QAA Podcast - Episode 189: 2000 Mules Trampling Dinesh D'Souza

Episode Date: May 19, 2022

2020 voter fraud conspiracy theories rebooted and remixed by Dinesh D'Souza. 2000 Mules is a "documentary" that garnered Dinesh praise from Donald Trump and caused a fight with Tucker Carlson's production team. We explore the extremely shoddy claims made in the movie. Subscribe for $5 a month to get an extra episode of QAA every week + access to Trickle Down, the ongoing miniseries by Travis View: http://www.patreon.com/QAnonAnonymous QAA Merch / Join the Discord Community / Find the Lost Episodes / Etc: https://qanonanonymous.com Episode music by ATM. Editing by Corey Klotz.

What's up QAA listeners? The fun games have begun. I found a way to connect to the internet. I'm sorry, boy. Welcome listener to chapter 189 of the Q&N anonymous podcast, the 2000 Mules episode. As always, we are your host, Jake Rakatansky, Julian Fields, and Travis View. Folks, it looks like our 45th president is. back on social media.

That's right, Trump is finally posting on Truth Social, his own platform, which launched without much of that from him. But over the last few days, he's really been picking it up. You know, he called someone the little weasel. He weighed in on Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. He defended Madison Cawthorne. And maybe in a way, it is the 2000 Mule's Dinesh DeSuzza movie that is getting him so excited.

So here's what he posted a couple days ago. Fox News is no longer a Fox News. They won't even show or discuss the greatest and most impactful documentary of our time. 2,000 mules. The radical left Democrats are thrilled. They don't want the truth to get out. Depressing to watch what has happened to Fox. CNN should go conservative and take over the greatest, strongest, and most powerful base in U.S. history.

Nobody is watching CNN's fake news now, so on. as I say, what the hell have they got to lose? Sadly, they're too stupid to make the change. Too misspelled, of course, while he calls someone else stupid. He's back, folks. What is there to say? He's fucking back. DeSuzza at the time was having a text message fight with Tucker's producer, Justin Wells,

and Dinesh decided to post that to Twitter. So here's some of the conversation, and honestly, props to Wells, who started off strong by misspelling Dinesh. Dinnish, Justin Wells here, VP and EP of everything in the Tucker world. I just want you to know that I slash we won't forget your little stunt today. If you want to decide how much time to give content on the most watched show in America, then I suggest you produce one in the future. You fucked over an important show and ally that was trying to do you as solid.

Don't ever bother working on anything with us in the future and never try to bully my team again. Today's move was short-sighted and dumb. Good luck with everything in the future. Justin, I told Alex in advance that we were offering the trailer as a single piece. I made it clear we did not want to cut. So there were no surprises here, no stunt. You guys want to take our content that we produce at considerable expense and effort, cut out all reference to the film and run with it as your story.

That doesn't strike me as very fair or decent, even if you do have, quote, the most watched show in America. I simply told Alex, we will try and place it elsewhere because our original terms were unacceptable to you. Obviously, this fight was boring and pedantic and long, but Justin did cap it off by calling Dinesh an asshole and then comparing his movie to Titanic. I suspect that today's show cut the Titanic trailer

when they had Leo and Ked on back in 1996. Who are you to create bogus terms on length of promotional content when we're trying to help you out? Pathetic. There is nothing reasonable about your position. It's moronic. So this pissed off Dinesh real good who went on a rant about being a regular Fox Gats,

appearing on the network almost every week for a couple of years. He demanded an apology from Tucker and Justin. And apparently, I guess he got one, so here's what he tweeted. I had a very nice conversation with Tucker Carlson today. He assured me that he had nothing to do with the text that were sent to me. We have mended fences and are all good. We both agreed it's time to focus our energies on defeating the left and helping to save the country. Now, I think it's really interesting that this guy is claiming to present evidence of massive election fraud,

That mass, a huge historical scandal, but he can't help himself and just devolve into bullshit behind the scenes drama about who gets media airtime. Oh, for sure. Yeah. And I mean, honestly, even if Tucker called you to like smooth over this fucking bump, believe me, Dinesh, you're not going to be on Fox much. No, no, no. Like this is, you did probably do exactly what that guy mentioned. And I'm with Wells, Mr. Danish. So peace had been restored in the land.

And Trump was free to then go back to. promoting the documentary on Truth Social without complaining about Fox. Anybody that sees the great new documentary 2000 Mules who doesn't believe the 2020 election was rigged and stolen is either a fool, very corrupt, or stupid. Republican leadership should act now and do something. Our country is going to hell. So this is very entertaining, obviously, but I'm assuming that this very dumb movie making waves with the Trump loyalists is, um, it contains,

at least, scenes that are strung together with music. There's words probably. So for that kind of deep analysis, we're turning to Travis. Yeah, so there have been, you know, lots of different explanations about how this supposed election fraud scheme happened over the many months since the election. There was the hammer and scorecard explanation. I believe there was a secret computer program that changed the votes. There was the whole Dominion voting thing where, like, you know, operatives from Venezuela secretly

conspired to change the votes. There were, you know, explanations about bags of ballots that supposedly went, you know, to these ballot-calling centers and spawned dozens of lawsuits that all went nowhere, but we're ready now for a new fresh explanation because all the old ones are, you know, boring. We need some fresh material. And so this newest explanation of how Biden supposedly stole the election is what they call ballot trafficking or illegally collecting ballots and then depositing them at Dropboxes for pay. 2000 Mules sources these allegations from the Texas-based non-profit called True the Vote. And before we get into the meat of the film, I think it's worth talking about the background of True the Vote, so we understand exactly what we're dealing with.

True The Vote was founded by Catherine Englebrecht, who appears in the film. It was founded in 2009 and grew out of the Tea Party group King Street Patriots. The name True The Vote is pretty strange, but I think it's a play. on Rock the Vote. The group has spent the last 13 years looking for evidence of massive election-changing fraud, but their efforts have resulted in a lot of controversy, but not a lot of solid evidence. One of the very first projects by True the Vote involved examining voter registrations in the congressional district represented by Sheila Jackson Lee. Volunteers spent five months analyzing 3,800 registrations in Lee's district, discovering more than 500 voters

that the group said were problematic. In one instance, more than 200 voters were registered at vacant lots. Now, these sorts of claims were investigated by Douglas Ray, the Harris County Assistant Attorney who represents the election registrar. Unsurprisingly, there wasn't any substance to the claim that these 200 registrations were part of an election fraud plot. In one instance, according to Ray, eight or ten people who were registered at a vacant lot because it was a home that had been torn down and the former residence had simply moved

and didn't update their voter registration address. So this seems to be a pattern of True the Vote's tactics. They pour through a lot of data and they try to find something that they think is suspicious, but when their claims are more closely scrutinized, nothing nefarious is actually discovered. Volunteers with True the Vote have also repeatedly been accused of voter intimidation,

especially when they volunteer as poll watchers. A 2010 blog post from the Houston Press describes one incident in which a True The Vote volunteer here was accused of standing too close to voters. In one of the Monday incidents, a female poll watcher at the Kashmir Multi-Service Center felt it was necessary and acceptable to stand directly behind voters while they entered their votes, in a manner described as, quote, hovering. When the election judge requested that the overzealous woman back away from the voter,

her response was, quote, I have the right to stand wherever I want. Directly over a removed manhole. She's making the sound of the, The carrot guy who inspects the presence in To-Jam and Earl. She's just making different grunts as like the hand hovers over different stuff. Like, hmm. Now, the Department of Justice actually launched a probe of these alleged voter intimidation efforts, but this investigation apparently didn't move beyond interviewing witnesses.

In 2011, True the Vote also scrutinized the gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin. Thousands of True the Vote volunteers got involved through an initiative called verify the recall that sought to identify illegitimate signatures on a petition to remove Republican Governor Scott Walker from office. So volunteers helped to enter petition signatures into a database, which was then analyzed by the group's own software program. Of the 1 million signatures, True the vote said that approximately 63,000 were ineligible. 212,000 required further investigation and only 584,000 approximately were valid. The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which is a nonpartisan state regulatory agency consisting of six former state judge appointees, later discounted much of the group's findings and methodology.

The Accountability Board concluded that about 900,000 signatures were valid, and in reviewing their work, True the Votes work, they criticized the methods. For example, according to True the Votes methodology, a woman named Mary Lee Smith signed her name Mary L. Smith and was deemed ineligible. So you need to spell out your entire name according to True the Votes methodology. They also deemed a lot of signatures as out of state, which wasn't the case. True the vote software would not recognize abbreviations. So Wisconsin addresses like Stevens Point were flagged if the word point was abbreviated to PT, which is a common abbreviation. Doesn't make any sense. Signatures were also struck for a lack of a zip code, which wasn't necessary for these particular petitions.

So the report from the Wisconsin's governor accountability board, concluded this. The combination of the method of analysis verify the recall employed and the manner in which the data was collected and analyzed created results that were significantly less accurate, complete, and reliable than the review and analysis completed by the governor's accountability board. In addition, use of Verify the recall's methodology would not have been consistent with Wisconsin law and would have resulted in findings which would not have survived legal challenge. So this is another thing we see consistently with true the vote. Instead of adhering strictly to the election law, in the state, they come up with their own set of rules and decide that actually their guidelines are what matter. But of course, that doesn't really have any real material impact on how elections are run or ought to be run. So the recall election did move forward and Governor Scott Walker wound up prevailing. But during the recall election, conservative poll watchers associated with True the Vote and the city of Racine alleged fraud, including a claim that a busload of union members from Michigan had come to Wisconsin to vote illegally.

The Racine County Sheriff's Department determined that the accusation had been based on an anonymous call to a radio station. The Sheriff's Office issued a curt statement about the claim. There is no evidence this bus convoy existed or ever arrived in Racine County. The group also ran into controversy while attempting to monitor the elections in Ohio in 2012. That year, True The Vote applied to the Franklin County Board of Elections to place polling observers in the Columbus area districts with large populations of black people. State law allows groups of at least five candidates to assign poll observers, and the group originally had obtained signatures from a bipartisan group of six candidates for county office. However, most of the candidates who supported the organization's efforts withdrew their backing,

and there were charges made that the candidate's names had either been falsified or merely copied on forms requesting observer status for true-the-vote at several Franklin County polling places. As a consequence, true-the-vote observers were barred from Franklin County polling places. Board spokesman Ben Pisktele said this in a statement. The Franklin County Board of Elections did not allow Election Day polling location observer appointments filed by the True the Vote Group. The appointments were not properly filed and our voting location managers were instructed not to honor any appointment on behalf of the True The Vote group. Now, one person told the Elections Board that she attended a True The Vote training session and the observers were instructed to use cameras to intimidate voters when they entered the polling places, record their names on. tablet computers and then send them to a central location and then attempt to stop

questionably qualified voters before they could get to a voting machine. Now, these actions weren't carried out, but this sort of activity, if it was carried out, would have violated election law. So I guess the point is that this group's track record is pretty dismal. I think it's also worth mentioning that Dinesh D'Souza himself pleaded guilty to an election-related offense in 2014. He encouraged others to give $20,000 to a Senate candidate, and then reimburse them for the donations. Now, election law prohibits this kind of dealing, which is called using a straw donor

and caps donations at $5,000 per person. He eventually served time at a halfway house, but then was pardoned by President Trump. But not before he learned the ways of the street. Yes, right. He got on the inside, which made them into an even more hardened criminal. So this movie, 2000 Mules, about election crimes,

is made by a man who committed an election crime and features the work of people who failed to find substantial election crimes, despite years of looking. And like Julian mentioned, there has been some conservative media drama regarding the promotion of 2000 Mules. Dinesh couldn't get the movie promoted on either Newsmax or Fox News. In a podcast episode, Dinesh explains how Grant Stitchfield brushed him off. But the point to make is that this is a phenomenon. But we have done that with no help. I should say, no help from either Fox News or from Newsmax. So let's talk about Fox in a minute, but with Newsmax, it's kind of a pity.

I think these guys, they got a little burned because of the Dominion stuff. They've become so skittish about the topic. I was booked to go on Grant Stinchfield Show, and then literally hours later, canceled. We're not going to talk about the movie. And as far as I know, they still haven't. But I mean, Newsmax is a newsmax, so kind of who cares. You didn't break up with me. I broke up with you. You're mid. So in that same podcast episode, Dinesh talks about his spat with Tucker. And Tucker did have

Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote on the show in order to discuss the work. But she was instructed not to discuss 2,000 mules. And this understandably irked Dinesh. We want the message to get out. So you know what? Go on Tucker. I'm not, I don't want, I'm not asking you to boycott Tucker, not go on the show. Go on the show. But I mean, think of what a disgrace this is. And what a, what a, again, as Debbie is saying, we're not saying that that you want, you have to praise the movie, but you have a movie that has all this information and everyone is talking about it and you're telling your guests, don't mention the movie. There's a long story here with Tucker and maybe someday I don't know necessarily want to go into it today.

It's so funny that he went from that to like posting the entire text conversation and then following that up by tweeting at the CEO of Fox. Like, I'm sorry, but this is the kind of where they will handle you in the moment, but again, like I said earlier, I don't think Dinesh will be getting many spots on Fox anymore, unless he has some sort of fucked up blackmail on somebody, which, who knows? So let's talk about the film itself. So the movie opens with some revisionist history about January 6th. Dinesh claims that the rioters wanted officials to adjudicate claims of election fraud,

which, I don't know, seems a bit smoothing over their state intentions. But here's from the movie. Did the January 6 protesters go to D.C. to mount an insurrection? It wasn't an insurrection. It was a primal scream. To protect the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. They wanted their elected leaders to adjudicate the claims of election fraud. You know, I remember, I mean, from the clips I've seen,

And there was a lot of, like, shouting about, like, you know, wanting to hang Mike Pence. But I don't recall anyone any chance of adjudicate claims of election fraud. The primal scream of pedophiles! Yeah. Then the film transitions to a roundtable of a who's who of right-wing pundits who work for Salem Media. My podcast is sponsored by Salem Media, and I knew that other Salem hosts felt my frustration. Larry Elder. Dennis Prager.

Eric Metaxus, Sebastian Gorka, Charlie Kirk. Wow, this is a lineup of a Jake story. Yeah, this is an AM 870 Coachella. No outhouses. So these hosts have a discussion about whether they believe the election was stolen. And Dennis Prager seems to play the role of the skeptic who was convinced. Everyone else is already on board, though. And they basically all agree, though, that, of course, Dems, they would do anything to get rid of Orange Hitler.

This man is so loathe. I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to do virtually anything to make sure he doesn't get another four years. If I believed the president were a Nazi, I might steal an election. If we were Germans in the 1930s, we'd steal the election from Hitler if we could. If I'm that indoctrinated, of course I can justify it. Sounds to me like kind of like a good cop technique. Like, you know, the cop has a suspect in an interrogation room and says like, listen, you know, everyone flies off the handle once in a while.

We know what you did. Just confess. Confess and it'll be easier for everyone. But Gorka knows how to dick ride better than any of them. He is, he is dick ride or die. So to sort of collect this evidence of the election fraud that Nesh assumes happened, he calls Catherine Engelbrecht in a totally spontaneous, unprompted, unscripted phone call. Hey, Ganesh, how are you? Hey, I'm doing fine.

Hey, listen. I'm here with Debbie. Hey, Catherine. Hey, Debbie. You know how crazy it is out there. Have you guys been digging into this whole issue of voter fraud? Well, we had been working on something big. It's probably best we don't discuss it over the phone, but can we meet?

I've been working with Greg Phillips. I don't know if I've ever introduced him to you, but he has a deep background in election intelligence. He's worked projects all over the world. all over the world is a massive 30-year experience. We decided to test a hypothesis, and we went really big. And now, we have something that we think you're going to really want to see. So I'll send you to address separately. I'm just so glad somebody bought the set for the final scenes of Breaking Bad, the Meth Factory,

and converted it into a voter fraud factory. Yeah, they have like this situation room where it's like this like lots of like monders and this looks like it's some warehouse and some in the middle of nowhere that they sit down and try to suss out this election fraud. So we're also introduced to Greg Phillips who describes himself as an expert on election intelligence. Now Phillips made a name for himself during the Trump administration for claiming that there were three million illegal votes in the 2016 election. So he also contends that the election that Trump won was also rife with fraud. But before that, he had a long career in state governments during which he was repeatedly accused of corruption. In 1993, Governor Fortis, a Mississippi's first Republican governor, nominated Phillips to head the Mississippi Department of Human Services. In 1994, many lawmakers became angry when Phillips signed a contract with a Virginia-based private company to privatize child support collection in two counties.

After resigning a year later, he came under fire when the Mississippi Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review accused him of a likely conflict of interest by working for a company that had received an $878,000 contract from the agency. So a week after Phillips left the agency in 1995, he was hired by this company called Cynesis Corp, which is a division of CENTAC Learning, and Cintac had a contract to lease mobile learning labs to the University of Mississippi. So just, you know, I guess it's like the routine kind of normal kind of like corruption where you like, you know, do a favor for a company and they hire you right after you get out of government. In 2005, Phillips came under fire again when the Houston Chronicle linked him to private deals while he was serving as deputy commissioner for Texas's health and human services. According to the Chronicle, a company operated by a private consultant named Chris Britton joined with one founded by Phillips to get a $670,000 state. contract in January 2004 from the Workforce Commission, which is a state agency run by one of Phillips' long-time friends. Britain Phillips primarily drafted the bill that allowed for this deal during the 2003 legislative session in Texas, according to the newspaper. Here's what the Houston

Chronicle wrote. When former Mississippi official and Texas Deputy Health and Human Services Commissioner Greg Phillips and private consultant Chris Britton helped write the $1 billion legislation to privatize Texas's human services system, they apparently did so partly with an eye on profit, their own. Now, like I said, Phillips had claimed that there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election, and during a 2017 interview with the CNN program New Day, he explained why he couldn't release the information that supposedly proved this. You said, we know that 3 million illegally voted.

Right. You did that already. We didn't name a soldier. We didn't name a person. And you still haven't. But we will. Do you have the proof? Yes.

Will you provide it? Yes. Can I have it? No. Why? We're not, we're, we're, we're going to release everything to the public. When? As soon as we get done with the checks.

Why did CNN even let this guy on? They're like, do you want to come on our, he's like, I've got proof that three million, there are three million illegal votes. And they're like, cool, are you going to say that proof on the show? And he's like, no, I cannot. They're like, you know what? You come on anyways. So I think they had them on because he was being promoted by Trump himself, even back in 2017.

So his claims were getting a lot of traction. I guess they wanted to kind of examine the source of these sorts of claims. And needless to say, this claim of 3 million illegal votes was never proven. But, yeah, Phillips has since moved on and made additional claims about the most recent election. So for 2,000 mules, Greg Phillips zeroed in on a particular election practice, which is ballot collection. So ballot collection is where a person who is not the voter transports a ballot to the voting location. Now, restrictions as to who this person may be apply in many states. Some states only allow family members or caregivers to return ballots.

According to the University of Washington's Center for informed public, some level of ballot collection is allowed or not expressly prohibited in all states except for Alabama. Now, in states where third parties may return votes for the voter, the practice of collecting ballots in this manner has been referred to pejorative. as ballot harvesting. So this is a term which, I don't know, applies a level of scheming or manipulation. But Greg Phillips is attempting to show evidence

of an even more nefarious version of this practice what he calls ballot trafficking. And this is, according to them, when people are paid to collect ballots with Catherine Engelbright correctly states is not a legal practice. Strangely, there's really no evidence offered in the film of a paid ballot harvesting scheme.

But here's how they say that this scheme works. Sometimes the schemes are a little bit different. Sometimes it's people out banging on doors, gathering ballots. Sometimes the ballots are sent here, gathered here, deposited there. But the trafficking itself is always the same basic pattern. There's a non-profit involved somewhere in the middle. There are people that are either collecting those ballots on the one hand or depositing those ballots on the other and getting paid for it. In no case is it is acceptable to be paid for your ballot or to accept some form of remuneration for your ballot and in no way in no time is that legal you know it's so funny watching these clips from this stock denesh is he's so

I think maybe maybe it's obvious to a lot of people but what he does and it's so fucking dumb is instead of making the documentary where you're showing the proof of these things it's always about denesh on the journey uncovering data it's always he's the main character of the documentary, and it's his journey listening to people's opinions, and it's framed as if, oh, this is, this is the proof of it, but all he's really doing is just gathering around a bunch of pilled people who already believe the premise of the documentary's, you know, hypothesis, and then just filming them talking about it as if that stands, you know, that stands in his actual proof.

Yeah, no, I think aesthetic is really his main focus with a lot of this stuff. Totally agree. If you look at the cover of the movie, if you look at what he does with motion graphics throughout, he wants to make it feel more than ever, more than any of his other movies, like a cool spy thriller where you're uncovering something by, you know, hacking the friggin matrix. Yeah, because essentially you just have this, like, you know, woman who's like, yeah, well, yeah, it's not okay to be paying for ballots. But then in the background, it's like, boom, like this spy music, it's like, that's like if you put spy music over like, you know, a woman complaining that you, like, your car is parked a little bit into her driveway. You know what I mean? It's like.

So how they propose to collect evidence of this ballot trafficking operation is through the use of geographical cell phone data, so GPS data. Apps on your phone can track your location and that information is then sold to data brokers. And then the data brokers can then sell it to whoever wants it. This data is supposedly anonymized so they can't identify you specifically your name. and who you are and where you were, but it's still very weird and creepy, but it is a real practice. So Greg Phillips explains in the film how he bought $2 million worth of this data. Now, you decided to purchase through these brokers that make this information available to companies,

they make it available all kinds of places to buy data. Let's talk about the methodology. You identify data in certain places, and by and large you focused on the states, where the election was decided, tell us what are the areas that you bought data for and what were you looking for? And what's the time period? October 1st through the election. In Georgia, we actually bought from October 1st through January 6th after the runoff. Unbelievable. This guy has got an iPad propped up in front of him with like a map open on it. In what other roundtable interview does one of the interviewees or one of the

talking heads on your panel have like an iPad propped? It's like they're trying to recreate some kind of budget version of like the minority report like, you know, screen readouts like to make it feel more like official like they're in the secret bunker and he's got his maps up. Which is funny because he's using the same graphics that are clearly part of the production of the movie. So they like when your interviewee is like collaborating with you to the point where you're like aestheticizing what shows up on his screen while he gives you the data, you know something's a little rotten in Denmark. Yeah, this is all your buddies, you got a lot of money, and you're getting together, and you're playing movie. You know what I mean? It's like, everybody's in on it. They're like, hey, oh, Dinesh, like, do you think, do you think it would be cool if I had kind of like a, I don't know, like a GPS map up on my, on my iPad, while we're having to discuss.

You know, you could have cool over-the-shoulder shots. They could see the map. You know, I could maybe put my finger on it, move it around, like, you know, look like Tom Cruise in Minority Report. It's going to be awesome. And Dinesh is like, oh, yeah, that sounds great. let's do that. Awesome. So here is their methodology for determining mules using this data. So if a cell phone went near a drop box more than 10 times and a nonprofit more than

five times from October 1st to Election Day, True the vote assumed that its owner was a ballot mule, someone who was like picking up ballots and illegally stuffing them into these ballot drop boxes. So I think an important question is like, so what are these nonprofit organizations which are purportedly engaged in this election fraud scheme. Now, true the vote, and nor does 2,000 mules, say, which is probably a smart move because when you don't specifically name an organization, they can't sue you for defamation.

Yeah, they learned over the Dominion, the Dominion fiasco. Honestly, Mike Lindell walked so they could run. Yeah. Of course, even relying upon this GPS data in this manner, I think reveals that one major flaw with their methodology, which is the assumption that the GPS data is so accurate that it can determine whether or not someone actually stepped in front of a drop box. It's just not that accurate.

But don't take my word for it. So here's what the website, GPS.gov, says about the accuracy of GPS smartphones. GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 meter or 16-foot radius under open sky. However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees. There are many of those. latter of which are plentiful. Well, I mean, of course, look, my ballot box in my neighborhood is next to the shoal, okay? So look, if you go to drop your ballot box, but then you're going to shoal every weekend, you're going to go to that, but you're going to step by that ballot box at least 20, 30 different times. So that's how you did your fraud. That's how I did my fraud. I went to shoal. I am a good boy. Just kidding. I don't go to shoal, but that's where my, that's where my, sorry, sorry grandparents, RIP. But that's I've seen him eat bacon, too, by the way. I do.

I do like bacon. But, I mean, right there is anecdotally just a simple reason, like, why this data set is completely unreliable. Ballot boxes are often by places that you go to, you know, frequently outside the, you know, outside the grocery store, outside your post office, you know, that sort of shit. If Jake went places, he'd have a better example to give you. If I left my house. So, yeah. So these drop boxes are usually. in high-trafficked areas, and in addition to that, the GPS is accurate within 16 feet in

ideal condition. So open sky, no buildings, no trees, no mountains anywhere near you. That's the accuracy. So my question is, I was curious, so how exactly are, you know, these kinds of GPS smartphones in sort of more typical conditions, like, you know, a place where there are lots of buildings and trees? Well, as it so happens, there's a 2019 study entitled Smartphone GPS Accuracy Study in an Urban environment. So it was published in plus one. Wow. Exactly answered your question. Yes, exactly.

Exactly what I was looking for. This pleases Travis to no end when he's got a question and there is a study that literally has the words to his question in the study. Well, I know how to use a search box in Google Scholar. It's amazing. So the researchers examined the accuracy of the iPhone 6 smartphone during two seasons of the year and two times of the day on the the University of Georgia campus. The study happened to take place in Georgia, which is one of the states where this 2000 mules says that a lot of, you know, their GPS data has had exposed selection from. So the campus was selected because there's a lot of buildings and trees that may affect GPS accuracy. The researchers designated five particular points on the campus and

then measured the accuracy of the GPS of the phone while traveling between two particular points. And for the purposes of the study, the person held the phone away from their body while traveling between the points, which is actually different than how phones are usually kept, like in a person's pocket. So that might actually also affect the accuracy. Oh, my God. So it seemed like a really well-designed study, and what they found was that the average horizontal position error was in the 7 to 13 meter range, or approximately 22 to 42.5 feet.

So the study compares this finding with other research on the same subject matter and calls it, quote, consistent with the general accuracy levels observed of recreation grade GPS receivers in potential high multi-path environments. So what this basically means that if you have cell phone GPS data alone, you can't determine if someone stepped right in front of the drop box. If your data shows them crossing paths with a drop box, then you can't rule out the possibility that they're actually 30 to 40 feet away from the drop box, which at the extreme ends could be, you know, across the street.

Dinesh is like, no, no, Travis. When people go to commit voter fraud, each and every one of them, one very strange characteristic, they all hold their cell phones two feet out in front of them while walking the last 40 meters to the ballot box. It's dark. They have their flashlight held out in front of them to see where the slot in the box is. therefore the data, perfect. I mean, he has video of people going to these boxes, so no, they weren't holding their phone

out like that. Oh. So, I mean, I saw some, like, I guess, like fact checks of the fact checks published on places like Uncover D.C., which is Tracy Diaz's news outlet. And they countered the, I think, quite relevant claim that the GPS data isn't very accurate by pointing to, like, New York Times articles and stuff that called GPS cell phone data accurate or precise, which is fine, but it's very vague. I mean, 30 to 40 feet of accuracy with something in your pocket being measured from space, I guess is pretty precise, but it's not

precise enough to determine whether or not someone is two or three feet in front of a drop box. Now, True The Vote said that it filtered out people whose pattern of life before the election season included frequenting nonprofit and Dropbox locations, but this strategy wouldn't filter out like election workers who spend a lot of time at Dropbox. during the election season. In addition to that, there are actually many legitimate and non-nefarious reasons that some people might cross paths with multiple drop boxes. For example, you know, delivery drivers or postal workers, cab drivers, poll workers, elected

officials might all cross paths with multiple drop boxes. And they might come up in sort of using True The Votes methodology as a trafficking mule, even though that they aren't. Now, 2,000 mules, it doesn't seem like they consider any of these additional possibilities. and it says suggest that their data proves a massive coordinated effort to illegally deliver ballots to drop boxes. Our initial look was in Milwaukee. Gross numbers were a little down, but the average number of visits to the drop boxes was up. So instead of having only 24 unique visits, I think we average 28.

I mean, maybe I've heard people in Milwaukee are really hardworking, and maybe they just went overtime. And then let's go to Michigan. We have more than 500 meals. that we've identified in Michigan. Again, the number of boxes is lower. Now, we're in Michigan. Detroit mainly. But we have people in Detroit

that went to more than 100 drop boxes. I mean, this is stunning because it's like, I cannot think of a rational, kind of innocent reason for someone to do that. It just doesn't exist. So any reasonable person would say you're onto something big here. You should take a closer look.

Incredible. So, yeah, that's just the issue. They have this very flawed methodology, and from this, they, you know, determine a massive conspiracy. And I think, I mean, for me, another issue is just the scale of the conspiracy that they're suggesting. For example, they suggest that in the city of Philadelphia alone, it's just one city, they identified 1,100 mules that visited 50 drop boxes each. They also say, oh, this is just actually the tip of the iceberg. The true number of mules is actually much higher across many cities. So, I mean, in this suggested conspiracy, these people are, they're merely foot soldiers for election fraud, and they're entirely motivated by money. They get so much, they get paid per ballot. So the question becomes, why haven't, like, several of these people come forward with evidence of this involvement in this, even if only for the sake of self-interest. You know, they'd be showered with, like, you know, wealth and book deals and a conservative media tour and probably a DeNash D'Souza documentary of their own. But that just has not happened. Now, for those who aren't persuaded by the

GPS data, True The Vote says that they also have collected video surveillance footage that support their claims. This is just cameras that are sort of aimed at the drop boxes, and they collected all these videos through Freedom of Information Act request. Now, the first video that they show has a man who drives up to a drop box and then delivers a few ballots, and that by itself isn't nefarious. There are many circumstances in which delivering multiple ballots is perfectly legal, so that's not evidence of the crime. But 2000 Mules claims that they have a evidence of this particular man in the video being a mule and visiting several locations, but that evidence is not provided in the movie. Greg Phillips claims that the man is acting

suspicious, but that's an entirely subjective assessment. So here's the clip. This particular individual we have in a number of different locations at a number of different times. He's actually a mule. This is the official surveillance video of Georgia. Absolutely. And so as the person pulls up, They don't even bother parking. Of course, in the middle of the night, so why would they? It gets out. What? Approaches the box.

When people walk up with intention to cheat, they look around, they basically walk fairly quickly. They try to stuff them in. They try to get out of there. In this case, he drops a feel on the ground. Pick them up, stuff them into the box. Then he hustles back and hustles out of there. So this is what it looks like.

It doesn't necessarily look like, you know, hundreds of ballots being stuffed in. You don't need a whole lot of fraud. Just need a little in the right places over time. Okay. So it's the middle of the night and he's parked sideways across two empty parking spots because the entire parking lot looks empty. So leaves his door open because whatever. But he's also leaving his door open. So he looks around because it's late at night in a city, you know?

Yeah. And then he fucks up putting it in. That's funny. That's very relatable. And then he hops back to his car, so no one jumps into his open car before, you know, and he probably wants to go home and sleep. Yeah. Insane.

The entire thing is based on the fact that he's just a black guy. Look at him acting all suspicious. Yeah, I mean, this entire thing is basically based upon a story that Greg Phillips formed in his head about what's going on here. And there's no evidence of a crime in the video. I'm going to read actually directly from the Georgia State Code, Title 21, which is concerning elections, and it states that an absentee ballot may be delivered by a, quote, electors, mother, father, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, spouse,

son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, or an individual residing in the household of such elector. The absentee ballot of a disabled elector may be mailed or delivered by the caregiver of such disabled elector, regardless of whether such caregiver resides in such disabled electors' household. So, a video of someone dropping off a few ballots by itself can't, by definition, constitute evidence of a crime. And frankly, they don't have evidence of all the videos that they show the entire documentary. They don't have evidence of anyone committing

the crime. But they decide, just for arbitrary reasons, that video of someone dropping off a few ballots is suspicious, and therefore they assume that crime is being committed. You know, in fact, during the recent Secretary of State Election debate in Georgia, the current Secretary of State, Raffensberger, said that he investigated one of these claims of ballot trafficking and found that the suspect committed no wrongdoing. Dropboxes were allowed in state law, and we put barriers and guardrails around that to make sure that had been on government property with photo ID. And we stood up in absentee ballot fraud task force to make sure that we can investigate any allegation. And we have investigated

allegations. In fact, recently, we received a video about a man in Gwinnett County. We investigated, and the five ballots that he turned in were all himself and his family members. Sounds a little too straightforward, Travis. Yeah, it's the simplest, most parsimonious explanation. So, I mean, one important thing to note is that they claim that they have evidence of people dropping off ballots at multiple drop boxes. But in the videos that they present, they don't show a single person dropping off ballots at more than one drop box. Now, you're claiming that, like, there are thousands of people who visit dozens of drop boxes, and all these drop boxes were monitored by video surveillance, but they can't show a single instance of somebody dropping off ballots at two different drop boxes or more. I mean, that's ludicrous.

It's just, I feel like that by itself destroys the movie, in addition to the weakness of the GPS data. Yeah, you at least need the same guy, you know, the shady guy at midnight going around to like 10 different, you know, boxes. Even, you know what? Even two different ones. Exactly. Even two different. If you had two, maybe, maybe you could get a little bit of a pill out of me. It would be like, no.

That would at least rise to the level of suspicious behavior. But they don't have any of that. And to people who are like, oh, well, but like, why was he like dropping it off in the middle of the night? It's like, yo, there are people who don't get off work until 1.30 or 2.30 in the morning. And maybe they grab the ballots with them. They're like, oh, I'll drop it off after work because my, you know, my, my office is by wherever the ballot is. I mean, there are an unending amount of explanations for why somebody might be going in the middle. I do weird shit in the middle of the night.

Maybe you're like, hey, I just need to drop them off before tomorrow morning. I'm going to go home and eat and play some 2K. Correct. And then you end up fucking eating way more than you thought. You smoked a bunch of weed. And then you fucking played a lot of 2K. Then it's like 2 a.m. And you're like, fuck, I got to.

But then 2K started pissing you off. And people were like, you know, they were doing some cheese. You know, they were doing some bullshit. And you were like, oh, man, fuck this game. You uninstall 2K. And then you're like, ah, fuck, I got to go take these ballots. All right, whatever. Let's go.

Another video that they show shows a woman approaching a drop box while wearing surgical gloves. Now, first of all, delivering ballots while wearing surgical gloves isn't a crime. Oh, yes, it is. And, of course, they don't even attempt to argue that. rather, they try to argue that it's just suspicious behavior. And I think there's pretty straightforward explanation for why someone would do this. You know, the election took place during a pandemic. And some people were being extremely cautious while they touched a drop box that hundreds of other people had touched. But true, the vote has a more nefarious explanation.

They claim that the gloves were a way to prevent fingerprints from showing up on the ballots. So the woman in the video, she delivers the ballots and then they disposes the gloves in a nearby trash can. Now, Catherine Englebrecht asserts that this woman delivered the ballots to dozens of locations, but again, no evidence is offered for this claim. Stuffs her ballots in there. It's like a small stackish, maybe three, maybe four, takes them off, and then puts them in a trash can that she never looked at. So she knew it was there. She knew it was there, right? And so we have her on a number of locations. She's an out-of-state mule, and then this is in no way the only drop box that

she attended. That's right. No, she's, she's, goes to dozens and dozens over the course of these two elections. Incredible. Just baking stuff like the woman turning to the trash can faster than they would expect. They're like, oh, well, as we all know, we're specialists of hand-eye coordination in reaction times. It's a superhuman what she did with that trash can. That's it. They, they have like, they're baking two million dollars worth of, uh, you know, GPS data and also videos in, which people deposit a couple ballots, not even like 50. Like if someone rolled up with like a hundred ballots, be like, oh, wait a minute, how big is your household?

That would like, that would be strange. But if they had only done one million dollars of data and they had spent a million dollars putting in like demonic paranormal energy in the videos, like in those surveillance videos, you would have like a little Satan horn coming out. And then it's like, like the ballots are being rewritten by little cartoon Satan's. Yeah, there's like a ghost face. But I mean, Julian, you make a good point. Let's say, I spend $2 million on getting a bunch of data from the government.

I'm going, oh, yeah. Guys, guess what? I got that data. It's coming. They're emailing it to me tomorrow. I spent that two mill. Let's go. And then you pour through these hours of data and essentially find nothing really.

You know, a couple videos late at night of somebody dropping off. You're going to go, well, shit, I just spent the two million. I got to make something out of this, you know? Of course. I got to find. You spent the money. before you got the data it's like when sunk cost fallacy literally it is it is like look if i spend two hundred dollars on two k okay and uh you know and i've i've spent all the money on the vc to get

my player up oh no i don't i'm gonna keep selling myself on the fact that the game is good are you impoverishing yourself i you keep some of the money we give you right huh what i'm not saying i've done that i'm just saying that if i were to spend two hundred dollars on two k i would be convincing myself that, you know, the game is good. It's a worthwhile investment. Do you have like a percentage of your monthly budget in micro-transactions? Huh? 2,000 Mules offers yet

another video, and in this one they show a man on a bike who delivers some ballots and then takes a picture of the drop box. Again, it's not a crime to take a picture of the drop box. People take pictures of like every single thing that they do in order to share in social media or document their lives. So

why do they call attention to this? So, and Greg Phillips' imagination, this man on the bike was a mule who could only be paid if he took a picture of the drop box. And he'll put him in. But you also see him get sort of frustrated as he starts to leave because guess what? At this point they had started requiring the mules apparently to take pictures of the stuffing of the ballots. It appears that that's how they get paid. So they take a picture and stuff it in, they take a picture, not a selfie, but a picture

of the actual ballot going in but this guy gets frustrated so he actually has to park his bike get off so if you were there just casting your own ballot what reason in the world would you have to come back and take a picture of the box

and he kneels down looking around take some pictures I mean they're like describing basic human behavior and trying to make it sound unfairest look he scratch his butt looks like he took

got a handkerchief and sneezed into it? Wait, he's fishing into his pocket for something. Hold on. What is that? It looks like small, maybe a deck of cards. It's a pack of smokes. Okay, he's opening the box. He's taking one out.

He's lighting it now. He's lighting it. Whoa. That looks delicious. Did you sound you lit? Oh, someone. Someone is craving. He broke the character.

All of Jake's characters have his vices. All his characters are like, I lost my underwear, up my ass, and I'm craving a beautiful smoke. You know, if you're a smoker, look, let's be real. If you're a smoker, when you accomplish something, especially if you've accomplished something that you feel is a good thing and you're outside, you're smoking afterwards. I don't care what anybody says. So stuffing ballots for George Soros, then you're like, perfect.

You're like perfect. Recompense. Money's in a bank. I've got my cigarettes. So, yeah, the video evidence is pretty weak, sauce. But the film also offers an anonymous interview from someone who claims that they were aware of this illegal ballot harvesting effort. Now, obviously, anonymous, uncorroborated testimony from these sorts of people is not credible. These people, like, they distort, they have a, you know, they have a long track record of making claims that they can't back up.

So I think it's fair to dismiss that kind of stuff out of hand. But even then, the testimony is very vague and confusing. The woman doesn't say that she was like one of the mules who was personally paid by one of these non-profits to deliver ballots and batches as part of this conspiracy. She instead says that she was a receptionist for some unnamed organization and it says that she received ballots from people and then she believes that these people were paid to deliver ballots to her, but she can't be sure. So what was your job? What were you doing? Receptionist. So at some point you were asked or sort of instructed, I guess, to start receiving people's ballots?

I was just instructed to go ahead and receive ballots from various people, females mostly. And on Friday, they would come and pick up payment. I assumed it was payments for what they were doing. I assume. I assume, yes. Yeah, again, it's all weeks off. So the film turns to the question of whether all of this activity was sufficient to swing the election to Biden. So here they run into another problem, which is that even if you were to grant much more benefit of the doubt than they deserve.

And you assume that they did, in fact, prove that, like, there was lots of people delivering ballots and batches in a legal manner to all these places over and over again. And you can't actually demonstrate that the ballots delivered in this manner all went to Biden. Maybe it was part of a, you know, a bipartisan ballot trafficking scheme. You can't actually, you know, peer inside the ballots to determine who they were voting for. But DeSuzza in the film sweeps aside all unknown variables and instead simply assumes that, first of all, that the conspiracy was proven in the first place, and then be that all the votes in this unproven ballot harvesting conspiracy went to Biden. And if you make all these assumptions, shockingly, it turns out that Trump would have won the election if you subtract the votes submitted by this assumed massive fraud. Using this calculus, Trump would have won all the key states. And the final electoral vote?

305 to 233. All right. With this shocking result, Dinesh again convenes a meeting with his fellow conservative pundits at Salem Media. Though evidently, he didn't bother educating his colleagues about Georgia election. law because when Charlie Kirk views the video of the woman delivering the ballots while wearing surgical gloves, he falsely declares that it was illegal. I am begging these morons to stop it with the voting stuff. You are making our episodes so boring.

Travis gets to be involved way more than he has to because we have to debunk your absolutely dog shit content. She's got gloves on. She's got gloves on. And what does she do with the gloves? whoopsie daisy hang on she walked straight past that can and didn't see it you gotta show that again it's hilarious look look she just walks it so this is not the first time she's done so that one was in georgia is that

right yes so in georgia it is illegal to turn in anyone but yourself or your family members ballot it is illegal it is illegal it is illegal so forget the outcome that's any illegal practice what you just saw that's okay so not true no the charlie kirk is misinformed and anyone who listens to Charlie Kirk is misinformed. I read Georgia election law. Anyone residing in the elector's household can deliver a ballots, even if they aren't a family member. And the caregiver of a disabled elector can deliver the ballots, even if they don't live in the same household. So what Charlie Kirk just said is totally false. And secondly, even if it were true that only family members can deliver an elector's ballot, you still haven't proven that a law

was broken with just the video evidence provided because maybe she was delivering ballots for just her family members. second roundtable, there's another section where the conservative pundits get preemptively mad at people who will inevitably criticize the movie. So they'll try to slander Dinesh personally. They'll say, oh, Trump pardoned him or whatever, therefore he's trying to get back at Trump to try to reinforce the big lie. I could already see the headline in the Washington Post. Trump pardoned ally comes out with questionable movie. I predict right now they will say, what on earth is a conservative doing, tracking private

citizens. Gee, how day, what is Dinesh, the suits are doing to voters at 3 a.m.? I mean, that'll be part of it. Intimidation will be the word. The word will be intimidation. They'll say no person is safe. Communities of color are being tracked. People in black neighborhoods are now going to have to fear for their life that their cell phone pings will be paired. And this is, this is Jim Crow 2.0, Dinesh. He is such a detestable idiot. And I love the pre-wining. Like they're whining before even the thing that they're going to whine about has happened. They're fantasizing about. They're fucking jacking off over future whining that they're going to get to do that they want

to do now. Unreal. The thing is that they didn't actually accurately predict the criticisms, which is that, like, for example, the inaccuracy of the GPS location or the fact that the videos that they saw with their own eyes don't actually commit a crime and said, like, oh, you know what they're going to do, they're going to fucking call us racist. I just know it. I just know it.

You know what they're going to, you know what they're going to say. They're going to say Dinesh D'Souza has his small dick. They're going to say that my face looks weird. And they're going to say that this guy, Mattaxis, he's too sweaty. And he smells kind of bad. Yeah, one of the guys during the roundtable is like, you know what they're going to say? They're going to say, you know, GPS data, you know, is flawed, you know, that it wasn't under the right conditions. And Dinesh is like, cut, cut, cut, cut.

Let's fantasize down the right alleyway. So in short, in 2000 mules, the GPS data, the video clips, nor the testimony. offer actual evidence of election fraud, or that any particular crime was committed. But nonetheless, Dinesh declares that he has proven that massive election-changing fraud has occurred. We must now face the chilling reality. The Democrats conceived the heist. They funded it. They organized it.

Then they carried it out. They rigged and stole the 2020 presidential election. We cannot be okay with this. We cannot simply move on. Now, of course, there's a big risk involved in telling your conservative audience that elections are rigged. Namely, they might believe it and decide that is pointless to vote. Why engage in the democratic process at all if it's like prearranged? If the, you know, the Democrats can arrange for this massive, incredible, you know, nationwide fraud scheme.

So confusingly, 2000 Mules ends with a call to vote in the elections that the Nash just said, we're totally rigged. We who believe in constitutional democracy must be diligent. If we give up, they win. In fact, if enough of us give up, they won't need to cheat anymore. Don't stay home. Get involved. Get out and vote.

Do what is necessary to save this great country. The America we love needs us now more than ever. You know, nothing makes a conspiracy theory guy more boring and pathetic than also being an electoralist. That is fucking sad. At the end of it all, you're just another little neoliberal loser. You got a vote. Your voice must be heard because Soros is killing your children. Get to the ballot box. Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of babies. Is he also, is he standing in like a server farm at the end there? Like, where is he supposed to be? That's just a farm. He's going to get milked. No, it looks. Yeah, they're going to milk Dinesh D'Souza. I'm going to milk Dinesh D'Souza. I'm

standing in this like, you know, warehouse with like a bunch of like tall towers. I I mean, it looks like servers. Dinesh hit me up. I'm looking to put my hands in the game. I want to milk you. So that's 2000 mules. Obviously, it didn't prove what it's out to prove, but that's really not the point.

The point is, you know, to suggest a scheme of voter fraud and then sell it for the price of $29.95 for digital download. And there's also a way to, like, make your Facebook uncles everywhere, extra paranoid and probably wind up hassling people who deliver multiple ballots at this coming election and every other election for the rest of our lives. 29.95? Oh, yeah.

It was an initial price. It actually has come down a little bit. But that was the initial price. They still said 30 bucks. I don't know, man. I felt like if you had a, if you had evidence of a historical scheme, the biggest sort of election-changing scheme in American history, you'd lower the bar that would allow more more people to see it.

Of course he got in an argument with Tucker's production team because he's trying to trying to like bilk Fox News people for like 30 bucks. Meanwhile, like Fox Nation or whatever the fuck, their streaming service is like five bucks a month. It's unreal. And the thing is, it's like, you know, somebody who already believes basically this, you know, that maybe they'll pay 30 bucks just to get two hours of somebody going, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

And here's the music to go along with it, my friend. Here's the production value. Yes, yes. Didn't Dinesh claim that he made a. million dollars already on selling this online? He did. He did. Is there any data to back that up? Do we know? I mean, no, I don't know. I didn't check honestly. I wonder how much this cost. Like, I wonder how much it cost him to make. I wonder if he's making any money on this. Of course he is. Of course. He's making play. Yeah, it looks like pretty inexpensively made.

It looks like it consists of like two locations. It was like Dinesh, like walking outside of the Capitol building. And then inside of this bunker where they conducted all of the research and like also Dinesha's home. Yeah. And then that was it. Like I'm sure the production costs were dirt cheap. Yeah. A lot of favors. Like he's not paying any of the pundits who are coming on because they're happy to do it. What's really interesting about this particular election fraud conspiracy is that it involves like regular people who show up at, you know, basically these drop boxes. It's not about like, you know, Soros who's manipulating things from behind the scenes. It's not about, you know, demigian, this whole powerful company that's like a

manipulating things from behind the scenes. It targets individual people who done nothing wrong. There's no evidence of them committing any crime. And that's what my main concern is, because I think this will, I really believe this will wind up prompting people who believe this nonsense into like accusing normal innocent people of committing some sort of ballot trafficking operation. Thanks for listening to another episode of the Q&ONAN Anonymous podcast. You can go to patreon.com slash QAnonanonymous and subscribe for five bucks a month To get a whole second episode every week, plus access to the ongoing series by Travis View, trickle down.

We're five episodes in, so there's a two-parter and a three-parter ready for you, and there's five episodes coming down the pipeline. And by supporting us for those five bucks a month, you help us continue to create these series. And obviously, we'll stay advertising free and editorially independent. For everything else, we've got a website, Q&Onanonymous.com. Listener, until next week, may the Deep Dish bless you and keep you. It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. And now, today's AutoCube.

America needs this voice. The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies. We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth. This is the Dinesh D'Souza. podcast. The subject of 2000 muse, as far as I know, has not been mentioned on Fox News channel. And this is, to put it mildly odd. And it's odd in many ways. It's not as if the people at Fox don't think that I'm a credible figure. I mean, I've been appearing pretty much weekly on Fox. I don't think it's, they could say that this is not news,

this is a topic everyone's talking about. It's been trending almost constantly on Twitter. And it can't be also that Fox is afraid of litigation, oh, we're being sued by Dominion, Dinesh, because our movie doesn't talk about that. We don't talk about the machines. We're talking about old school fraud, and we're talking about using official surveillance video,

taken by the states themselves. and a very reliable technology called geo-tracking. Again, we're not asking Fox to, like, cheerlead for the movie, embrace the movie, but we're just asking why a news network won't cover something that quite clearly is news, quite clearly is on people's minds, even more on the minds of its own audience. So there's intense public interest. No one can claim the issue is not important. No one can claim that this is not a not.

Marvel contribution to the debate and yet, you know, mum zip, not not a word.