The Megyn Kelly Show - Dinesh D'Souza on Ballot Trafficking, "Election Integrity," and His Movie, "2000 Mules" | Ep. 326

Episode Date: May 20, 2022

Megyn Kelly is joined by Dinesh D'Souza, filmmaker behind "2000 Mules," to talk about the difference between "ballot harvesting" and paid ballot trafficking, what "mules" do as it relates to elections, the geotracking used in various capacities, how the "True the Vote" team determined who the "mules" they identified are, the unique pushes in 2020 regarding "election integrity," how private dropboxes can lead to fraud, what the videos of possible "mules" showed, fact-checks of D'Souza's movie, the difference between the "mules" and the non-profits, tech censorship, the difference between "fake ballots" and illegal ballot trafficking, and more.For a different perspective, an AP fact-check on voter fraud: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-ap-fact-check-joe-biden-donald-trump-technology-49a24edd6d10888dbad61689c24b05a5Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. And I am smiling to start this show, not only because it's Friday, but because I just had a session with Strudwick's new dog trainer. Praise Jesus, we're doing something about this dog. I'll get back to you on how it goes. I'm also smiling because I cannot tell you how many requests we have gotten to hear from our guest today. My old pal Dinesh D'Souza is making people upset again.

It's what he does best. And he's always provocative, always thoughtful. And we always have great discussions. He used to come on all the time, not just on the Kelly file, but on America Live before that and so on. Dinesh loves to cover controversial topics without fear. He doesn't mind stoking people's, you know, sort of panty bunching. He also has a knack of creating controversy for himself along the way. He's a bestselling author. He's a filmmaker and his new documentary is called 2000 Mules. Now the film is airing in about 400 movie theaters across the country. It's also

available on Amazon where it is currently ranked numero uno in the movies and TV category. How about that? It has been subjected to a lot of fact checks, which we will take a look at. Liberal media showing more interest in Dinesh's movie than, say, Hunter Biden's laptop revelations in the 2020 election. So we'll get to all of it. Joining me now, Dinesh D'Souza, director and writer of 2000 Mules and host of the Dinesh D'Souza podcast. Dinesh, so good to talk to you again. Wow, Megan, it feels like a bit of a reunion. It's been too long and I'm thrilled to be on your show. I'm looking forward to the conversation.

Well, I love that you're still doing the muckraking that makes everyone so upset. They can't stop you, Dinesh. I mean, it's like no matter what they do to you, you just keep on it. You keep on it. So good for you. Well, thank you. I mean, this has been an interesting film, Megan, for the reason that it's the first film I've released in an age of censorship. And so I had to sort of develop a whole new strategy because the normal technique, which is, you know, put the film on Apple iTunes, put it on Amazon Prime, is risky. You can't put a trailer on YouTube. You can't advertise on Facebook. This is the most banned topic in the country. I mean, they ban other topics, COVID. They ban discussions

of the trans issue, climate change, but no topic is more aggressively censored than election fraud. That's 100% true. So I guess we should start there. How's that? How's it going? Has it been, have you been managing those portals okay? Yeah, it's been going fantastic. We did all kinds of kind of crazy stuff because we opened the movie May 2 and 4 in 300 theaters, but we rented out the theater. It's kind of like we almost bought out the theater, then we sold tickets, and we filled the theater. So the reason we're going back into the theater this weekend, 400 theaters, is the theaters came to us. They're like, man, you're filling up the theaters

at a time when we're like desperate for business. This is a movie that we're getting calls about. So we're now opening this weekend, you know, normal, four showings a day, theaters around the country. But what's odd about it is normally, as you know, we typically release a movie theatrically first, then there's a window of time, then it comes out in DVD and digital download, but now it's already been out in streaming. It's out in download.

People can already buy DVDs and it's going back in the theater. Wow. It's like, okay, tonight is the release. They've been advertising on the show, the Downton Abbey, uh, next edition. And, uh, they can do a double header. They can see 2000 mules. And then if you still have some energy, you can, you can do some escapism with Downton and call it a night, a date night. All right. So let's talk about it, Dinesh, because I, let's start with this. How did this whole thing get started? Because,

you know, you're always looking for interesting projects to take on. This has been one of the biggest stories in the country for the past couple of years. So how did this particular project get started? Well, to be honest, I was a great skeptic about the project in the first place. And what I mean by that is that there's been a, I would say, a very disappointing level of discussion on this topic going all the way back to the election. And in some ways, you had dogmatic, unsupported assertions on both sides. So let's start with the left. This is the most secure election in history. And this mantra began almost like the day after the election. And I was thinking to myself, well, how would you know that? How could you make such a statement? And then when I would ask people,

they'd be like, well, where's your proof of fraud? And I would say, well, let's say I have no proof. Does it follow that it's the most secure election in history? Have you done a comparison of the amount of fraud in 2020 compared to 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004? Unless you can show me that there was a smaller portion of fraud this time than all those other times, how can you make such an unsubstantiated assertion? And yet, that assertion has been protected by a wall of censorship, by allegations that anyone who disputes it or raises questions about it is promulgating a big lie. So all of

this kind of annoyed me and irritated me, but I didn't know what to do about it. And then on the other side, you have people who said, I know it was stolen. And I would be like, well, how do you know? And they would point to anomalies over here or episodic fraud over there. But as you know, Megan, an anomaly is something strange, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an explanation. And moreover, episodic fraud, you might be like, well, yeah, my dead guy voted over here. This guy who moved out of state shouldn't have voted over there. But it's not significant enough to tip the balance, even in a relatively close election. So for many, many months, I said not one word about the subject. And it wasn't until I sat down with the two principals at this group, election intelligence group, it's called True the Vote, began to review their methodology, their evidence, that I just realized, you know,

I'm looking at something of a completely different caliber than anything I've seen before. Right. This is not something, this is not one of the through lines that had been getting pursued. And I know Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote since 2010. I had her on my show back then when she was getting picked on by the IRS when they were going after conservatives or groups that that nonprofit groups that they thought leaned conservative only under Barack Obama. So she she came to form this group, not because of anything in the wake of Trump. I mean, Trump wasn't even running for office back then. This was, you know, born of the heart to try to push back on on government overreach in certain areas. OK, so so she decides to take a look at this election and what she can get her hand her her hands on, you know, not not the crack in, not all that nonsense, but actual data that might be verifiable to see what patterns we might find. And first, let me just ask you to explain. It looks like to me, she looked at, you guys looked at the movie, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those five states. Is that right? Yes, exactly. Those are the five states. And it's not even the full states. It is essentially the sort of democratic

controlled urban areas in those five states. Okay. And why those? Well, when any research project, you have to develop some sort of a hypothesis, right? And I think the genius of True the Vote was what they said was they were taking a technology that's very familiar and very reliable and used all the time in all kinds of other areas, from law enforcement to the Defense Department to the CDC. And this is cell phone geo-tracking. Now, the way that this came about was they had a hotline, an election hotline, and a whistleblower came forward in Georgia and began to describe amazingly this kind of mule-driven ballot stuffing operation. And True the Vote was like, man, you're an enterprising

character. Are you the only guy doing this? And he's like, oh, no, I'm part of a larger group. We all do it. And so True the Vote then decided that because this guy was running scared, he was not willing to give his name. He wanted to go into hiding. They're like, look, we can't just rely on an anonymous informant. We need to develop some mechanism for testing the hypothesis that there is an organized system of deploying these paid political operatives called mules to deliver illegal and fraudulent votes to mail and drop boxes. And so the geo-tracking then became a way of trying to measure and test and validate whether it was the case that in Georgia and then later expanded to Arizona and Michigan and so on, was there in fact this kind of organized campaign to essentially

rig the election for Joe Biden? Okay, we'll get back to whether they were illegal and fraudulent votes. This is one of the areas in which people take issue with the documentary, but one thing at a time. So first of all, what's ballot harvesting? Explain that. So I will. And I also want to, in doing so, draw a distinction. So ballot harvesting or vote harvesting is simply the idea that you can give your ballot to someone else. We're talking here, by the way, about an absentee or mail-in ballot. You can give it to someone else to go and drop it off at a postbox or a mail-in dropbox. Now, ballot harvesting is allowed to certain degrees in about 26 states, but most of those states impose pretty strict limits on ballot harvesting. So there's a little bit of a spectrum. California probably has the most liberal ballot harvesting law in the country. It basically says you can give your vote to anyone and ask them to take it and drop it off. In fact, you can go down the street and start collecting the votes of people down the street, put them in the back of your car, take them down to the drop box, and that's all legal. So California, in other words, allows pretty much all kinds of ballot

harvesting. Now, the five states that we're talking about don't do that. Very typical is both Georgia and Arizona, which say the same thing. You can give your vote, your ballot, to an immediate family member. Or if you are in a facility or in a nursing home, for example, you can give it to a caregiver for them to drop off, but not to anyone else. So this is the kind, and then there are some states that prohibit harvesting altogether. You have to take your own ballot and drop it off. Nobody else can do it for you. So this is the range of the laws.

But the point I want to make is that ballot harvesting is not the same as paid trafficking. So paid trafficking is when you involve money. Even in California, if I say to my neighbor, hey, you know, Bill, you take my ballot, you go drop it off, that's allowed. But if I say to my neighbor, hey, Bill, here's $50 to go take my ballot and drop it off, that's not allowed. Because the moment that money enters the process, issues of bribery, essentially you can't, you cannot contaminate the voting process by introducing payment. And so in no state is paid ballot trafficking legal. Okay. So the name of the movie is 2000 Mules. You referenced the term in our conversation already. What is a mule for purposes of this film?

Right. So a mule, you can see the term is lifted. Katherine Engelbrecht kind of just lifted it from drug trafficking or from sex trafficking. The mule is the delivery guy, right? So in this particular context, we're talking about ballot trafficking. A mule is a paid operative who has been hired by someone, in this case it'll turn out to be far left-wing organizations deeply embedded in the inner city, but someone hires this mule, this paid operative, to pick up and drop off illegal and fraudulent votes into a ballot drop box.

I'm happy to discuss why those are illegal and fraudulent. But let's just say that the mule is the guy. He doesn't come up with his own votes. He stops by at a kind of vote stash house, as we call it. He gets the backpack or the satchel full of votes. And then he proceeds or she proceeds on a kind of almost mailman's route going from one drop box to another, depositing typically relatively small number of votes in each drop box, but a large number of votes in the aggregate. So they're not dumb. They're not going to take, hey, I got 200 votes from the nonprofit center that's been designed to promote, quote, election integrity. And I'm going to dump them all in one

drop box, you know, that for that accepts votes. They know that that would look suspicious. It would be flagged and they have to be more clever about it. Megan, this is why I love talking to you, because exactly if a mule were to go empty 300 votes in a drop box, the typical number of votes in all the adjoining drop boxes is going to be, you know, 40 or 50 votes. And suddenly you see this big spike of votes. The election official that's filling out those custody documents would immediately know something was wrong. And so the mules are sort of instructed, don't do that. Typically, they drop three, five, eight or 10 ballots at a time. And this is really why they go to multiple drop boxes. And this is why actually it became relatively easy to track them, the geotracking monitors the movement,

not of you, but of your cell phone going from one dropbox to the other, to the other, to the other. Now, you talk about geotracking. There was a story just recently for people who may not have heard about this prior to 2000 mules, where we found out the CDC had bought that same data to see whether people were obeying some of the quarantine impositions, some of the curfews that had been imposed. And by just getting access to cell phone data, they can find out, yes, this is people listened or they didn't listen. They went inside or they didn't go inside. And this is what they did instead. So all sorts of things can be gleaned about individuals. How specific can it get? Like, you know, because before we get to

your movie, I started thinking that like, would they be able to know, Megyn Kelly did not obey the curfew? Or is it not quite that specific? Well, let's go slowly here, because the you mentioned the CDC. So the CDC is using this data to try to monitor if people are social distancing. Everybody knows that social distancing means staying six feet apart. Now, this data would be useless to the CDC if geo-tracking was not accurate to within six feet. What good would it be if it's accurate to, say, 30 feet? You couldn't tell if somebody was social distancing or not. So the geo-tracking has become more and more accurate. It's true if you go back 10 years

or you go back 15 years, just like with GPS, the GPS was not as accurate then as it is now. Now, inside of our cell phones are innumerable apps. And as it turns out, when you download those apps or you click on those apps, you are unwittingly perhaps giving permission to the people in those apps to get your data. And this is a massive industry. This data is aggregated by so-called aggregators. There are about 40 major aggregators. And unbelievably, perhaps, it's sold on the open market, which is not to say that you and I can buy it at Walmart, but we can get this data if you pay for it. And the data can go back in time. So for example, you take through the vote,

they went to the larger urban Atlanta, which encompasses four counties. They went to Maricopa County, Phoenix area, Detroit, Milwaukee, the greater Philadelphia area. And they said, we want the data from October 1, the beginning of the runoffs, till election day. And then in Georgia, because there was a Senate runoff, we also want the data going all the way through January 5, which was the date of the runoff election. And you can buy that data. For where? Define that a little bit tighter, though, because it wasn't like for all of Maricopa County. It was more targeted than that. Right. It was not all of Maricopa County. It was the greater Phoenix area.

And by and large, to be honest, through the vote was also limited by resources. They got a two million dollar grant. They so they had to decide if we're going to test this hypothesis, we need to be clever and we need to sort of pick our areas. And so what they reasoned was they essentially said, look, the rules of this election have changed under the pretext of COVID. Lots of mail-in drop boxes and lots of mail-out ballots. And so we're going to sort of make a guess, make a hypothesis that if there's going to be cheating, it's going to be there. It's going to be not machine cheating, not the Chinese. It's going to be cheating where it is easier to cheat. It's almost like if the bank creates a new facility, which doesn't have proper surveillance, doesn't

have proper security, and the tellers are instructed, don't be too fastidious to match the signatures. Well, where do you think the bank robbers are going to go? They're going to go to that facility because it's more vulnerable to being taken advantage of. And this geo-tracking is used in intelligence services. It's used by law enforcement. You know, if there's a murder in a park, Megan, and there is no physical evidence and there are no eyewitnesses, there's just a body, one of the things that law enforcement will do is they will do a geo-fence, which is nothing more than drawing a circle around that area, and they will look for cell phone devices in that

area. And let's say there are five of them. Well, you get a warrant. You go to the providers who then give you the identity of those people. You go interview them. It's not to say one of them did it, but they become your five suspects. That's amazing. I did not realize that it was at that point yet. So the warrant part is important,. Less people start freaking out that everything about them is trackable and identifiable just without any sort of law enforcement or due process bar. But so that's true. So the cops, if they see that you're that a cell phone, uh, was in the connection was in the area of a murder, let's say they can get a warrant and on, on, you know, what's the word for the identity of the person who is holding that phone.

Exactly. Exactly. We discussed a case in the movie, which is there was a shooting in the Atlanta area right about the time that that True the Vote was buying this data. It was a young black girl, Sequoia Turner, eight years old. She was shot in a car while during a kind of a BLM riot. And what True the Vote did, this was actually to help law enforcement, is they sort of drew a geofence. They looked at the data, they identified, they looked at the angle of the shot. And they said, look, based upon the date and the time and the angle of the shot, there are only three or four cell phone IDs within a sort of circumference. These are the legitimate shooters. One of these guys, not for sure, but probably did it. And so we're going to give you that data and you do what you

will with it. And so this was turned over to the FBI, the Socorro-Torno case, which by the way, went unsolved for a long time. And then pretty recently, there were two arrests. Of course, they still have to make the case in court. But after asking for the public to help and eyewitness to come forward and no one came forward, this geo-tracking data is helpful in this kind of investigation. And the reason we pointed this out in the movie is we simply wanted to show that it's exactly the same technology used in exactly the same way to track these so-called mules. All right. Now, I have a question for you about that, because there was an update on that case.

And I watched, of course, the documentary and thought it was riveting. And here's the piece where you talk about that, Sequoia Turner. This was, by the way, Dinesh, was this the little girl, the eight year old girl killed outside of a Wendy's that led to there was a bunch of unrest there. Wasn't that the Wendy's that a man had an altercation with the police out out of right after that happened? Exactly. This was a racial. This was the name of the guy. Yeah, there you go. And because there was that altercation, that's why the riot sort of took place there. And evidently, this family had no idea they were just going to the Wendy's, they suddenly realized they were in danger, they tried to back the truck up, and then boom,

this poor little girl got shot. So that was the background of what of when that happened. And and so we the only reason we put that in the movie, again, not because it's related to ballot fraud, of course, but simply because we're trying to show the reliability and the helpfulness of geo tracking. Yeah, that is being used in many different ways. And that's you're you're right that it's being used in so many different ways, including by the government. And as I mentioned, the CDC report, that's undeniable. So here's a segment from the movie 2000 Mules on this particular situation outside the Wendy's and the murder of this eight-year-old girl. The shooting actually occurred right here in this parking lot, sort of inside of this circle are really the only potentially legitimate shooters.

Each of these devices has a unique device ID. And we turned the bulk of this information over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now, I read, they've arrested two suspects. They have. Okay, but the follow-up is that NPR, everyone's been apart, every section of the movie, you know that Dinesh NPR reported that that a GBI spokesperson, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, has told them the GBI did not receive info from True the Vote that connected that was connected to the Sequoia Turner investigation. And then NPR says that they spoke with Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote and that she said, we gave the FBI the data on 10-25-21, October 25th, but the two suspects were indicted two months earlier. One was arrested two weeks after the murder when he turned himself in. The other was arrested in early August 2021 by state officials,

not the FBI. And then NPR says Engelbrecht would not name her FBI contact to NPR. The FBI declined to comment. But their point is that the two suspects were indicted long before anybody at True the Vote ever brought them anything, if in fact anything was brought in at all. Right. So let's address these two points. I mean, as you saw from the clip that you played, True the Vote turned in its information not to the GBI, but to the FBI. Right now, the GBI is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It is linked to the FBI, but it's also its own organization. It has its own offices, its own building. And so a GBI denial, we didn't get the information from True the Vote.

True the Vote didn't give you that information. So that's no surprise. Now, let's follow this case a little bit slowly, because what happened was when there was the shooting, apparently there was an eyewitness who went to the government and said, I saw this suspicious character leave the scene and he could be the shooter. And they arrested this guy. But this guy basically said, look, I got nothing to do with it. I saw the shooting, but it wasn't me. And so even though they arrested him, they had nothing on him. They had no evidence, merely the identification of him by an eyewitness. And so the investigation basically stalled.

Also, in an investigation, you obviously pursue multiple lines. So you're trying to find out who is this guy? Is he in a gang? Does he have any one is saying that this is the information that, quote, proves the murder. What NPR does is they set up a straw man. That is that the movie claims to solve a murder. Well, how can you solve a murder when all you're identifying is a handful of cell phone devices that could have been the shooter? You don't even have the names of those people. True, The Vote has their distinctive cell phone IDs and turn them in. Now, just because the suspects have been arrested doesn't mean that you have a full and adequate case against them. As you know, Megan, as a lawyer, the reason there's a gap between the time someone is arrested and goes to trial, there's ongoing investigation to try to nail down your case. And your case is going to have many elements of which

the geo-tracking is only one. A case in point is look at the January 6th cases. You find out that the FBI, although they arrested people based on Facebook posts and so on, later they do cell phone geo-tracking, and then when they go to court, they go, look, your honor, the geo-tracking shows that this guy wasn't outside the building. He was inside the building. So the geo tracking comes in at the time of trial, not just not time of indictment, but at the time of trial to sort of lock up a case and provide the full picture. So, you know, the NPR article is interesting, but it doesn't refute anything we said in the movie.

We did not claim that we solved the murder. They're basically suggesting you misled, that you led the audience to believe you helped solve a murder when in fact it had already been solved before anybody contacted any authorities. Well, and I think what I would say is that this is not a matter of, quote, solving a murder. It is a matter of getting the right guys and then being able to prove that they did it. And what's to say, we'll have to wait and see in these trials if they use geo tracking to help establish that not only was this guy or these two guys there, but they were at the exact point in which their shots, if you will, would have come at the right angle to kill Sikori Eterna. This may be a dash because I feel like normally if you have a suspect in custody,

you we're all familiar with the fact that they will figure out where you were based on where your cell phone was. I mean, we know that like if they suspect somebody of committing a crime and the person says, I, it wasn't me. I was asleep at home in bed. They can track your phone and figure out where you were. So we've, we've all experienced that before, but wouldn't they have already been doing that with respect to whatever suspects they had in custody? You know, in this case, why would they need your geo tracking data that just had the collection of people who were there? Well, apparently, remarkably, they don't always do this. And interestingly, when True the Vote came to me, they presented to me two murders. This was one. Another one was the Katie Janis

murder, which you can look up a very notorious murder in which a young woman was in Piedmont Park with her dog, was brutally murdered in the park. No suspects, no physical evidence at all. And so what does True the Vote do? They build a geofence. They look for cell phone devices. They found not only did they find cell phone devices, but they found one cell phone device that was previously identified outside the victim's apartment. So maybe somebody who was like surveilling, doing some surveillance on the victim. The other was an out of state device. Again, what does Truth of Odo do? They go, listen, you know, we're not law enforcement. We're trying to help. We're just going to turn this information and see where it goes. Now, in that case, there haven't been any arrests made. Again, you know, we're not law enforcement. We're trying to help. We're just going to turn this information and see where it goes. Now, in that case, there haven't been any arrests made. Again, you know,

this is a case where where law enforcement does its thing. In this case, through the vote was just trying to validate its technology. And to be honest, they were also trying to build better relationships with law enforcement authorities to see if law enforcement authorities would look at their geo tracking data on election fraud. Okay, so you've got Catherine, and she's got an associate named Greg Phillips, who features prominently in the documentary, and he's kind of in charge of the geotracking. And try to explain, because it's kind of hard to get your head around, how they use the geotracking to figure out who are the mules. Yes, so let's think about what geotracking to figure out who are the mules?

Yes. So let's think about what geotracking is. If somebody were to geotrack my phone today, they would have me, I wake up in my house, let's say I go to get a cup of coffee, and then I go to the studio to record my podcast. I have lunch with someone. I then come home. All of this is then can be plotted on a kind of a graph because geotracking is not a snapshot in a particular moment in time. It shows movement. And so as a result, what the term of use is pattern of life. They try to build a pattern of life, not just

where your phone is now, where was it? Where is it going to be later in the day and perhaps in the days and weeks ahead? Now, what does True the Vote do? They identify these mail-in drop boxes, not post boxes, because this is not where you write letters or mail your bills. These are mail-in drop boxes for the sole purpose of depositing ballots. That's all that they're for. And they set a high bar. We're looking for people, any cell phone device, that for whatever reason is going to 10 or more drop boxes in a two-week period.

Now, you have to realize that there is no rational reason to do this. The beauty of setting the high bar is you eliminate all kinds of nonsensical kind of false positives, because if you set the bar in, you know, no one has a reason to go to two drop boxes. But if you set the bar at two, some guy's going to come forward and say, well, look, I put my ballot in the first box. And then while I was walking by the second box, I really had to stop and make a phone call or tie my shoelace. And so you're calling me a mule. I'm had to stop and make a phone call or tie my shoelace. And so you're calling me a mule. I'm not a mule. So Truth of Vote decided, forget all this nonsense. Let's set a very high

bar because if you're dropping off, let's say your family members votes, which you're allowed to do in Georgia, no one is going to go to 10 drop boxes to do that or more. And we have mules going to 20, 40, 50, and 100 drop boxes. But by setting the high bar at 10, you're not going to catch all the mules. You're only going to catch the most egregious, the most industrious mules. And even based upon that sort of search algorithm, we identified 2,000 mules in these five critical battleground states. And that's a large number of mules. The actual number, of course,

is much higher. All right. Now, just to clarify what you said, going to 10 or more drop boxes over how long a period of time? In a two week period. Okay. And the actual criteria was even a little more complex than that. You not only had to go to the drop boxes, you had to stop by one of these left wing nonprofits or NGOs. Some of these are so-called 501c3 organizations. The point being that the mules don't come up with the ballots. It's not their ballots. They go someplace and get the ballots and then they go on the drop box route. So through the vote said, we not only need the drop boxes, we need someone to be stopping periodically five or more times at one of these organizations. Yeah, you need the point of origin

where they get the ballots to begin with. All right. So so how did they how do they figure that out when they see all the cell phones moving around and they see you taking your normal route? How do they figure out who's a mule and who's a mom who's just driving by that same spot 10 times in two weeks and not up to anything nefarious. That's where we're going to pick it up right after this quick break. More with Dinesh D'Souza, the one and only. Important question. People may be wondering, where do they get the ballots? Because if I'm a mule, I've got to get ballots. And you say you go to these sort of nonprofit centers, and then you go dump them in the, what are we calling them? Mailboxes. The mail and drop boxes. Drop boxes. Okay. So not mailboxes, but drop boxes. Okay. So I've got a mission.

I got to go to this nonprofit center. I got to get the ballots, and I got to go dump them in the drop box. But somebody else is responsible for getting the votes to begin with and getting them to the nonprofit center. So how does that process happen and what where do these ballots come from? So the way to think about this is there is no plausible legal way to get your hands on hundreds of thousands of legal ballots. In other words, it is theoretically possible that a nonprofit will hire a mule, although I can't think of why you would do that, to go drop off a completely legal ballot. The reason that that's very odd is because you're actually endangering that ballot by paying a mule to deliver it,

because a legal ballot delivered illegally by a mule becomes a questionable ballot. It's up to a judge to say if that ballot should be counted. When a process is contaminated, there's a big question mark around that vote. Let me do a little detour slightly to explain why this is so, because it gets to the logic of election integrity. Let's put aside for a moment, the issue of mail-in ballots altogether and say that Dinesh is going in to vote normally in person. And I show up and I show my ID and I go behind the curtain and I have a ballot and let's say it's a paper ballot. And then I pop my head out and say, guys, listen, I urgently have to leave the facility. I got to go home and run some errands. I'll come back in an hour or two and I will drop

off this ballot. Would they let me do that? No. Why? Because once the ballot leaves the facility, who knows what's going to happen? Who knows if I'm going to have someone else fill it out, if someone's going to pay me for it. So suddenly that ballot, which is legal, I'm a legal voter. It's a legitimate ballot. It's not a fake ballot. But nevertheless, the fact that I have sort of taken it out of the place where it is being observed makes that a questionable ballot. That's why they won't let me do that. Now, coming back to these nonprofit centers, in order for these to be legal ballots, we have to imagine this scenario. Hundreds of thousands of people in the swing states and evidently nowhere else decide, I've got a legal ballot, but I'm too busy or too lazy to go

to a mail-in drop box or the post office or all kinds of places that I can drop off the ballot, city hall. I'm not going to do any of that. I'm going to go find a left-wing organization deeply embedded in the inner city and give them my ballot so that they can figure out hiring mules or whatever, some mechanism to drop off those ballots. Once you begin to see how ridiculous that is, you realize that the ballots couldn't really have come that way. It's conceivable that some of them could be obtained that way. Maybe, for example, one of these nonprofits said, listen, we want to help Biden. There's a big housing project. We're going to go door to door and collect everybody's ballot and they're

going to give it to us and we'll deliver it. So there's a possibility that some of those are legal ballots, but the majority of them most likely are illegal ballots, illegally delivered. Hans von Spakovsky, I can never say his last name, Spakovsky, who we've been relying on for years for information on election fraud and so on, voting issues. He's a talented lawyer and he he's quoted in the piece as saying, where do they come from? Basically, you can get a situation where somebody says, let me help you, madam, fill out a request for an absentee ballot. Here I am, Miss Grandmother. I'm going to help you fill out a request for an absentee ballot.

But then instead of having the ballot mailed to grandma, they have the ballot sent to them, and they then fill it in for grandma. Going to voters and obtaining the ballots directly from them, which again, isn't necessarily illegal unless you're getting paid to do it as stealing them out of mailboxes, he says, using high quality photocopiers to make their own ballots. Now, none of this was shown in or proven in 2000 mules, but it did. It was one of my questions like, where are they getting the ballots from? Where are all these ballots coming from? And the answer is we don't really know. We don't really know. These are hypotheses as to where they got them. And you're sort of calling BS on the notion that how could they all have been legitimately originated? That just doesn't make sense.

Well, we have to look at the other kind of surrounding context. So for example, if you look at what Judge Gableman found in Wisconsin, he found preposterously high levels of voting, even at nursing homes where the inhabitants are virtually comatose. We showed a couple of those videos in the movie. You have people who don't even know their names. They don't know where they are, but they voted in the 2020 election. Well, how is that possible? Well, somebody asked for a ballot on their behalf, maybe traced their signature, maybe even got them to sign, but somebody else voted their vote. And that's how I'm we're talking. And we're not talking about 10 people. There are 90,000 people in these nursing homes alone. That's 90,000 votes or close to 90,000

votes in a state decided by 20,000 votes. Right. OK, so that's the answer is we don't know exactly where they got the ballots, but we, we would like to know. It would be nice if somebody would investigate given what you guys have found on tape. Now, the next question is how do you figure out the question I asked before the break? You know, I take my daughter to soccer once a week. Okay. At this other location from her normal field. And so if you were to look at the pattern of my phone, you would see that not every day. Now, it wouldn't be an everyday thing that you could easily rule out by saying, oh, she's going to work or she's going to the grocery store. But just this one time a week I go and I drop her at the soccer field and maybe I drive right by that nonprofit and maybe I then drive right by the Dropbox.

So what would stop the True the Vote team from calling me a mule? Because I go by the two spots. It's kind of irregular. And I would definitely meet the threshold of 10 or more times within two weeks. Yeah. So first of all, we're not talking about a mule going 10 times to the same drop box. And number two, there is a clear and obvious difference between going past a Dropbox and going to a Dropbox. And you can easily see the difference.

You can. That's important. Yeah, because what's happening is you are getting a real-time movement of that cell phone. you will see that line just move through time in a kind of steady way right past the drop box and go to the destination you're going to, the school or the grocery store or wherever, and stop there and then turn around and come back. It's completely different from going to the drop box. And most of these mules are doing it on foot. You go to the drop box, you turn around, you go back to a point, typically your car or wherever, and then you go to the next drop box. So because the mules have been instructed to do these sort of routes, it's very easy to plot those routes and tell the difference between someone just going by. Obviously, if you're getting people

just going by a drop box, you'd have hundreds of thousands of people doing that. The reason you are able to drill down to 2,000 mules is they're following a very, a kind of very definite pattern, not of scooting by or past drop boxes, but going directly to them, pausing there, doing something, then turning around and coming back. And now we haven't really gone to this, Megan, but what really clinches the issue in the movie, and I think also for True the Vote, is when you are able to match a cell phone ping or a cell phone track, a pattern of life, to surveillance video that completely confirms what you have found through your technological data.

You looked for corroboration. True the Vote, you guys were looking for corroboration. It's like, okay, now we have our suspected mules. We see the suspected patterns, but there may be videotape at these locations. And in some of these states, there was a requirement that these drop boxes be videoed was not usually obeyed from what I, from what I see in the movie, but you decided to try to get your arms in as much of that video footage as possible, and then try to relate it back to the geo tracking data to see whether you were getting confirmation of your suppositions or debunked of it, whether they were all being debunked. Before we get to the video and the sort of part two of your verification, let's look at a clip from the movie on this is Greg Phillips, you, Catherine and your wife, Debbie, sitting there together. And he's kind

of explaining to you that the one case you mentioned where the guy went to 28 of the drop boxes. Watch. What you see here on the screen is a single person on a single day in Atlanta, Georgia. They went to 28 drop boxes and five organizations in one day. To get to some of these drop boxes, you had to be intentional. You had to get off the highway. You had to go on surface streets. You had to turn in somewhere in order to get to those drop boxes. Okay, now speak to the video. Right.

So what you're seeing here is just cell phone geo-tracking. There's no video here. The video that we have, and this has been a point that's now being argued about the movie because they'll say, wait a minute, Dinesh, we're showing a representation of what the cell phone geotracking shows. It's very obvious in the movie when we're playing the actual surveillance video. And what makes the video so powerful is it's something like this. I mean, I wish there was more video, Megan, because many of these, even in states that took video, they took video at a relatively small number of drop boxes. In other places, the video was turned off, or the camera is not pointed at the drop box. It's like pointed at a tree. And so you've got

this bizarre phenomenon where you can track a cell phone going from one dropbox to another, to another, to another. And if you had good video on all those drop boxes, I'm 100 percent sure that you would see the mule at all those points. But that would be the smoking gun video that that's the smoking gun evidence that that you needed that isn't in the film. You know, because if you saw that, you saw the one guy going from place to place to place with your own eyes, but it's a very good analogy. But only one of the five homes had video surveillance. Now, it shows based on your cell phone tracking that you were at that home at 2.15 a.m. in the morning, the one home that has surveillance. And you go look in the video and you look at 2.15 a.m. in the morning and there the guy is, or in our case, there the mule is and what's he doing

stuffing ballots into the box. So do you really need to have video in all five homes when you have electronically established that the guy was there and in the one place that he got to at 2.15, you see him on the video. Isn't that enough to convince you that he was at all those spots and there's confirmation provided in the one place where video was available. No, I see your point. And it's definitely suspicious. I have no doubt of that. You wouldn't get a conviction, though, in a court of law. The case isn't quite strong enough. You would need more. But this isn't a court of law. This is a documentary that's trying to ask questions and also ask why more people aren't asking questions. That's one of the missions, I think, of the film, right? To get people interested in looking into it.

Before I show the videos, because we do have a couple of them, who are the nonprofits? You call them stash houses. Because to be a mule, don't forget, you have to go to at least 10 or more drop boxes in a two-week period. And you also, to get flagged by the True the Vote team, had to swing by at least five of the nonprofits.

So who who are the nonprofits? That's a big question that's not exactly addressed in the movie. Yeah, it's not the nonprofits are not named in the movie. I have their names. True the Vote has their names. This is a movie phenomenon. Basically, when you're putting a movie in the theater, you need three different types of insurance. And so we got into a big fight with these lawyers who insisted that we can't name the nonprofits. Now, normally, I would have battled them over this. But the problem was, I was trying to get the movie out right away, because it's so timely. So I made a prudential decision. All right, I'm going to just go with it, move the movie forward, not name the organizations. But True the Vote has said publicly, look, we have their names. We're happy to provide them

to law enforcement. So to the degree that law enforcement says, OK, look, we want to take these cell phone IDs. We want to get a warrant. We want to go talk to the mules who paid you, who organized this, who put all this together, which would be a logical next step. There's also, by the way, a very interesting tax angle here, because as I think you know, Megan, 501c3 organizations are forbidden by IRS regulations from engaging in partisan electioneering of any kind on behalf of any candidate or any political party. And so quite apart from the potential illegality of the mules, you have the question of what are these left wing organizations doing, collecting hundreds of thousands of ballots and paying mules to drop

them off. That's not what they're supposed to do under IRS rules. When and we'll show this in a second. But Greg Phillips, the guy who works with Catherine at Truth of Vote, he got an interview with a mule from Arizona who's cooperating with authorities, according to the film. Is that's why we could have her in the film. Now, she lives in San Luis, Arizona. By the way, the sheriff of Yuma County, that's the county that encompasses San Luis, just announced a new criminal investigation into ballot trafficking in Yuma County, an area covered by True the Vote's research. The mule is from Yuma County. And so she talks about this operation. And it's kind of not from the horse's mouth, but from the mule's research. The mule is from Yuma County. And and so she talks about this operation and it's kind of not from the horse's mouth, but from the mule's mouth. From the mule's mouth. Well, because that's the one thing I wanted more of was people who worked in the centers and people who were the mules.

Right. Like, let's I mean, in today's day and age with Project Veritas running around out there, there has to be at least one James O'Keefe. It was like, sure, I'll be your mule. And then, you know, turn state's evidence on these guys. I wanted more of that. This woman's probably the closest that you have. I'll play her interview with Greg in part, and we'll pick it up there right after another quick, quick break. Dinesh, really

enjoying the conversation and entertaining as always. Stand by. Dinesh will stay with us, and then soon we'll be taking your calls. Would love to know your thoughts. Have you seen the movie? Were you persuaded? What did you make of it? And do you think that there will be a more in-depth investigation? And while you ponder those questions, remember you can find The Megyn Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon east and the full video show and clips by subscribing to our youtube channel youtube.com megan kelly if you prefer an audio podcast follow download on apple spotify pandora stitcher

wherever you get your podcast it's free and there you will find our full archives with such such great shows that you will be entertained all weekend more than 325 of them now and counting. Okay. You did manage to get one of these mules, um, on camera. Well, I mean, giving an interview and this is sound by eight. Let's take a listen. I was just instructed, uh, to go ahead and receive ballots from various people, females mostly. And on Friday, they would come and pick up payment. I would get a call to find out how many ballots were brought in and if they were already pre-filled out first. And she would come to the office, look at them,

and then before she left, she would either take them herself, but other times she would ask me if I could drop them off at the library. So what was the instruction? Just to drop them off. In the drop box? In the drop box, the early ballots. Can you give me an idea of how many you personally put in the box? Hundreds?

Could have been, yes. And was there a reason they wanted you, she wanted you to go to that drop box as opposed to maybe City Hall? There's no cameras. There's no cameras there. Now, what happens? Does law enforcement talk to this person? Do we know whether that went anywhere? Well, we know for a fact that she is cooperating with law enforcement talk to this person? Do we know whether that went anywhere? Well, we know for a fact that she is cooperating with law enforcement. And we know for a fact that there's an investigation going on right there. I would, if there's any place, Megan, I would be reasonably optimistic that this will push forward and that we will see arrests. It's going to be here in Yuma County. Okay, good. I mean, because listen, we don't know whether she's telling the truth. All that needs to be investigated by people who have investigatory skills, something maybe they could have done even prior now because those nonprofits are identifiable. You have the list. I'm sure law enforcement has the list. And just to be clear, my understanding, you can correct me, Dinesh, going into 2020, we had all sorts of election integrity pushes. And they came from the left, in large

part, people saying like Mark Zuckerberg, here's $400 million toward election integrity. And in the film, you cover the fact that usually these things would come with strings attached, like, make sure we have a lot of drop boxes and make sure we facilitate as many mail ballots as possible and make sure there are ads to vote in different languages and so on. So is that basically what we were talking about when we say nonprofits? It's not like a Planned Parenthood. It's like something election related. Yeah. So we're talking about two different things here. We're talking about powerful leftist foundations and digital moguls, people like Zuckerberg. Now, when Zuckerberg got involved, the media reported it sort of this way. The cities and states are trying to install all these drop boxes. They don't have the money. And Zuckerberg is gallantly stepping forward and

agreeing to pay for it. But it didn't work actually that way. Zuckerberg funneled the money in through some nonprofits that he controlled. And these nonprofits then sent out letters to all these counties basically saying, we got a lot of money. We're willing to give you a bunch of it. But to do that, you've got to sign this agreement in which you agree to do lots of mail-out balloting and lots of drop boxes. And we want you to also say, if you don't do this, you're going to have to give us the money back. So you really had a private individual with massive resources, almost half a billion dollars in this case, using that muscle to infiltrate election offices and control the way that the election is being administered. I mean,

it's unprecedented in American history. But quite honestly, it's not clear to me that that's even illegal. I don't think anyone anticipated anyone would attempt something so unbelievably audacious. And yet it was done. I'm not saying that Zuckerberg knew about the mules, but I am saying that if it wasn't for those privately funded drop boxes, the mules wouldn't have any place to go to. And these are very controversial. Even when they were established, there were a lot of folks on the right jumping up and down saying this is ripe for fraud. This is a bad idea. This is not going to end well. And the other side just kept saying COVID, COVID, COVID. We have to make it as easy as possible for people to vote. And here we are. One thing I wanted to follow up with you on, you said earlier, so it's very suspicious to you that this was done in all these swing states.

We mentioned the five, you said, and evidently nowhere else. But how do we know that, Dinesh? Because you guys didn't look elsewhere. As far as I understand, you didn't take a hard look at North Carolina or Florida or Ohio, even Texas, where it's a little bit more of a swing state these days. So how do we know it didn't happen there? Because if it was happening there too, maybe that would make these videos and these data seem less nefarious. Well, I think it probably happened other places.

I mean, it's kind of like saying if you go out on your porch with a flashlight and you keep flashing it here and there and you count ants everywhere you go, you can be sure there's a whole bunch of ants on your porch that you haven't counted with the original turning on of your flashlight. But on the other hand, I rejected the idea of taking the estimate of fraud in these five areas and somehow extrapolating to the whole country because I put myself in the place of the fraudsters. I thought, look, if I'm going to cheat, I don't need to cheat everywhere. I don't need to go where the money is. Yeah. Yeah. Let me cheat in North Carolina. I'll cheat in Florida. I'll cheat in Ohio. I'll cheat in Nevada. I'll cheat in the places where I think I can swing it to my side. So I'm quite confident that if true, the vote

looks in those places, there's a very good chance they would find it cheating. But we don't even imply or allege this in the movie because I want to stay with the evidence that we have. Yeah, because when I was first formulating that question, I was going to list states like, why not just to cast a wider net and check states like Oregon, you know, like New York. But I realized the answer is, well, duh, that's not where the Democrats, if they were cheating, were going to put their efforts. They knew they had those states secure. That would have been a waste of time, money and effort. So they would have gone to swing states only. There are more swing states than the ones you looked at. Your point is it may have been happening there, too. You just haven't done the

analysis. So let's speak to the second piece of what you say is your your proof. And that is the video evidence. You know, you find your suspected mules and then you see, is there any video evidence of this person? And as we discussed earlier, we don't have like the smoking gun of here's the guy going on camera, going from this one to that Dropbox to the next Dropbox. I mean, that would have been gold. Didn't happen for the reasons you discussed. But there is video. Let me pause for just a second. We do have the same mule at more than one Dropbox. It's just that when you look at the video alone, it is not absolutely clear that it's the same guy. Now we know it's the same guy because it's the same cell phone. But the problem is with

the the video quality itself is fuzzy. And let's remember, these aren't cinematographers. These are people that stick up, you know, the surveillance camera off in a distance away. So we have the same mule at more than one location. I'm just saying that as an eyewitness, it's not obvious. Oh, yeah, it's 100% sure it's the same guy. We know it's the same guy really, because it's the same cell phone. Okay. All right. But you don't have any widespread proof of that. I mean, like you may have the one guy, but I assume you would have put it in the film if you've got a bunch of mules also on camera going from spot to spot to spot. Exactly. The reason I rejected putting it in the film is I looked at it and I go, look, to me, it's not obvious. It's the same guy. I mean, I realize electronically we know it is,

but because it's not like a slam dunk, the same close up, I said, you know what? I'm not going to put it in the loop. It's basically straw man to try to say, like, you didn't get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. OK, but let me pause it because I want to show this clip of video and how you guys say this is a mule. This is in Georgia. This is soundbite, too. So we're going to show you a couple of different ones. 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, middle of the night, so why would they? It gets out, approaches the box. When people walk up with intention to cheat, they look around. They basically walk fairly quickly.

They try to stuff him in. They try to get out of there. In this case, he drops a few on the ground. Pick him up, stuff him into the box. He's going back to his car. 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 you just need a little in the right places over time okay so that's that's

what you say it looks like that's georgia uh then there's this example of this woman. I think this is one of the most damning ones. This is example number three, RSAT three of a woman. Now she's in Georgia. This is during the runoff for the Senate. She's wearing gloves. She's wearing like the latex gloves that people were using a lot. Well, sometimes during COVID. Take a listen. And for those who are in our listening audience, I'll describe what we're seeing. This particular one is approximately one o'clock in the morning on January the 5th. She does her ballots in there. It's like a small stack, maybe three, maybe four. Takes them off. Takes off the gloves. 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 this is in no way the only drop box that she attended. That's right. No, she goes to dozens and dozens over the course of these two elections. Now, we don't know she's out-of-state, Dinesh. You say that her cell phone was from South Carolina,

but there she was in Georgia. But, you know, I just moved from New York to Connecticut and I still have a New York cell phone. Like, you don't know that she was in Georgia. I agree, Megan. I mean, I still have a California area code on my phone and I live in Texas. Okay. So that's a supposition there. So the gloves, some of the people attacking you are like, well, it was COVID. You know, she wanted to wear gloves. She takes them off the second she drops the ballots in. Like, didn't did she have nothing else she was ever going to touch before she got back into her home and turned her front doorknob? Well, there's that. And then there's additional factor, which I think settles the issue. And that is that if you look at the mules in the early voting and then leading up to even election day,

they're not wearing gloves. But it's only after the indictment comes down in Arizona on, I believe, December 22nd, an indictment based upon the FBI finding fingerprints of mules on multiple ballots, that the word goes out and literally the next day, mules are all over the place wearing gloves. So with any hypothesis, you have to see which hypothesis fits the facts better. The COVID hypothesis doesn't really work here because it doesn't explain why there were no gloves. Obviously, there was COVID in October and November of 2020, and why the gloves only start appearing mid-December and then early January of 21. And again, anybody who's a COVID freak

wearing the latex gloves running around understands that once the ballots are dropped, doesn't make them sitting in their living room at home instantly. You got a lot of layers to go through to get back into your home. If you're so afraid of COVID that you're wearing latex gloves

while you're running around doing errands, you leave them on until you get back home. You shouldn't take them off and then put on another pair, which would have been senseless anyway. That is suspicious to me. I will give you that one.

And by the way, you say that it was happening all over the place. Do you have proof of that? Do you on the videos that you guys have looked at? Are there more alleged mules wearing latex gloves after that ruling? Oh, absolutely. No. And in fact, we show a bunch of them in the movie. She's not the only one wearing gloves.

You'll see multiple images of mules taking off gloves and tossing them in trash cans. That's like part of the M.O. of the mules. And why would you do that if you if you weren't, you know, who's concerned about their fingerprints on a ballot? OK, here's another one. Now, this is this is a guy. This is out of Atlanta. He's on a bicycle.

And there's been some pushback on this clip too. This is soundbite four, again, from 2000 Mules. What you're going to see is he approaches the drop box on his bike. He also has a backpack on. Pulled the balance out of his backpack. Taking his time. Taking his time, digging around, looking for some ballots. Finally gets that, pulls them out.

OK, now I'm set. And he'll put them 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? Of the box. Dinesh, some of the pushback, and this is, I think, from Washington Post, has said a lot of people were taking selfies

of themselves voting in connection with the 2020. Like, OK, for the listening audience, this guy did not do a selfie. He did look annoyed that he had to come back a second time on the bike. He gets off the bike and then he takes a picture of the box, not of himself, not of a smiling. You know, he doesn't have some I voted sticker. He seems to be trying to amass proof that he shoved ballots into this box. Exactly. And the other thing is, you'll notice that almost all of this mule activity is occurring between about one and four in the morning. Now, there are some quips in the movie about prime voting time and don't we all vote at one o'clock in the morning. So if this

operation is all on the up and up, people delivering ballots of family members, non-profit organizations, innocently culling votes and just saying, listen, guys, you know what? Let's make it easy for the voter by you dropping them off. When you watch the movie, you begin to realize that's not what it looks like at all. The whole context of it, a guy pulling up in a car, looking to the left and right, is anyone watching me? Okay, let me move ahead. So the whole context of it is the way that you would expect some sort of a criminal cartel to be functioning. And I think this is really what makes the movie so persuasive on an emotional

level. I mean, as a filmmaker, when I first met with Catherine and Greg, and I was fascinated by their geo-tracking evidence, but I was really sold when I saw the video evidence because the video evidence is so cinematic. If you're going to make a whodunit, just from a movie point of view, it's really important to be able to show the criminals like breaking into Fort Knox. And we're able to do that in this movie. Now, not all of them held up. There's one, this is soundbite six, a man in a white SUV. And your narration over the clip says this is a crime. What you're seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes. But this guy, according to the authorities down in Georgia, turned out to be legit and was no mule. Let me play it so the audience can see for themselves.

Soundbite six. What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes. This guy's standing at the drop box feeding one in after the other. It turns out it was five. And down in Georgia, they actually did look into that. And it turns out they found the guy, they tracked him down. He told them that he had dropped off ballots from members of his household, his wife and his three adult kids, which would be lawful. The investigators corroborated

this by looking up the voting records of all five family members, confirming that their ballots were deposited in that dropbox the day the surveillance was recorded. So does that not undermine the claims in the movie, right? Who else was ensnared in your web who turned out to be a legitimate voter and not a mule? Well, in this particular case, I listened very carefully to what the investigator said. And part of what he said made sense, and part of what he said made no sense. So what he said was, he went and talked to the mule, or let's just call him individual. And that guy goes, Oh, no, I wasn't dropping off any illicit votes. I was merely dropping off the votes of my family members. And he apparently had five family members. So there was clearly the possibility that he was telling the truth. Here's the part that gets me, Megan. And that is, if you know what custody

documents look like, they do not record the names of individual voters. And so, and not to mention the fact that once a ballot is opened and the ballot is taken out of the envelope, the two pieces of evidence, if you will, are separated. In other words, there's no name, there's no address, there's no signature on the ballot. The signature is only on the envelope. And when those two things are separated, this process cannot be reverse engineered. So the question I have, which I do not believe they're being entirely straight about, that they verified that these family members voted in that box. How did they do that? Are you telling me that the names of every voter is listed on a custody document? You open a ballot box with 1,800 votes or 700 votes. The names of all the voters in that box are written down.

That is not the case. And so I'd like to find out where was the real verification. I fully accept that this guy said it was that he wasn't doing anything illegal, but how they were able to verify that is to me a little bit baffling. Now they're saying in Georgia, because this a lot, a lot of stuff went down in Georgia, and they're saying that they have subpoenaed Catherine's group and maybe you too, you can tell me, and that she's not being as cooperative as they would like. They want all the data. They want to look into it. What's the status of that? So this is a very tricky business because there's very tricky politics in Georgia. As you know, there's an ongoing primary fight between David Perdue and Brian Kemp. Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, came out publicly after the election,

declared it was a safe and secure election, got into a verbal spat with Trump over this, which was widely reported, was hailed as a hero in the media. And so here's the kind of political question. Would somebody like that, aren't they now in a little bit of an awkward position? Because they're having this investigation and if the investigation proves that truth about is right, essentially you have to have a sheriff, Raffensperger, saying that a big heist was going on under his nose and he had absolutely no idea. He's only finding out now due to some independent group in Texas that did the detective work that he should have done himself. So all of this is very dicey. Apparently what the Georgia

investigators are doing, and no, I haven't gotten a subpoena, is they're going to true the vote and basically saying, divulge the name of your whistleblower, because that's where we want to start. Now, the whistleblower came to true the vote and said, from the beginning, I refuse to let my name be known. I'm going to tell you what I did, and you're welcome to independently verify it, but I do not want to be part of this process. So the whistleblower is in hiding, and the Georgia investigators are trying to open their investigation by going that way. Catherine and Greg have told the Georgia people, why are you doing it that way? Why don't you essentially unmask the mules and talk to them? Because they obviously are not going to want themselves to be in trouble.

They're going to happily divulge what this operation is all about. So I can't claim to have the inside knowledge of this investigation, but the resistance from Catherine and Greg is not because they don't want to cooperate. They're actually very eager to cooperate with the state of Georgia, but they don't know if the state of Georgia is kind of playing games with them. Are they actually trying to figure out what happened or are they actually trying to suppress what happened? Unmask the mules.

That's what you believe the next step is. So it's not because I'm thinking as a law enforcement matter, the first thing you'd want to do is go to all the nonprofits, start interviewing everybody. What did you do? What exactly was your role? Let me see a list of your payroll. Where did your money go? Let's figure out, like, you tell me who does business with this organization and who you've paid for help in connection with the election, which would also be very good place would be because we talked about how you can unmask those little dots that you see on the geo tracking data. Do that for at least some collection of the suspects that you guys have identified and see what they have to say. Yeah, I don't even think the mules are the real villains here. Some people on social media are railing on the mules. You know, one guy goes, I'm going to go to these mules and get my gas money back because the gas prices evidently are reclaimed on Biden and the mules are... Look,

the problem with the mules is when, and you see this when we see the interview with the mule in the movie, she's basically, you know, someone who's like, I got to, you know, this is the way I made some extra money. And there are a couple of other people, by the way, traffickers interviewed in the movie. There was a case in 2018 where, very interestingly, the ballot trafficking was done on behalf of a Republican candidate. But a couple of the traffickers are interviewed and they go, I'm just trying to get some Christmas money for me. So for a lot of the meals, it's not I'm trying to rig the election for Joe Biden. They're just doing what they were told and they're doing it for the money. And so the problem here is the people who put them up to it. Right. And you point out the movie, they could get up around 10 bucks a ballot. So you can make some good dough if you want to be a mule. But yeah, it's not they're not the mob boss. They're just the low level worker. And the interesting party would be the mob boss. Who's at the nonprofits? What, if anything, did they do? Who did they pay? And what

exactly did they pay them for? And by the way, who are they getting the ballots from? That's back to the question I asked you earlier. It's got to originate somewhere. Now, question for you, because when I asked you where the ballots came from, you said you got serious questions about whether these were all willing participants who just handed over their votes to somebody who took them to a nonprofit center. But Catherine was asked at a legislative hearing in March in Wisconsin, you're not claiming the ballots themselves are fraudulent, are you? And her answer was, we are not suggesting that the ballots that were cast were illegal ballots. So do you agree with that? Well, I think we should be careful here about what we're talking about.

Obviously, no one is saying that the physical ballot is fraudulent. In other words, we're not saying that these are ballots that were, for example, separately printed, that they're not real ballots. They're real ballots. Well, I mean, Hans, as I mentioned, he's in the documentary suggesting could have been photocopied on a high quality. I mean, that would be an illegal ballot. Yes, it would.

And that has been done in both fraud cases in the past. In this case, we just don't know. And the reason that it's so important to do this investigation is all this knowledge, the questions that we don't know are hardly impossible to find out. So, for example, as you said, there are two independent courses of investigation. Talk to the mules and, in a sense, raid the vote stash houses. And they're going to tell you where these ballots came from. They're going to have to show you where they came from. So if you or I can't pinpoint where they came from, because we didn't get them, the organizations most certainly are able to do that. Now, what Catherine, I think, was doing is

just narrowing her focus to say, this is what we know, and then there are things that we don't know. So what she's saying is, we are following this ballot from the box back to the vote stash house, and our investigation sort of stops there. We know where the ballot started, and we know where the ballot ended, but where the ballot originally came from is outside the scope of our investigation. And I agree with that. But I also think that further investigation can solve and answer that question. And I'm pretty sure it's going to reveal that there is basically a mechanism, which the Democrats, by the way, have been doing for decades, but ramped up in 2020 to get your hands on all kinds of mail-in ballots. And remember, the infrastructure here was already in place.

Very bad voter rolls. And anytime a state like Georgia tries to clean them up, they get sued for voter suppression. So the Democrats like the rolls to be bad because then when mail-out ballots go out, they go out to all kinds of people who are dead, who have moved, students who have graduated and moved to another state.

And so there's the opportunity for fraud is huge. At the same time, I'm very careful in the movie to show that merely having the opportunity to have a heist doesn't mean that there was a heist. And where the movie I think really takes off is it's able to show not merely the possibility of these things happening, but that they did in fact happen. Well, that's, I mean, I would say a lot of my viewers and listeners have texted me or written in saying, what do you think? What do you think? What do you think of 2,000 mules?

And what I think, Dinesh, is it's a good start. You know, I think it's a start. And I think what you're asking for is for law enforcement to take the baton or a secretary of state's office to take the baton and continue investigating. There are limits to your powers. You don't have the power to get warrants and so on and actually unmask anybody. And that's all it needs to be. People holding you to a higher standard than that, I think, misunderstand your purpose. You offer your conclusions. That's fine. You're allowed to do that. That's what you always do. You sell us what I think. That's what I see. And people can

draw their own conclusions, too. I think it raises a lot of serious red flags that need to be looked into. But a lot of folks also want to know as follows. This is one of our Twitter followers sent in this question for you. How do you know mules and enough votes, you believe, to have changed outcome, to have changed the results in places like Georgia, where the difference between Trump and Biden was some 12,000 votes and so on. So the reason that we would attribute these votes to Biden is the following. Number one, the fraud is occurring in heavily Democratic-controlled areas, areas where really Republicans are nowhere to be found. Number two, these are far left-wing organizations that are doing this ballot trafficking. They're the vote stash houses.

And number three, what Greg and Catherine did in a kind of ingenious move is they matched the mule IDs, the mule cell phone IDs, with the cell phone IDs of Antifa BLM rioters that had riots. It so happened that in the aftermath of George Floyd, there were a lot of riots in these urban areas in the exact same period leading up to the election. And so by matching cell phone IDs, you can identify the fact that a substantial number, not a majority, but a substantial number of the mules are also BLM Antifa rioters. And so you put all these factors together, and then I guess you would add the obvious fact, which is Joe Biden won the election. And you say, look, you're looking at left-wing areas, left-wing organizations,

Antifa, BLM mules, what's the probability that they're culling these votes for Trump? I mean, to flip the thing on its head, imagine if in 2016, there was an exactly similar organization, a similar operation being organized by the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and they were doing this in evangelical churches and collecting votes. Would anybody say, we really have open questions about who these votes are for based on who's doing it? You would know for sure that this is being done to rig the election for Trump. Yeah, fair point. So what about result and outcome? Because the movie makes some sweeping claims of like, okay, 2000 mules, you know, 500 in Michigan, average number of dropbox visits, 50, average number of illegal ballots per visit, five.

That's one hundred twenty five thousand illegal votes. The vote difference between Trump and Biden was one hundred fifty four thousand. Biden would still win. But, you know, you're sort of getting it tighter. So we don't know. I mean, you use that term illegal ballot loosely. It's not we don't really know. We don't know. But you're trying to make the case, as I understand it, that this could have changed outcome. Well, we're trying to highlight the point that this was a really close election. You know, one of the rules that courts use, by the way, in 2018, it's mentioned in the movie,

a congressional election was overturned in North Carolina, not by a court, by the way, but by an election board. Now, the criteria- And that's a Republican doing it there. That was a Republican doing it there. The criterion that the courts normally use on election boards is what's called the sort of but-for principle, which is but for the fraud would the election have come out differently. And that's really why we have this section in the movie. We're trying to show that, look, we're not talking about 100 votes here or 200 votes there. We're talking about thousands, and in in some cases tens or hundreds of thousands of votes in the aggregate in states like Georgia, which were decided think that this is a volume of fraud by itself, looking at only the 2,000 mules that could have made the difference. Do we think these drop boxes are a permanent fixture now? I mean, are they going away before the next election?

I don't think they are going away. Now, it is true. There are some people who say we need to get back to election day. Everybody shows up to vote. And there's a part of me that wants that to happen. We obviously would allow absentee ballots, but under limited conditions. But see, these are laws that are made at the state level. And as long as you're going to have sort of decentralized laws being made by individual states, I think you're going to have drop boxes. Now, one of the things I'd like to put on the table for the movie like this is what is the rationale for not doing electronic surveillance 24 seven on every drop? Yes, there is no no rationale that it's you. It should be you want a drop box. No problem. You get your drop box. It only the votes in that Dropbox will only count if they can ensure that

that thing is under 24 seven clear up close video surveillance. And sorry, if it fails, so does your vote. So does your your collection of votes. That's the way it's going to have to be. That's election security. I mean, Megan, every every Home Depot, every parking lot, every ATM technology is available. It's very cheap to do. In fact, it's called for in the election rules. You don't even need new laws. It's just that a lot of the states flouted the laws.

And in some places like Arizona, they literally had cameras, but turned them off. Yeah. And what was the county that wrote back to Catherine saying something like, I have no explanation for why I have absolutely nothing to produce to you in your call for video evidence. That's Fulton County and notorious, by the way, has had a notorious history of fraud.

And and it was very difficult to get this video. It's it's you know, you think in public information requests, they'd be happy to turn it over to you. But apparently no one had seen this video. When we put these videos out, they had never been seen before. And isn't that remarkable that you've got this? This is official state surveillance footage. You think that they would be sort of looking at this periodically to see if there's anything there that they should pay attention to. Evidently, they didn't do it. All right. Last question before I let you go. Dinesh, do you believe so? Dinesh D'Souza, I told my audience

this when I aired the long clip of the Bill Ayers interview when we were covering Chesa Boudin. So Dinesh D'Souza is the man who helped me make that happen. That would not have happened had it not been for Dinesh, who was making one of his movies and Bill Ayers was in it. And Dinesh was on my set one day and he's like, do you think you'd want to interview Bill Ayers? I'm like, hell yes. So that one and Ward Churchill happened,

two of my favorites, absolute favorite interviews ever, thanks to you. And I thought about you a million times as we see now Bill Ayers, domestic terrorist, head of the Weather Underground, founder, who married another domestic terrorist, whose best friends were domestic terrorists, who produced a little boy named Chesa Pudin. But that second couple didn't get to raise Chesa Pudin because they went to jail for killing two security guards and a police officer in a Brink security robbery. And who raised their son, Bill Ayers, and his domestic terrorist wife, Bernadine Dorn. So many to keep track of. Now Ches is the DA. He's the DA in San Francisco. He's facing a recall election in January on June

7th because he's been so light on crime. Duh, who could have seen that coming? And I would love your thoughts on Chesa Boudin before I let you go. I mean, first of all, Megan, your interview with Bill Ayers is a classic of modern, the modern television era, the way you handled it, the kind of blunt precision with which you focused your questions, the whole thing was just unbelievably riveting. So I'm delighted to have been, well, honestly, thinking about it, I was kind of the mule, wasn't I? I was the go-between.

I was the broker. I brought Bel Airs to you and then you took it from there. It was downright awesome. No, I mean, it's unbelievable to me that you've got a guy who's basically a Castroite and a Chavista, who's sort of raised in a red diaper family, if you will, by communists, who's basically a Castroite and a Chavista, who's sort of raised in a red diaper family, if you will, by communists, who's the DA. I don't know if the voters in San Francisco knew all this when they put him in there. I think many of them are figuring it out now. But yeah,

you put a guy in like that, and he's in a sense acting true to form and true to character. I really hope the voters give him the they pull out the rug in the recall election. Me too. Okay, my crack producer, Canadian Debbie, has actually cut a Bel Air shot. Let's take a look at it for old time's sake. Bel Airs and MK. How many bombings are you responsible for?

Weather Underground, I think, took credit for just slightly over 20. Might be personally, I've never talked about it, never will. Let me just tell you what I hear when I hear that. I hear you saying, you sound like, with respect, Osama bin Laden. While underground, you stole, you lied, you hid, right? Any disagreement?

You stole. Onward, yes. You did. You wrote about it in your book. We stole ID. You stole purses, you stole wallets. Yeah. Stole money. Some. You ripped off dead babies your book. We stole IDs. You stole purses. You stole wallets. Well, yeah. You stole money.

Some. You ripped off dead babies' identities. Right. And yet, the violence continued. Just because you went underground didn't mean the violence stopped. What violence? March 1, 1971, you bombed the U.S. Capitol. May 19, 1972, you bombed the Pentagon.

January 29, 1975, you bombed the State Department. That's what I mean by violence. What would it, 1975, you bombed the State Department. That's what I mean by violence. What would it take to make you bomb this country again? I can't completely say no. I would never, ever rise up in opposition in a very militant and serious way. I can't say I wouldn't. I doubt it. Oh, good times, Dinesh. And you were sitting right there. People know you were there for that. you joined us and we had a trio of an interview later, but the tension was thick. It was fantastic. I mean, this is what I, you know, it's almost like we've lost that in TV today. And, uh, I, it makes me wistful for those days because that's, that's journalism. Oh, well, thank you for that. And by the way, crack producer, a Canadian Debbie has also cut. She's also got a soundbite of the word Churchill. He's a former professor at the University of Colorado, who said some crazy things about 9-11 and essentially that we deserved it and got into a whole legal battle with his university. He was another guy who came to the set one day and it was, I mean, it made the Bill Ayers interview look friendly. Here's a bit of it.

You thought that the dead Americans were just like the Nazis. However, you had nothing but praise for the 9-11 hijackers. You called them courageous, even gallant. Gallant? Do you believe the United States ought to be bombed? I think the United States, by its own rules, is subject to being bombed. You can't answer the question. Yeah, I have answered the question.

Yes or no. Yes or no, do we deserve to be bombed? If it does not comply, it opens itself up to it. Bombing, that is. It opens itself up to having done to it everything it does to anyone else. Why can't you have the courage to just answer honestly, yes or no? Do we deserve to be bombed? Just say it if you think it's true. I say that if you open yourself up under rule of law for reciprocation in kind, it's quite likely going to happen.

He leaned across the table for that last answer. And it was, I'll never forget that moment. I didn't know where it was going to go. Fascinating. No, absolutely. That is, so this is the radical left that has, in a sense, taken over our culture. Yes, Dinesh. There's so many more of Ward Churchill's and Bill Ayers in our university systems right now. Yeah. And their history is being sort of retroactively written out to glamorize what they did and glamorize their motives. And and all of this is done in the name of social and racial justice. It's complete nonsense. Bill Ayers is a college professor, has been. I don't know if he's retired since, but his wife, Northwestern Law School. Okay,

we could go on down the list. Thank you so much for everything, Dinesh. A fascinating watch. Highly recommend you watch it. Come up with your own questions and your conclusions. It's called 2,000 Mules. It's in theaters now. All the best to you. And we have another great one coming up on Monday. Next week, we've got Jonathan Haidt, who wrote the book The Coddling of the American Mind. Oh, my God. It's incredible if you haven't read that book. Also, the guys from the fifth column are back and Kellyanne Conway is coming on for her first in-depth podcast interview. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.