Trumps' former Attorney General picked apart the unproven premise of D'Souza's latest election fraud film and called them indefensible.
June 13, 2022

During Bill Barr's videotaped testimony before the January 6th Select Committee, the former Attorney General told Trump there was categorically no evidence of voter fraud, and laughed out loud when he was asked about the lies outlined in the movie, 2000 Mules.

Since the pardoned felon Dinesh D'Souza's latest was released, Trump and MAGA have been proclaiming it showed real proof of voter fraud, even though every fact checker denounced its conclusions.

"And I haven't seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that -- including the 2000 Mules movie," Barr said.

The former AG then burst out into laughter.

Barr was then asked to elaborate on the film's supposed conclusions since "people were talking about it."

I just think the GBI was unimpressed with it, and I was similarly unimpressed with it, because --I was holding my fire on that to see what the photographic evidence was, because I thought well, hell, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, that's hard to explain.

So I wanted to see what the photographic evidence was, but the cell phone data is singularly unimpressive. If you take 2 million cell phones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition you're going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes, and the premise that if you go buy five boxes or whatever it was, you know, that that's a mule -- It's just indefensible.

By definition, you're going to have a lot -- hundreds of this. I saw one contractor said we figured out that our truck alone would account for six cell phone signals. This was some kind of contractor.and our route would take us by these things on a regular basis. but then when the movie came out, I think the photographic evidence in it was completely lack -- I mean, there was a little bit of it, but it was lacking, you know?

It didn't establish widespread illegal harvesting. The other thing is people don't understand, is that it's not clear that even if you can show harvesting, that changes the results of the election. Courts are not going to throw out votes and then figure out what votes were harvested and throw them out.

The burden is on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were cast. Votes were the result of undue influence or bribes, or there was really, the person was non compos mentis.

I didn't see courts throwing out votes anyway. I felt that before the the election it was possible to talk sense to the president, and while you sometimes had to engage in big wrestling match with him, that it was possible to keep things on track, but i was -- I felt that after the election he didn't seem to be listening, and i didn't think it was -- you know, that I was inclined not to stay around if he wasn't listening to advice from me or his other cabinet secretaries.

I'd say laughing out loud at the movie is all the fact-checking one needs.

Dinesh responded the way I figured he would.


Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.