Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative filmmaker, explained why he feels Fox News has declined to broadcast his documentary “2000 Mules” on Wednesday.
In the film, he and True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips allege that during the 2020 general election, an unlawful ballot harvesting plan took place in the critical swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
They present cell phone tracking data and video surveillance footage of ballot drop box sites obtained through public records requests as proof that illegal activity occurred, which very likely influenced the presidential election’s outcome.
Many mainstream media publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, Politico, and the Associated Press, have reported about “2000 Mules,” the most popular political documentary published in a decade, either to fact check or otherwise disparage it.
All of them doubt that mobile phone monitoring data can accurately determine if someone went to a drop box and, if so, whether they voted illegally.
True the Vote claims that only individuals who visited drop boxes 10 times or more were included, as well as those who visited five more nonprofit sites, which reportedly served as ballot collecting points from which the “mules” subsequently delivered batches of ballots to drop boxes.
True the Vote purchased cell phone data from September, October, and November, showing before, during, and after election season, to further defend against mistakenly scooping up persons who occurred to pass by drop box sites on a frequent basis.
Despite all of the hoopla and debate surrounding “2000 Mules,” D’Souza highlighted on his podcast on Wednesday that Fox News, the most influential conservative news organisation, has mostly ignored the film.
On Thursday, an online search of “FoxNews.com” and “2000 Mules” yielded no results.“It’s weird, to say the least. It necessitates an explanation,” D’Souza stated.
The subject resurfaced over the weekend when Fox News personality Sandra Smith claimed that “2000 Mules” had been refuted during a heated argument with Alabama GOP congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mo Brooks.
Smith had no intention of bringing up the issue of “2000 Mules” in her discussion with Brooks, according to D’Souza, but the legislator did. D’Souza also noted that, with the exception of a pre-release interview he made with Larry Kudlow on Fox Business Network in April, none of the major news agencies, including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, have covered the film.
D’Souza feels that his interview with Fox Business Network “slipped through” before the injunction was issued. He said that while Fox News is under no need to agree with “2000 Mules,” ignoring it is unusual, especially considering the network’s conservative readership.
“Well, listen,” D’Souza argued Fox News management should have reasoned. Dinesh appears frequently on Fox. “He’s on all the time in our house. Bring him on the programme and sort of confront him with these fact checks, going through them one by one and having him respond.”
“Then feel free to say, ‘Oh, that’s convincing.’ That is incomprehensible. But hold on a second, you’re overlooking this.” “In a healthy society, a journalistic network would perform this type of reasonable analysis,” the director continued, “but that is not Fox, at least not now.”
D’Souza proposed three plausible explanations for Fox’s behaviour
First and foremost, network executives are concerned about legal issues. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox Corporation for defamation, alleging that the network fraudulently broadcast accusations that their voting devices were used to rig the 2020 general election.
D’Souza discounted this as a possible reason for Fox’s “2000 Mules” ban, claiming that the film is about the legitimacy of ballots cast, not voting machines. The film also does not name any NGOs that may have been involved in the alleged fraud, instead urging law authorities to examine the subject using True the Vote’s data.
Another reason Fox isn’t covering the documentary, according to D’Souza, is a fear of upsetting or losing advertisers. However, he does not believe this is the case, pointing out that the popularity of “2000 Mules” has made it newsworthy, with sources such as the Washington Post and Politico covering it.
Of course, Fox faces a catch-22 because, if they report it critically as these other sites have, they risk alienating their audience. According to D’Souza, the reason Fox isn’t covering “2000 Mules” is because Rupert Murdoch, the head of Fox Corporation, no longer favours Donald Trump.
“What you have here appears to be a quarrel.” A personal quarrel. If you want to call it that, you might call it a billionaire feud. “One that, by the way, has been reported in a few places on and off,” D’Souza remarked. He cited reports that Rupert Murdoch had soured on Trump, stating that the 45th president should look past the 2020 election.
“Look, it’s Mr Murdoch’s network,” says the narrator. It’s a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch. D’Souza stated, “He may do whatever he wants. He can burn his brand if he wants, but I believe it’s really unhealthy for a democracy if problems of critical public concern, that are on the minds of at least the GOP side of the electorate, and probably much more than that, can’t be discussed because one guy says they can’t.”
At the time of publishing, the Patriot Project had sought out Fox News for comment but had not received a response.
Counter argument against evidence by 2000 Mules
While a lot of people chose to believe that the evidence provided in the 2000 Mules documentary is concrete, I think it would be good to look at the other side of the argument, as healthy debate is always good. There is one Google review about this documentary that struck out to and captured all of the evidence against the information presented in 2000 Mules.
“First of all, the cell phone tracking data is only accurate (under the right conditions) for about a 100-foot radius. That is fifty feet from any location. Secondly, the so-called non-profits are never named in this film. Who are these non-profits?
What is their function and why and how would they have anything to do with this so-called ballot stuffing? Thirdly, the Washington Post has shown that many of the alleged drop boxes shown in the film are nowhere near the actual REAL drop boxes. Some of the REAL drop boxes are blocks away from where they say they are located in the film.
Fourthly the state of Georgia has subpoenaed True the Vote for any evidence they might have to prove their allegations and they have refused to provide any.
Also read|The Truth of the 2020 Election, 2000 Mules by Dinesh D’Souza
Fifthly, some of the people in the film who were filmed dropping off ballots were interviewed by the state of Georgia and were determined to have done absolutely nothing wrong. The Georgia State Elections Board on May 17, 2022, voted unanimously to dismiss three ballot-fraud claims brought by right-wing activists.
And last but not least the producers of this film say they are NOT claiming that any of the ballots dropped in the drop boxes are illegitimate. All the information in my review can be verified by doing an internet search. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Washington Post are good sources.”
Add Comment