EXCLUSIVE: Dinesh D'Souza talks '2000 Mules', election integrity from American Freedom Tour

"If the evidence in the film is true, we are kind of in constitutionally uncharted territory," D'Souza told The Post Millennial.

Libby Emmons Brooklyn NY

Dinesh D'Souza has been traveling the country with his new film, 2000 Mules, which revisits the controversies over the 2020 US presidential election that brought Joe Biden into office and saw an end to Donald Trump's presidency. During his speech before the American Freedom Tour audience, former President Donald Trump spoke praisingly of the film, saying that everyone should go check it out.

After a star-studded premiere at Trump's Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., D'Souza spoke at the American Freedom Tour in Austin, Tex., where The Post Millennial caught up with him before he headed off to Milwaukee for a screening of the film, hosted by TPUSA. The film will be screened in those battleground states that were so pivotal in the 2020 election, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia.

TPM: Why do you think that it's so important to keep concerns about election integrity with the 2020 election before the American public?

D'Souza: The events that are described in this film are unprecedented in American history. If we go back to 1960, there is a ongoing debate about whether JFK narrowly prevailed over Nixon because of stolen votes in Cook County, Illinois. That's not a settled issue, but it is a possibility. But that's only in one place. Chicago, of course, was notorious for machine driven fraud by machine here. I obviously don't mean the counting machines. I mean, the Daley machine, Mayor Daley's machine, machine politics.

But no, the idea of coordinated fraud in all the battleground states of a magnitude sufficient to put Biden in the White House. I cannot think of anything equivalent in all of modern American history, or even in all of American history. I know nothing like this has happened as far as I can tell before. So it's a very serious situation.

If the evidence in the film is true, we are kind of in constitutionally uncharted territory. And what I mean is this: the Constitution basically says that the Electors vote, and both houses of Congress ratify, and that's it, the President is inaugurated. But what if it comes out a year later  that the President in the Oval Office is a kind of usurper, in other words, has gotten there because of fraud, organized by his own side?

Well, the Constitution doesn't say. The remedies in the Constitution appear to be very inadequate, because obviously, the Republicans could impeach Biden. But even if that's successful, which is unlikely, but even if it were, that would just give us Kamala Harris. And she too, is the beneficiary of the fraud, no less than Biden. So we're in a very bizarre situation.

When I first started this project, I was thinking “Okay, we got to tell the truth. And we've got to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.” But as I got into it, I became less satisfied with the idea that we need to just move on, it became more important to me that we digest and think hard about what has actually happened. Because it's not a simple matter of just dusting our dusting off our hands and fixing it the next time.

Remember when Lance Armstrong was found to have cheated and won the Tour de France, what, seven or eight times, and they didn't just go, “Okay, let's fix the Tour de France the next time.” They took away all those medals, because of the simple notion that one should not be allowed to have the fruits of your cheating.

I'm a little bit stuck on the idea that there needs to be a really serious investigation, and really serious accountability, before we move on. We obviously do have to move on. But I don't think we can move on without having a full reckoning of what happened in 2020. That's why the film is not going to like go away.

TPM: Do you think that there is enough evidence perhaps to convince people broadly of this, and to make changes in the I guess, hearts and minds of Americans?

D'Souza: The film does everything a film can do, it's hard for me to even think of how a film can do more. Now, it is true that people say things like: Well, why don't you tell us in the film the seven things that need to be done? And the answer is that if you do that, dramatically, the film loses momentum, it would be almost like watching The Shawshank Redemption, and having the last act be a discussion of prison reform. It takes the air out of the balloon, which means that this debate does need to occur. But you can't jump any steps of it.

People say to me: Well, why don't you take this film to the Supreme Court and say, you know, before, it's the step is not from the film to the Supreme Court. The film is pointing to serious fraud and coordinated fraud. And it's pointing to two lines of very reliable evidence, namely, cell phone geo-tracking, and surveillance video evidence. So the next step is to bust the mules and raid the vote stash houses. And that is going to bust the operation wide open, because the mules are going to tell you who paid them, they're going to tell you who organized this, and those organizers are going to tell you who organized them. And so all of this needs to happen.

The American people are not going to demand action of a serious nature until all of this begins to come out. That's not something a film can do. Like I can't show up and arrest of you. I can't search houses. But what I've supplied is probable cause. What True the Vote's research has done is pointed the authorities to what they need to do next. And they do this next step in all kinds of other areas. We're not asking them to do anything different than they do anywhere else.

If there's a murder in a park, in the middle of the night, and there are no eyewitnesses, what law enforcement will do is they will put a geofence around that park, and they will identify all the cellphone devices in it. And then they will get a warrant. And then they will go to the cell phone provider and unmask those people so they now know their names. And then they will go into the mall to find out which of them is a plausible suspect. So no one is saying that because your cell phone is in the park, you did the murder, no. But what I am saying is probably one of those five guys whose cell phones was there is in fact the perpetrator.

What I'm saying is pick up the mules, we have their cell phone IDs. Now, obviously your mule, you know, could have given his cell phone to his wife, and maybe she was the one at the voting drop box, that investigation will bring that out. But that's a cell phone was that the drop box? There's absolutely no doubt that cell phone was that that drop box for sure.

The movie is pointing so to what needs to happen. And I think it won't happen without Republicans putting pressure on their elected representatives, on their attorneys general on their secretaries of state, on their elected officials, to demand that it occur, and then it will occur.

I think our destiny is in our own hands.

TPM: We've been hearing from so many people recently that conservatives have dropped the ball and just haven't been keeping their promises.

D'Souza: There's no question that the Republican Party dropped the ball before the election and during the election. And what I mean by that is that is that the GOP was focused on the campaign, whereas the Democrats are focused on the election. That cannot be undone now.

What can be done is something like opening up a cold case. Right? Because, in fact, before I before I looked at the researcher from True the Vote, even I thought: You know what, we're moving further away from November 2020. We're never really going to know what happens.

The beauty of the cell phone geo-tracking, the beauty of the surveillance video is it takes you right back to the scene of a crime. You can reliably know what happened. You can, in some cases, see what happened. That's why the film is, not just intellectually, but emotionally powerful. It's that eerie feeling of being right back there, and watching these mules in the days of early voting leading up to the election in front of your eyes.

TPM: Democrats have been pushing for a federal voting laws that would dictate voting procedure in all of the states. Should conservatives counter with their own election integrity proposals? Or should voting procedure be up to the states individually?

D'Souza: I think it should be up to the states. But we need to fight in the States for those voter integrity laws and fight in the states to make sure— look, some people will say, generically, 'we don't want any more drop boxes, we don't want any more early voting.' And I think that that's right.

But the practical truth is that some states are going to have drop boxes, and many states are going to have early voting. And so what I say is that in those states that have drop boxes, there is no excuse whatsoever to not have 24 hour surveillance on every drop box. We have it in every ATM, we have it in every parking lot. Technology makes it very cheap.

Republicans need to say, “Okay, we want to have a single election day. But if there are going to be drop boxes we insist that every drop box have proper surveillance.”

This is the reason why we need it. We are not able to show you drop box after drop box after drop box, not because the geotagging isn't accurate, but because the states were so lackadaisical in the way that they set up this surveillance, in other words, out of 10 drop boxes they have surveillance on two and on one of them, the camera's not even pointed at the drop box.

TPM: Why do you think that is?

D'Souza: It was just an unbelievable abrogation of duty in some states. Like Wisconsin, they didn't do any surveillance at all. In other states, they did it in some places, but not in others. And in a sense, they all appeal to the pretext of COVID. So COVID was the reason to get the drop boxes. And then COVID is the reason why “oh, we couldn't really do our full due diligence and properly established surveillance.” So they don't have a reason, they don't have an excuse, but we've got to make sure they don't they're not able to pull this scam off the next time around.

TPM: Do you think that they're aiming to do the have the same procedure as previously?

D'Souza: The movie itself is an obstacle now to the mules, because honestly, I think that people are so mad, that they're willing to go down in their pickup trucks themselves and record these drop boxes.

You could almost have watch committees doing that. But I don't think you need watch committees if you have proper surveillance. And if the states were to say, “we don't really have the ability to monitor the surveillance.” You know, what, put it online as live streaming. And that way and honestly, the mules will be stopped dead in their tracks. Somebody, somewhere will be watching that drop box.

TPM: Streaming all the that surveillance footage, that would be wild. As a phenomenon that could be so interesting.

D'Souza: So interesting. It's actually Catherine Engelbrecht's idea, so I want to credit her with her idea of the live stream. With that kind of surveillance, you basically have the public eye on the drop boxes.

TPM: You know that people would watch it.

D'Souza: I would.


Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
© 2024 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy | Do Not Sell My Personal Information