I'm actually asking you to figure out what was hilarious about D'Souza's desperate flurry of tweets. I think you're largely impervious to being told anything.
Also: Trump's "paper" is absolutely revolting. Nothing in it is "completely accurate." It's pure demagoguery.
But here's the thing: I can understand why it seems like it contains facts. Leaving aside the unsubtle rhetorical digs and flourishes, truth claims are made in there; for example, the paper claims that cellphone location data was used in 45 cases against January 6th protesters, which is true. But it then attempts to draw a comparison between using location data to prove that someone was within 100' of the Capitol at a specific time of day (which is how that data was used) and proving that someone returned to the same dropbox dozens of times. This is, the paper claims, the "exact same" sort of evidence. But every single expert who works with location data will tell you that cellphone data of this sort cannot be used to make that kind of claim. (As an example: the two dropboxes in my town are at the Town Hall and the library, both of which I visit almost daily. My cellphone would indicate that I walk within 30' of those dropboxes twice a day, easily.) They speak of "video surveillance showing mules drop loads of ballots," but we know that in the five cases that were actually followed up on, in every case the multiple ballots were in fact legal ballots collected from the "mule's" family. They speak of video showing people returning to dropboxes multiple times, but in fact have never produced such video. Heck, that single woman in Arizona who pled guilty to participating in a handful of cases of voter fraud is here being depicted as a participant in a "ballot-trafficking scheme," as if she's just the tip of an iceberg that remains otherwise stubbornly invisible.
The "math" section is even more ridiculous, not least because if those numbers were even remotely accurate, you'd've expected the Democrats to pick up a few more Congressional seats
