top of page
Search

THE ART OF THE BIG LIE


AND WHAT G-101 SPM AI ALGORITHM UNCOVERED ABOUT THE GEORGIA INDICTMENT.

Background issue:

The grand jury in Atlanta handed up an indictment in a Georgia prosecutor's investigation into efforts by former President Trump and some key cohorts to overturn the state’s 2020 election results. The indictment on five actions in the weeks after Election Day, when Biden narrowly won Georgia, which include false claims of ballot fraud to legislative committees, a plan by Trump to create a fake slate of pro-Trump electors, a data breach at an elections office in rural Coffee County, Ga. and other illicit events.

G-101 Factchecking.

From December 28, 2020 (date of draft letter to lawmakers in Georgia by Jeffrey Clark, former Justice Department, falsely claiming that the department has “identified significant concerns” regarding the state's election results to July 31, 2023. In all, over nine-million pages of text were scanned to determine what stated facts were made by the nineteen individuals (Giuliani, Eastman, Smith III, Powell, Chesebro, Roman, Clark, Hampton, Cheeley, Meadows, Ellis, Latham, Latham, Shafer, Still, Kutti, Lee, Floyd III, Tall, and Trump) charged and whether such facts were true by collaborative sources. Our proprietary platform uncovered 12,549 lies of which 10,013 were repeated at least three-times.

Conclusion:

The BIG LIE is at the heart of Georgia’s sprawling indictment against Donald Trump and his coconspirators. Indeed, the BIG LIE was at work from the playbook of Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda for the German Third Reich under Adolf Hitler.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Oh yes, the indictment is about lying, conspiring to lie and attempting to coax, coerce and cajole others into lying. Whereas the attorney general of Michigan just brought a case narrowly focused on the alleged fake electors in her state (Trump is not a defendant in that one), and the special counsel Jack Smith brought an indictment narrowly focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, has brought a case about the entire conspiracy, from start to finish, and targeted each person subject to her jurisdiction for each crime committed in her jurisdiction.

In other words, this indictment is ambitious. But it also answers two related questions: Why bring yet another case against Trump in yet another jurisdiction? Isn’t he going to face a federal trial in Washington, D.C., for the same acts outlined in the Georgia indictment?

The answers lie in the distinctions between state and federal law. Georgia law is in many ways both broader and more focused than the federal statutes at issue in Smith’s case against Trump. The breadth is evident from the racketeering charges. As Norm Eisen and Amy Lee Copeland wrote in The Times, Georgia’s racketeering statute allows prosecutors to charge, among other crimes, a few false statement statutes as part of a generalized criminal scheme. In other words, rather than seeing each actionable lie as its own discrete criminal act, those lies can be aggregated into part of a larger whole: an alleged racketeering enterprise designed to alter the results of the Georgia presidential election.

Yet it’s the focus of Georgia law that’s truly dangerous to Trump. The beating heart of the case is the 22 counts focused on false statements, false documents and forgery, with a particular emphasis on a key statute: Georgia Code Section 16-10-20, which prohibits false statements and writings on matters “within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions.” The statute is a state analogue to a federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, which also prohibits false statements to federal officials on matters within their jurisdiction, but the Georgia statute is even broader.

Simply put, while you might be able to lie to the public in Georgia — or even lie to public officials on matters outside the scope of their duties — when you lie to state officials about important or meaningful facts in matters, they directly oversee, you’re going to risk prosecution. That’s exactly what the indictment claims Trump and his confederates did, time and time again, throughout the election challenge.

The most striking example is detailed in Act 113 of the indictment, which charges Trump with making a series of false statements to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and his deputies in Trump’s notorious Jan. 2, 2021, telephone call. Most legal commentators, myself included, focused on that call because it contained a not-so-veiled threat against Raffensperger and his counsel. In recorded comments, Trump told them they faced a “big risk” of criminal prosecution because he claimed they knew about election fraud and were taking no action to stop it.

Willis’s focus, by contrast, is not on the threats but rather on the lies. And when you read the list of Trump’s purported lies, they are incredible. His claims aren’t just false; they’re transparently, incandescently stupid. This was not a sophisticated effort to overturn the election. It was a shotgun blast of obvious falsehoods.

Here’s where the legal nuances get rather interesting. While Willis still has to prove intent — the statute prohibits “knowingly and willfully” falsifying material facts — the evidentiary challenge is simpler than in Smith’s federal case against Trump. To meet the requirements of federal law, Smith’s charges must connect any given Trump lie to a larger criminal scheme. Willis, by contrast, merely has to prove that Trump willfully lied about important facts to a government official about a matter in that official’s jurisdiction. That’s a vastly simpler case to make.

Yes, it is true that the individual lying allegations are also tied to much larger claims about a criminal conspiracy and a racketeering enterprise. But if I’m a prosecutor, I can build from that single, simple foundation: Trump lied, and those lies in and of themselves violated Georgia criminal law. Once you prove that simple case, you’ve laid the foundation for the larger racketeering claims that ratchet up Trump’s legal jeopardy. Compounding the danger to Trump, presidents don’t have the power to pardon state criminal convictions, and even Georgia’s governor doesn’t possess the direct authority to excuse Trump for his crimes.

If Trump’s comments on Truth Social are any indication, he may well defend the case by arguing that the Georgia election was in fact stolen. He may again claim that the wild allegations he made to Raffensperger were true. That’s a dangerous game. The claims are so easily, provably false that the better course would probably be to argue that Trump was simply asking Raffensperger about the allegations, not asserting them as fact.

But if Trump continues to assert his false claims as fact, Willis will have an ideal opportunity to argue that Trump lied then and is lying now, that he’s insulting the jury’s intelligence just as he insulted the nation’s intelligence when he made his claims in the first place.

But declaring that the core of the Georgia case is simpler than the federal case does not necessarily mean that it will be easier to try. Willis chose to bring claims against 19 defendants, and she spoke she intended to try them together. While that decision makes some sense if you’re trying to prove the existence of a sprawling racketeering enterprise, it is also a massive logistical and legal challenge. Moreover, Trump is likely to try to move the case to federal court, which would require him to demonstrate that his actions were part of his official duties as president — a formidable task, given that he was interacting with Georgia officials in his capacity as a candidate. But if successful, it would expand the available jury pool to include more Trump-friendly areas outside Fulton County.

These challenges — especially when combined with Trump’s upcoming criminal trials in Washington, Manhattan and Florida — make it difficult to see how Willis can bring this case to trial within the six months that she has said is her preference.

For eight long years, Americans have watched Donald Trump lie. Those lies have been morally indefensible, but some may also be legally actionable. His campaigns and presidency may have been where the truth went to die. But the law lives, and the law declares that Trump cannot lie to Georgia public officials within the scope of their official duties. If Willis can prove that he and his confederates did exactly that, she will prevail in the broadest, most consequential prosecution in modern American political history.




So now you have it: Our proprietary platform uncovered 12,549 lies of which 10,013 were repeated at least three times and predicts that if the case is presented to a jury, Donald J. Trump would by convicted with a +SPM 99.35 tag, which means 99.35%.


How G-101 works: Through accommodation, G-101 may generate information that is initially conceived as unreliable, false, unorthodox, or misplaced (identified as “novel data”) only to be unified by cognitive dissonance to mitigate the conflicting data by either updating G-101's interpretation of the model to disqualify the variable or assimilation as factual. Thus, the new model within the G-101 matrix perceives the added information as useable or as a discarded sequence for further interpretation. When the model is updated, the novel information is no longer an anomaly but a new chain of data. By expanding the data fields, G-101 literally establishes a new category that is able to redirect the program, in essence, to change its mind, keeping what is known as facts but updating the interpretation. Thus, settled viewpoints and new values create classified estimations that rate the new data with a confidence factor whether it is trustworthy or falsity. Within the subjective probabilities, matrices are sets of “attitudes” which are combined to generate a neoteric equivalent of thinking. Therefore, the underlying factor of the accumulative data generates a perception, which when applied with the support statistics creates a conclusion, which was not available in the initial analysis. It’s like saying, “the G-101 algorithm can change its mind.” Indeed, calculated facts and persuasion become entangled with the corrupted data. Therefore, typical Recursive Subjective Probability algorithms used for evaluating investment values are only reliable 47% of the time. You would be better served by flipping a coin than applying an expensive algorithm to answer complicated inquiries The reason for this chaos is persuasion. When data is revised in stages it allows for conventional thinking to be modified, which usually produces novel results. There are computer systems that actively guide and systems that actively misguide. G-101 treats persuasion as a presentment proficiency tool (“PPT”) to establish a more coercive standard. The conclusion behind this element is that data is only useful when its success rates can be measured. Allowing an algorithm to change its mind sounds impossible, but its intention to understand the higher truth increases the chance for success. G-101 is a mind-bender and within this context, its level of reliability has no equal.

LEARN MORE ABOUT G-101 ALGORITHM. Ask for Report G-101 – Success is Dependent on Effort.

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Newsroom

bottom of page