking and video footage to prove that unauthorized intermediaries called “mules” collected thousands of absentee ballots from voters and deposited them in drop boxes for money, which is illegal in all 50 states.

Cellphones emit a unique and identifiable signal or “ping.” Trillions of pings were analyzed by investigators to reconstruct the movements of thousands of mules as they went about their work in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election, the documentary claims.

“Who would have ever thought that investigators could look back in time and discover such things?” D’Souza said.
...
Investigators also sifted through millions of minutes of video surveillance footage and were able to capture on tape numerous mules stuffing absentee ballot drop boxes, D’Souza said. The videos show the mules taking selfies of themselves as proof of services rendered to their employers in order to be paid, he said.
...

Filmmaker: Documentary Proves Rampant Illegal Vote Trafficking in 2020

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[johngaltshrugged]

They've got numerous videos from many states of this happening. In Georgia, they traced the mules back to a Stacey Abrams office.
The scam was huge & coordinated across multiple state lines.
Can you say RICO? Apparently our corrupt DOJ can't

Report: Ballot Harvesters in Georgia Stopped at Democrat Offices In between Runs to Drop Boxes During 2020 Election

During the 2020 election, ballot traffickers in Georgia allegedly stopped at Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams’ headquarters, and at least

noqreport.com

 

[BULLDOG]

He said each of his previous movies proved the election was stolen too. It's just something he says, without credible proof. You think the next one will be any different?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Filmmaker: Documentary Proves Rampant Illegal Vote Trafficking in 2020​

...
Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza believes that evidence presented in his new documentary, “2000 Mules,” proves that large-scale, illegal vote trafficking occurred in the 2020 election.

D’Souza told The Epoch Times: “2000 Mules will settle the issue beyond a shadow of a doubt by using two powerful, independent modes of investigation. The evidence is so conclusive, so decisive, that it leaves nothing to argue about.”

The film opens in 300 theaters on May 2 and May 4.

D’Souza, who is a contributor to The Epoch Times, said an investigative team used cellphone tracking and video footage to prove that unauthorized intermediaries called “mules” collected thousands of absentee ballots from voters and deposited them in drop boxes for money, which is illegal in all 50 states.

Cellphones emit a unique and identifiable signal or “ping.” Trillions of pings were analyzed by investigators to reconstruct the movements of thousands of mules as they went about their work in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election, the documentary claims.

“Who would have ever thought that investigators could look back in time and discover such things?” D’Souza said.
...
Investigators also sifted through millions of minutes of video surveillance footage and were able to capture on tape numerous mules stuffing absentee ballot drop boxes, D’Souza said. The videos show the mules taking selfies of themselves as proof of services rendered to their employers in order to be paid, he said.
...

Filmmaker: Documentary Proves Rampant Illegal Vote Trafficking in 2020

www.theepochtimes.com

A while back, we took the kids into Manhattan to see D'Souza' film about Hillary.....

Perhaps we'll do so again for this one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

He said each of his previous movies proved the election was stolen too. It's just something he says, without credible proof. You think the next one will be any different?

But there is proof.

Undeniable absolutely documented proof.



The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.






Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law





Can you find any thing here not true?

 

[BULLDOG]

But there is proof.

Undeniable absolutely documented proof.



The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.






Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law





Can you find any thing here not true?

Not being a constitutional scholar, I won't presume to know more than actual constitutional scholars, or of the justices on the many federal courts, and certainly not more that the members of the Supreme Court. who are charged with interpreting the constiturion, and our laws to make sure they align. Are you saying there was a massive conspiracy by all our judges to strip Trump of his presidency? Are they all guilty of joining forces to break the law and steal the presidency? That sounds like what you are saying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not being a constitutional scholar, I won't presume to know more than actual constitutional scholars, or of the justices on the many federal courts, and certainly not more that the members of the Supreme Court. who are charged with interpreting the constiturion, and our laws to make sure they align. Are you saying there was a massive conspiracy by all our judges to strip Trump of his presidency? Are they all guilty of joining forces to break the law and steal the presidency? That sounds like what you are saying.

I provided the proof in English, low-life.

No 'interpretation' is necessary.

On that basis no 'constitutional scholar' is necessary.....merely one who reads the language....and.....is honest.


You remain the sort of scummy liar one need be to vote Democrat.

 

[candycorn]

D’Souza, who is a contributor to The Epoch Times,

lol

 

[BULLDOG]

I provided the proof in English, low-life.

No 'interpretation' is necessary.

On that basis no 'constitutional scholar' is necessary.....merely one who reads the language....and.....is honest.


You remain the sort of scummy liar one need be to vote Democrat.

OK. Do you want to tell the SC they aren't needed any more, or do you want me to?

 

[Stryder50]

lol

Epoch Times is blatant leftwing bias common to most of the MSM. Comes closer to honest truth they the 'Deep Swamp' media do.

 

[Lastamender]

He said each of his previous movies proved the election was stolen too. It's just something he says, without credible proof. You think the next one will be any different?

There is credible proof. The same technology our FBI relies on was used. Game over. The election was stolen.

 

[Lastamender]

This film uncovers a massive conspiracy, not the kind the mods who moved this were counting on. The election was stolen by buying votes and paying people to stuff ballot boxes. It has now been proven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK. Do you want to tell the SC they aren't needed any more, or do you want me to?

The Supreme Court isn't. It is a fraud and a scam.


The proof is that they wouldn't hear the election case which, as I proved, was clearly unconstitutional.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

 

[Lastamender]

Have the Mod or moderators who moved this thread seen the documentary? How do they know it is a conspiracy until they see the actual film? This is bias that effects this country and the truth. Put on your thinking caps because you are losing credibility at a startling rate.

In my book you have 0 credibility.

 

[BULLDOG]

Epoch Times is blatant leftwing bias common to most of the MSM. Comes closer to honest truth they the 'Deep Swamp' media do.

Epoch Times is leftwing? Ae you sure about that?

 

[BULLDOG]

There is credible proof. The same technology our FBI relies on was used. Game over. The election was stolen.

Great. Where is that credible proof? So far, he's only repeated common conspiracy theories that have been discredited dozens of times.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Supreme Court isn't. It is a fraud and a scam.


The proof is that they wouldn't hear the election case which, as I proved, was clearly unconstitutional.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

When did you first realize you hate our constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When did you first realize you hate our constitution?

Scummy low-lives like you, try to hide from the beating I administered by making up this sort of lie.


As I just proved, the Constituion clearly states that the states that altered voting by courts made their outcomes illegitimate.



This:

Just because a series of corrupt courts.....including the 'supreme' one.....wouldn't hear the evidence doesn't mean there wasn't clear and dispositive evidence.



I can provide it.



The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.






Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

 

[Stryder50]

Epoch Times is leftwing? Ae you sure about that?

TYPO!
Don't rush and fail to spell check - lesson reminded.
Was supposed to be "isn't leftwing".

 

[candycorn]

Epoch Times is blatant leftwing bias common to most of the MSM. Comes closer to honest truth they the 'Deep Swamp' media do.

Ahh, so this movie is a comedy?