I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.
IIRC they had CCTV data that showed them putting in multiple ballots along with the cellphone data.
one such mule who made 53 trips to 20 drop boxes for example so using the excuse they were just helping they granny post her ballot does not really fly, also they will have been paid by someone for this and probably been texted their instructions similar to the paid rioters.
If someone in law enforcement actually bothered to investigate it i don't think it would be long before the some of the 2000 mules would start to crack and roll on the others rather than go to jail.
So even circumstantial evidence would be quite powerful in that case.
Also with the phone tracking even if you use a burner phone whilst your doing something illegal if you have it with you when you buy a coffee or bring it home with it they will be able to find out who you are due to seeing the phone at various locations, so think about the amount of CCTV your seen on throughout the day and if your burner phone is seen at 10 locations where they can see you on CCTV they know its you.
Also Accurate to within a couple of feet from what i have read.
So to establish a crime, they'd need to tie an individual's phone number to the location. Then they'd need to have evidence of that individual dropping off multiple ballots. Then they'd need evidence that the individual was not allowed to drop off multiple ballots and/or that those specific ballots the individual dropped off were fake.
Then, if they can prove at least that level of crime, they have to connect that individual to a larger conspiracy, and that the individual was answering to someone specific (and not just a movement or philosophy). And then we have to connect that someone specific to an organization, and prove that handler was operating on behalf of that organization.
Then we have to show that the organization directed that individual to commit that crime, and connect it to an election fraud conspiracy.
We have to do all of this with hard evidence. And then we have to do it for another individual. And another individual. And another individual.
To date, the evidence I've seen of election fraud (AZ audit, Lindell, etc) has operated like this:
"Imagine if a Democratic operative was caught on camera going from Democratic offices to the drop boxes multiple times to drop off fake votes for Biden as part of a national conspiracy to steal the election. That would be pretty damning if we had evidence of that, right?
Well, we do have evidence that a bunch of people were near the Democratic offices and the dropboxes multiple times. And we have a video of some of those people dropping off multiple ballots. Some of them were doing suspicious stuff like wearing gloves.
We're going to assume they're fake ballots for Biden. We're going to assume they're Democratic operatives. We're going to assume they're doing this as part of a conspiracy. And based on those assumptions, this is REALLY damning evidence that the election was stolen."
If you take any random sample of thousands of people, start pulling targeted behaviors from individuals in this group, and then assume all these behaviors MUST be related to a single malicious motivation just because you drew lines between the behaviors, then yes, you can find evidence of whatever you want, I promise.
This is a basic correlation/causation error.
Like I said, I can't speak to the specifics of a video I haven't watched yet. But all of the big evidence releases so far have shown lot of data points I'm supposed to assume have a connection based on a correlation.
IF there is a connection between these data points, then yes, that would be concerning. But that's the evidence I'm looking for, and the evidence a court would be looking for. I won't assume a narrative just because a bunch of uncontextualized data points correlate in an interesting way.
I haven’t seen the film yet and can’t respond to its evidence.
Only the question as to why the cell phone location data was considered powerful evidence of criminal trespass and significantly less powerful (on its own) of proving that people were in the area to drop off fraudulent votes as part of a major criminal conspiracy.
Proving 2000 people were in areas he considered suspicious is fine. But if none of those areas are illegal, then he still has to match those 2000 data points with an actual crime.
I would hope the film presents compelling evidence proving each of those people actually committed a crime.I look forward to seeing it later.
IIRC they had CCTV data that showed them putting in multiple ballots along with the cellphone data.
one such mule who made 53 trips to 20 drop boxes for example so using the excuse they were just helping they granny post her ballot does not really fly, also they will have been paid by someone for this and probably been texted their instructions similar to the paid rioters. If someone in law enforcement actually bothered to investigate it i don't think it would be long before the some of the 2000 mules would start to crack and roll on the others rather than go to jail. So even circumstantial evidence would be quite powerful in that case.
Also with the phone tracking even if you use a burner phone whilst your doing something illegal if you have it with you when you buy a coffee or bring it home with it they will be able to find out who you are due to seeing the phone at various locations, so think about the amount of CCTV your seen on throughout the day and if your burner phone is seen at 10 locations where they can see you on CCTV they know its you. Also Accurate to within a couple of feet from what i have read.
So to establish a crime, they'd need to tie an individual's phone number to the location. Then they'd need to have evidence of that individual dropping off multiple ballots. Then they'd need evidence that the individual was not allowed to drop off multiple ballots and/or that those specific ballots the individual dropped off were fake.
Then, if they can prove at least that level of crime, they have to connect that individual to a larger conspiracy, and that the individual was answering to someone specific (and not just a movement or philosophy). And then we have to connect that someone specific to an organization, and prove that handler was operating on behalf of that organization.
Then we have to show that the organization directed that individual to commit that crime, and connect it to an election fraud conspiracy.
We have to do all of this with hard evidence. And then we have to do it for another individual. And another individual. And another individual.
To date, the evidence I've seen of election fraud (AZ audit, Lindell, etc) has operated like this:
"Imagine if a Democratic operative was caught on camera going from Democratic offices to the drop boxes multiple times to drop off fake votes for Biden as part of a national conspiracy to steal the election. That would be pretty damning if we had evidence of that, right?
Well, we do have evidence that a bunch of people were near the Democratic offices and the dropboxes multiple times. And we have a video of some of those people dropping off multiple ballots. Some of them were doing suspicious stuff like wearing gloves.
We're going to assume they're fake ballots for Biden. We're going to assume they're Democratic operatives. We're going to assume they're doing this as part of a conspiracy. And based on those assumptions, this is REALLY damning evidence that the election was stolen."
If you take any random sample of thousands of people, start pulling targeted behaviors from individuals in this group, and then assume all these behaviors MUST be related to a single malicious motivation just because you drew lines between the behaviors, then yes, you can find evidence of whatever you want, I promise.
This is a basic correlation/causation error.
Like I said, I can't speak to the specifics of a video I haven't watched yet. But all of the big evidence releases so far have shown lot of data points I'm supposed to assume have a connection based on a correlation.
IF there is a connection between these data points, then yes, that would be concerning. But that's the evidence I'm looking for, and the evidence a court would be looking for. I won't assume a narrative just because a bunch of uncontextualized data points correlate in an interesting way.
Why are you here?
Mule.
That's what the CCTV is for!
Not forgetting the way these mules got paid was by taking a photo at the drop boxes, and then getting paid per ballot.
Do you think that metadata is not available as well lol.
It is in the film.
4,000,000 minutes of video showing them putting multiple ballots into multiple drop boxes -- and only in areas that turned from DJT to FJB.
Must suck to be fag like you.
I see what you did there.
I’ll look forward to seeing this RICO case, then.