"The sheriff of Yuma saw our movie, went berserk and has opened up an investigation in Yuma, Arizona and I believe there will be arrests very soon."
Alright. So we have a timeline. 2000 Mules was released at the beginning of May, and the Yuma County press release regarding the election fraud cases was announced about a week later.
So far so good. Here’s the press release from the investigators.
The Yuma County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO) and the Yuma County Recorder’s Office (YCRO) are working together to actively examine cases of voting fraud from the 2020 General Election and now a recent pattern of fraudulent voter registration forms leading up to the 2022 Primary Election. As of March 2022, YCSO has 16 voting/registration open cases. All relevant evidence is being formally documented by the Yuma County Recorder’s Office and further investigated by the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office.
Hold up. As of March?
So this investigation has been going on long before March, and even longer before May?
D’Souza specifically said the sheriff saw the movie, not a report, not just data. So was this a very, very unfinished movie that the sheriff saw much earlier than anyone else? Maybe he saw the story boards?
Well, who is this berserk sheriff? It says right at the top of the press release. Sheriff Leon Wilmot.
So if this sheriff both saw this unreleased movie and was disturbed enough by it to immediately open an investigation thanks to D’Souza’s hard work, why is he also publicly denying it?
“The Yuma County Sheriff’s Office has been working jointly with the Yuma County Recorder’s Office and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office extensively regarding allegations of voter misconduct for over a year,” Wilmot said. “
Over a year. Well before D’Souza could have had a viable movie to show Wilmot.
There’s always the possibility of “this is a super secret operation and plausible deniability is necessary.” Maybe making D’Souza look like a liar is part of the Plan.
But if that’s the case, then that means D’Souza’s role here is to look like someone who can’t even get the sheriff who can prove the value of his movie to lend any credibility to it. That seems strange for a movie specifically designed to wake people up.
TL;DR
Sheriff’s press, both officially released and in interviews, has suggested this case has been going on for months before the movie was released. D’Souza probably saw that the press release came out a week after his movie and made the assumption, but neither the sheriff nor anyone from his office is backing up that claim, and nothing from their office seems to support it.
This is really good work, and I'm struggling through morning noise and activity to articulate a worthy response...
I won't discount what you're implying regarding D'Souza's inconsistencies. It's crazy here, and I have to go unfortunately.
But I will ask one, slightly rhetorical, question: Do you think it's conceivable D'Souza received information from the same source the sheriff recieved his information?
Follow up, which you briefly addressed yourself: In regards to super secret operations with plausible deniability, which are further complicated by a complicit, enemy controlled media, how does one tell the people the truth? How does one SHOW the people the truth?
Thanks for the digging. I really have to hang up and listen. Hopefully other pedes will chime in.
But I will ask one, slightly rhetorical, question: Do you think it's conceivable D'Souza received information from the same source the sheriff recieved his information?
Absolutely!
But that's not what either of them claimed. D'Souza specifically said the sheriff was responding to his film. I don't see how that can be the truth.
Perhaps D'Souza didn't present his argument clearly, but that's... not a good trait for a guy trying to defend the way he's presented evidence of election fraud.
I don't really have any reason to give D'Souza a benefit of the doubt.
In regards to super secret operations with plausible deniability, which are further complicated by a complicit, enemy controlled media, how does one tell the people the truth? How does one SHOW the people the truth?
I've actually asked a variation of this question.
If there is no super secret operation with plausible deniability, how would you ever prove it to yourself? What in the Q narrative allows you to PROVE to yourself that you are wrong about it?
Every failure is interpreted as optics. Every apparent setback is making the enemy "expend ammo." Every idiot move or denial of Q by Important People is seen as "disinformation is necessary."
To respond to your question, ask yourself. Why does this site exist? HOW does this site exist?
If the Cabal can control everything, and this site still exists, then clearly there's a dissonant conclusion. Either they are controlling this site, or the internet is too big even for the Cabal to effectively control.
So put Frazzledrip on the internet. Let me see Clinton eating a child instead of just taking people's word for it. Let me actually see the TrueTheVote data instead of being told what it said in a movie. The MSM can suppress it all they want, but I watched D'Souza's movie on his own site.
Now, what about you? Is Q falsifiable for you? Have you left yourself any way to know if this Plan doesn't come to fruition or never actually existed? How would you know if all the stuff that you think is happening secretly actually isn't happening?
It could easily be true. Many investigations do not produce arrests, either for insufficient evidence or political will. If the movie supplied one new fact, or persuaded a prosecutor to authorize the case, the movie could be a direct cause of arrests from a previous investigation.
Same as how the "cold cases" TV show claims credit for cases with old non-prosecuted cases.
Sure, but where did your theory of this come from? It didn’t come from D’Souza. It didn’t come from the sheriff report. It didn’t come from any after-the-fact clarifications.
Isn’t this just hypothetical?
As far as I continue to see, D’Souza has insisted that the Yuma investigation is a result of his movie, and nobody else involved agrees.
Look, D’Souza’s job was to create a convincing argument that election fraud occurred. If that’s his job, why is it my responsibility, or your responsibility, or anyone’s responsibility to decipher what he really meant?
He’s the messaging guy! It’s his job to put out an accurate message. It’s not my job to clean up his messaging mistakes for him, and no normie on the planet is interested in doing that.
If he meant to say something else, he can clarify. Given the nature of his film, his credibility needs to be airtight.
If maintaining that airtight credibility requires me to assume hypothetical situations that might possibly make D’Souza only partially wrong, then the credibility is not airtight.
I dug into these raids a bit.
What he’s referring to is the Yuma County investigation that was announced a couple of weeks ago.
D’Souza specifically claimed on a podcast that this Yuma investigation was a direct result of his movie. 1 minute mark.
https://mobile.twitter.com/WhitlockJason/status/1526315725446688771?s=20&t=G0PMzHJOcENn1vC8F9ZRdQ
Alright. So we have a timeline. 2000 Mules was released at the beginning of May, and the Yuma County press release regarding the election fraud cases was announced about a week later.
So far so good. Here’s the press release from the investigators.
https://www.yumacountysheriff.org/pr-2022/PR-2022-30-Yuma-County-Voting-Fraud.pdf
Here’s the opening line from the release;
Hold up. As of March?
So this investigation has been going on long before March, and even longer before May?
D’Souza specifically said the sheriff saw the movie, not a report, not just data. So was this a very, very unfinished movie that the sheriff saw much earlier than anyone else? Maybe he saw the story boards?
Well, who is this berserk sheriff? It says right at the top of the press release. Sheriff Leon Wilmot.
So if this sheriff both saw this unreleased movie and was disturbed enough by it to immediately open an investigation thanks to D’Souza’s hard work, why is he also publicly denying it?
Over a year. Well before D’Souza could have had a viable movie to show Wilmot.
There’s always the possibility of “this is a super secret operation and plausible deniability is necessary.” Maybe making D’Souza look like a liar is part of the Plan.
But if that’s the case, then that means D’Souza’s role here is to look like someone who can’t even get the sheriff who can prove the value of his movie to lend any credibility to it. That seems strange for a movie specifically designed to wake people up.
TL;DR
Sheriff’s press, both officially released and in interviews, has suggested this case has been going on for months before the movie was released. D’Souza probably saw that the press release came out a week after his movie and made the assumption, but neither the sheriff nor anyone from his office is backing up that claim, and nothing from their office seems to support it.
This is really good work, and I'm struggling through morning noise and activity to articulate a worthy response...
I won't discount what you're implying regarding D'Souza's inconsistencies. It's crazy here, and I have to go unfortunately.
But I will ask one, slightly rhetorical, question: Do you think it's conceivable D'Souza received information from the same source the sheriff recieved his information?
Follow up, which you briefly addressed yourself: In regards to super secret operations with plausible deniability, which are further complicated by a complicit, enemy controlled media, how does one tell the people the truth? How does one SHOW the people the truth?
Thanks for the digging. I really have to hang up and listen. Hopefully other pedes will chime in.
WWG1WGA
I appreciate the response. Here is mine.
Absolutely!
But that's not what either of them claimed. D'Souza specifically said the sheriff was responding to his film. I don't see how that can be the truth.
Perhaps D'Souza didn't present his argument clearly, but that's... not a good trait for a guy trying to defend the way he's presented evidence of election fraud.
I don't really have any reason to give D'Souza a benefit of the doubt.
I've actually asked a variation of this question.
If there is no super secret operation with plausible deniability, how would you ever prove it to yourself? What in the Q narrative allows you to PROVE to yourself that you are wrong about it?
Every failure is interpreted as optics. Every apparent setback is making the enemy "expend ammo." Every idiot move or denial of Q by Important People is seen as "disinformation is necessary."
To respond to your question, ask yourself. Why does this site exist? HOW does this site exist?
If the Cabal can control everything, and this site still exists, then clearly there's a dissonant conclusion. Either they are controlling this site, or the internet is too big even for the Cabal to effectively control.
So put Frazzledrip on the internet. Let me see Clinton eating a child instead of just taking people's word for it. Let me actually see the TrueTheVote data instead of being told what it said in a movie. The MSM can suppress it all they want, but I watched D'Souza's movie on his own site.
Now, what about you? Is Q falsifiable for you? Have you left yourself any way to know if this Plan doesn't come to fruition or never actually existed? How would you know if all the stuff that you think is happening secretly actually isn't happening?
It could easily be true. Many investigations do not produce arrests, either for insufficient evidence or political will. If the movie supplied one new fact, or persuaded a prosecutor to authorize the case, the movie could be a direct cause of arrests from a previous investigation.
Same as how the "cold cases" TV show claims credit for cases with old non-prosecuted cases.
Well, that’s sort of the Q mantra, isn’t it?
“It could easily be true.”
Sure, but where did your theory of this come from? It didn’t come from D’Souza. It didn’t come from the sheriff report. It didn’t come from any after-the-fact clarifications.
Isn’t this just hypothetical?
As far as I continue to see, D’Souza has insisted that the Yuma investigation is a result of his movie, and nobody else involved agrees.
Look, D’Souza’s job was to create a convincing argument that election fraud occurred. If that’s his job, why is it my responsibility, or your responsibility, or anyone’s responsibility to decipher what he really meant?
He’s the messaging guy! It’s his job to put out an accurate message. It’s not my job to clean up his messaging mistakes for him, and no normie on the planet is interested in doing that.
If he meant to say something else, he can clarify. Given the nature of his film, his credibility needs to be airtight.
If maintaining that airtight credibility requires me to assume hypothetical situations that might possibly make D’Souza only partially wrong, then the credibility is not airtight.
I’m not doing D’Souza’s work for him.