>>16232276 (pb)

re 2000 mules

Public education is good. If that's the only goal of the film, ok, good.

If the goal is RICO prosecution nationwide, how?

Can a guy be prosecuted for voter fraud if there's no record of any particular unlawful ballot deposited? There's no way to prove his (discarded) envelopes even contained ballots.

Can his NGO director be prosecuted if there's no actual record of the cash paid? Party enthusiasm and frequent association aren't evidence.

Zuckerberg fed over $400 million into the election, to fund… whatever. He's a free man, apparently. No records tie him to any unlawful activity, apparently.

So there's money at the top, and money at the bottom, but anon doesn't see how RICO could be prosecuted without immense evidence collected inside the machine itself: evidence like bookkeeper hard drives, or recorded coordination meetings.

So does the movie just lead to public irritation, and "calls for reform", with some "updated mail-in regulations"?

Mid-terms approach. Anon wonders at the pace of things sometimes…