• The AP published a “hit piece” on May 3, attempting to expose TTV’s “flawed analysis of cellphone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage” presented in 2000 Mules. We will examine those claims, weaving in information from the movie and conversations with Engelbrecht over the weekend.
  • Notably, the AP story states neither D’Souza nor Engelbrecht responded to “a request for comment.” At least in Engelbrecht’s case, she was given little to no time to respond. She “received the request for comment at 11 p.m., and this story was published the next day.”
  • Is Geospatial Data with Cellphones Precise?
  • “Cellphone data is like digital DNA,” Engelbrecht explained. A court case on the precision of this technology makes that claim difficult to dispute. In response to the 2016 Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. United States, Justice Roberts wrote a 2018 opinion in which he describes the level of precision tracing afforded by pinging a cellphone using geofencing technology. “Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone,” writes Roberts, “It achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.” Two of the most striking paragraphs from his 2018 opinion are captured below:
 
  • Much of the premise of the AP story is built around proof that cellphone data is not as precise as Justice Roberts describes in his opinion. Notably, Engelbrecht mentions in the movie that their data in Georgia was used by law enforcement as a test case to help law enforcement solve a cold murder case of a young girl.
  • When I asked Engelbrecht about the claims in the AP story that innocent people may have been caught up in their data, she said their methodology addressed those pitfalls:
  • “Of course, there are ways to eliminate passers-by and county workers, of course, there are ways to confirm that the people in the videos are (or are not) mules. Larry Campbell, dropping off 6 ballots for his big family, wouldn’t be in our study. Going once to a dropbox wasn’t in our study. Our mules averaged 38 dropbox visits and 8 NGO visits. Any other combination (ex. going to NGOs and USPS boxes, for example, wouldn’t have been in our study. Or going to 100 dropboxes, but no NGOs. They weren’t in our study.) That’s how we know this is the tip of the iceberg.”
  • In the pattern of life below, the blue tracks are the pattern of travel by the individual in the course of one day. The orange dots are the dropboxes, and the house icons are the NGOs.
  •   Engelbrecht describes the things they looked for:
  • “Higher dropbox visits and the elements that are additive. Here the going to the nonprofits, the ability to identify the pattern of approach to a dropbox and that it is going not past a dropbox and on but directly to a dropbox and back to another point and then to another dropbox.”
  • Riots and Traffickers: Data Doesn’t Lie
  • Additionally, OPSEC collected evidence suggesting some of the mules also participated in the violent Antifa riots earlier in the year.
  • “There were several different violent BLM Antifa riots in Atlanta, and in one of them, we had three dozen of our mules participate in these violent riots. There’s an organization that tracks the device IDs. Across all violent protests around the world, we took a look at our 242 mules in Atlanta, and sure enough, dozens and dozens and dozens of our mules show up on the ACLED databases.”

Source: uncoverdc.com