Tit For Tat, Dinesh D'Souza Fat Shames Bill Barr, Likens Him To 'Fat Boys In India Who Couldn't Fight'

I knew that this was going to get comical. Bill Barr struck a nerve when he guffawed at Dinesh D’Souza’s epic “2000 Mules.” It was the way that Barr laughed, that kind of a laugh that is infectious because it is genuine.

Barr wasn’t just putting D’Souza down like those of us on the other side of the cultural divide do. No, Barr genuinely thought “2000 Mules” was a POS and that’s what has D’Souza all in a tither today.

Here’s the latest blowback.

Dinesh is still mad at Barr laughing at him. pic.twitter.com/LNomwZ4kJD

— Ron Filipkowski ?? (@RonFilipkowski) June 13, 2022

I don’t know about fat boys in India, but I knew plenty of chunky guys in school who could fight. They were not somebody you wanted to screw with. And a lot of them were athletic enough to run. An extra 30, 40 pounds may not be svelte, but it doesn’t mean you can’t do a lot.

The way I hear this is that D’Souza wants to lash out and so he’s taking the cheapest shot he can take, at Barr’s weight.

Here’s a great suggestion for a sequel to 2000 Mules.

I’d go to see that. I’d pay $29.95 in a heartbeat.

If you haven’t read this story in the Washington Post, do so now. The part that I love the best is where D’Souza pretends that Moscow is Atlanta. That gets me where I live. That is some rarified conspiracy theory.

What filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza would like you to think is that he and his partners at the conservative activist group True the Vote have cracked the case of the 2020 election. D’Souza’s new film, “2000 Mules,” purports to show a grand conspiracy of collecting and submitting ballots in that election, enough to have made Joe Biden the president. But, as we’ve noted, not only does the film completely fail to provide any evidence of that being the case, even D’Souza admits that he didn’t have the evidence that would have been required to prove it.

The film has already been subjected to a battery of debunkings, from the implication that the cellphone geolocation data essential to D’Souza’s case helped solve a murder (it didn’t) to claims that individuals shown depositing more than one ballot necessarily depict criminal activity (they don’t).

Ultimately, viewers are asked to take a leap of faith: That the videos shown in the film are, in fact, of people who had been tracked by their cellphone use and that True the Vote and D’Souza have the data to prove it. But, it turns out, multiple visual presentations of that geolocation data depicted in the film clearly don’t show what D’Souza would have you believe.

The heart of the film centers on a conversation between D’Souza and Gregg Phillips, the person at True the Vote responsible for compiling and analyzing the geolocation data. This is data that your phone collects as you move and which is aggregated and sold to marketers. Phillips claims that, by analyzing a huge set of data from swing states, he and his team were able to identify people — pejoratively labeled “mules” — who traveled to multiple ballot drop boxes and to nonprofit organizations, suggesting a nefarious plot to cast suspect ballots. […]

It is at least ironic that an effort to prove that the 2020 election was stolen uses a map of the capital of Russia to display its purportedly irrefutable digital fingerprints. But it’s not something we can simply laugh off. The central point of “2000 Mules” is that Phillips and True the Vote found that evidence. In the movie itself, the times at which that evidence is displayed undercuts instead of bolstering their argument.

It is pure, 180 proof horse manure, what’s in that film. No reviewer with the slightest access to any technical expertise says anything different. This is Mike Lindell level investigative journalism.

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!