Dinesh D’Souza’s film “2000 Mules” has become something of a humiliation conga for anyone who promoted it — particularly WorldNetDaily. WND heavily promoted the film, making sure to censor the growing evidence that its main premise — that thousands of “mules” stuffed absentee ballot boxes with fraudulent votes — lacked evidence to support it. Even Chuck Norris served up a hearty endorsement of the film, even as the so-called researchers at something called True the Vote whose work it was based on washed their hands of it during a livestream at which further evidence was supposed to be provided.
But the wheels kept coming off in a way even WND could no longer ignore. Last February, True the Vote was ordered by a court to present evidence to support its claims, but admitted that it had no names or other documentary evidence to share. In May, a man who was falsely portrayed in the film as one of those purported titular “mules” sued Salem Media, the film’s executive producer, and reached an agreement that would force Salem to remove the film from distribution and issue an apology to him. WND grudgingly admitted this development by lazily reprinting the first few paragraphs of an article on the agreement by the right-wing site the Independent Sentinel; no apology was issued on WND’s part.
Finally, in early December, D’Souza quietly issued a statement apologizing to the falsely libeled man that simultaneously threw True the Vote under the bus yet touting the film’s “underlying premise”:
We operated in good faith and in reliance on True the Vote. We continue to have confidence in their work and also in the basic message of “2000 Mules,” namely, that the 2020 election was not the “most secure election in US history”—far from it!—and that there was systematic election fraud sufficient to call the outcome into question. We also continue to have faith that True the Vote’s underlying geolocation data and analysis uncovered highly suspicious cell phone travel patterns, including a significant number of cell phone IDs that were recorded at more than ten drop box locations. While the video in the film created an incorrect inference as to Mr. Andrews, the underlying premise of the film holds true.
Indeed, the accuracy of the general proposition of ‘2000 Mules” was publicly confirmed recently by the disclosure of a leading Democratic organizer, who admitted to an undercover journalist that the premise of “2000 Mules” is accurate.
Again, I apologize to Mr. Andrews. I make this apology not under the terms of a settlement agreement or other duress, but because it is the right thing to do, given what we have now learned. While I do not believe Mr. Andrews was ever identified by the film or book, I am sorry for any harm he believes he and his family has suffered as a result of “2000 Mules.”
A Dec. 2 WND article by Joe Kovacs tried to help D’Souza by parsing his apology:
D’Souza is also critical of some news coverage of his apology, as Mediaite ran a story with the headline: “Dinesh D’Souza Quietly Admits 2020 Stolen Election Film Was Wrong, Apologizes to Man He Identified As a ‘Ballot Harvester.'”
The filmmaker responded to the Mediaite story, stating: “Contrary to the impression given here, I emphasize that the general conclusion of ‘2000 Mules’ is sound. But the part of my statement that contradicts your headline has been quietly omitted from this article.”
Kovacs didn’t explain why the rest of the film should be considered trustworthy after D’Souza retracted a key part of it. However, Kovacs didn’t offer an apology on behalf of his employer for promoting such a discredited film. Norris also has yet to apologize for promoting it.