Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

[Marcus Daniels]

Georgia code is well-suited:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 10 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE 2 - OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 16-10-20 - False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and 
fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political 
subdivisions
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (2010)
16-10-20. False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent 
documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions


A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any 
trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or 
fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or 
document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or 
agency of state government or of the government of any county, city, or other 
political subdivision of this state shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished 
by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one 
nor more than five years, or both.

On Aug 15, 2023, at 4:19 PM, Marcus Daniels  wrote:


I’ll raise you.  A Harris/Newsom ticket could win if Biden went to war and 
Russia was devastated.   Perhaps there are other ways Harris/Newsom could win, 
but it would have to start now with cooperation from Biden.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:04 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

I am about to get myself in trouble, so important caveats: I do not like Trump, 
I do not want to see him in office again, and I am happy to apply the 
adjectives, venal, crude, infantile, hyperbolic, and cunning-but-stupid to him.

1-all of the indictments assert that the words and actions of Trump have but 
one interpretation—that which his opponents, detractors, and prosecutors assert 
as the TRUTH. This is laughable; IMHO.

2-All of the indictments will result in dismissal, acquittal (perhaps via jury 
nullification), or reversal.

3-If Trump could be convinced to shut up, fight in court and not on truth 
social, take on Ramaswamy as VP and focus on economic, foreign policy, and 
governmental overreach issues, the democratic defeat will be McGovernesque. 
Even worse if Biden falters late and the democratic ticket is Harris-Newsom.

4-Trump is too stupid to recognize his own best interests; so the election will 
be close and polarizing to an extraordinary degree.

The future is bleak!!!

davew


On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, at 3:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
I think your points are correct, Jochen, while to me there is also another 
important thing that I want to be able to frame, and find that I cannot in any 
satisfying way.

Having lived under trump et al.’s (and it is a big et al.) daily degradation 
and violation of every aspect of decent or even sane life for years, I along 
with many others feel almost frantic wanting somebody to DO SOMETHING TO STOP 
ALL THIS!!!  But the slowness, incompleteness, and partial resignation we see 
in the legal response reflects to me the fundamental problem of democracy as 
the people practicing it think they understand it.  They appreciate that the de 
jure institutions of a law can be employed by autocrats and other corrupt 
actors as readily as by the polity as a whole.  They also understand that a 
significant wing of a populace can become fascist, at which point it is not a 
counterweight to the corrupt, but an enabling resource for them.  So they are 
trying, on one hand, to use the law to exercise force to counteract and contain 
the abusers, but they are hoping to do so in such a way that the precedents 
within that use of the law are as hard as possible to hijack by the 
authoritarian elements that clearly intend to do that wherever they can find 
strategies for it.

The interesting question for me is whether their efforts to use law in this way 
are really making a difference.  It will be great if they can pound some of 
these bad actors, and it is a good division of labor that the federal case is 
narrow for the sake of being very robust to prosecute, while the Georgia state 
case takes on a _much_ more complicated and difficult prosecution for the sake 
of acknowledging more of the scope of the wrongdoing.  But at the end, will 
they have created legal precedent that better holds off fascist abuses going 
forward?  How will we decide, since we have only this run of the tape as it is 
playing out?  One wants to use empirical validation to update one’s views of 
how causation works, but for these situations that are so large they are 
effectively sui generis, it is hard to set up a protocol to do so.

Eric


On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Jochen Fromm 
mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:

The countless indictments against Trump remind me of the innumerous i

Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

[Marcus Daniels]

I’ll raise you.  A Harris/Newsom ticket could win if Biden went to war and 
Russia was devastated.   Perhaps there are other ways Harris/Newsom could win, 
but it would have to start now with cooperation from Biden.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:04 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

I am about to get myself in trouble, so important caveats: I do not like Trump, 
I do not want to see him in office again, and I am happy to apply the 
adjectives, venal, crude, infantile, hyperbolic, and cunning-but-stupid to him.

1-all of the indictments assert that the words and actions of Trump have but 
one interpretation—that which his opponents, detractors, and prosecutors assert 
as the TRUTH. This is laughable; IMHO.

2-All of the indictments will result in dismissal, acquittal (perhaps via jury 
nullification), or reversal.

3-If Trump could be convinced to shut up, fight in court and not on truth 
social, take on Ramaswamy as VP and focus on economic, foreign policy, and 
governmental overreach issues, the democratic defeat will be McGovernesque. 
Even worse if Biden falters late and the democratic ticket is Harris-Newsom.

4-Trump is too stupid to recognize his own best interests; so the election will 
be close and polarizing to an extraordinary degree.

The future is bleak!!!

davew


On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, at 3:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
I think your points are correct, Jochen, while to me there is also another 
important thing that I want to be able to frame, and find that I cannot in any 
satisfying way.

Having lived under trump et al.’s (and it is a big et al.) daily degradation 
and violation of every aspect of decent or even sane life for years, I along 
with many others feel almost frantic wanting somebody to DO SOMETHING TO STOP 
ALL THIS!!!  But the slowness, incompleteness, and partial resignation we see 
in the legal response reflects to me the fundamental problem of democracy as 
the people practicing it think they understand it.  They appreciate that the de 
jure institutions of a law can be employed by autocrats and other corrupt 
actors as readily as by the polity as a whole.  They also understand that a 
significant wing of a populace can become fascist, at which point it is not a 
counterweight to the corrupt, but an enabling resource for them.  So they are 
trying, on one hand, to use the law to exercise force to counteract and contain 
the abusers, but they are hoping to do so in such a way that the precedents 
within that use of the law are as hard as possible to hijack by the 
authoritarian elements that clearly intend to do that wherever they can find 
strategies for it.

The interesting question for me is whether their efforts to use law in this way 
are really making a difference.  It will be great if they can pound some of 
these bad actors, and it is a good division of labor that the federal case is 
narrow for the sake of being very robust to prosecute, while the Georgia state 
case takes on a _much_ more complicated and difficult prosecution for the sake 
of acknowledging more of the scope of the wrongdoing.  But at the end, will 
they have created legal precedent that better holds off fascist abuses going 
forward?  How will we decide, since we have only this run of the tape as it is 
playing out?  One wants to use empirical validation to update one’s views of 
how causation works, but for these situations that are so large they are 
effectively sui generis, it is hard to set up a protocol to do so.

Eric


On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Jochen Fromm 
mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:

The countless indictments against Trump remind me of the innumerous indictments 
against Navalny in Russia. The indictments against Trump look to me totally 
justified. He tried to undermine and to destroy the democratic system by all 
kinds of lies and deceit and treachery, by the things that Ruth Ben-Ghiat calls 
the authoritarian playbook - by violence, corruption, lying, election fraud. 
Now the democratic system is strong enough to protect itself and strikes back.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lucid/p/to-escape-prosecution-mussolini-had<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fopen.substack.com%2fpub%2flucid%2fp%2fto-escape-prosecution-mussolini-had&c=E,1,Y7H-Js-j6vIwK8s0UwFSg0Q2qpSqQqs8UxkEO0q85ciiHj9AUNzCMJ-0ystw0dC92On4IxsqykBsyVtHgs5w2jr99NRyrZhLC31XjQ_N8c0BKC-XnzQuQGo,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>

The indictments against Navalny on the other hand are similar in magnitude, but 
they are clearly fabricated. Again we have a system - this time an autocratic 
and authoritarian one - which defends itself. In Navalny's case we can observe 
a deceitful autocratic system that fights against an opponent by using 
unjustified indictments and deceitful accusations. In Trump's case we can 
observe a democratic systems that defends itself against a deceitful opponent 
by using truth

Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

[Prof David West]

I am about to get myself in trouble, so important caveats: I do not like Trump, 
I do not want to see him in office again, and I am happy to apply the 
adjectives, venal, crude, infantile, hyperbolic, and cunning-but-stupid to him.

1-all of the indictments assert that the words and actions of Trump have but 
one interpretation—that which his opponents, detractors, and prosecutors assert 
as the TRUTH. This is laughable; IMHO.

2-All of the indictments will result in dismissal, acquittal (perhaps via jury 
nullification), or reversal.

3-If Trump could be convinced to shut up, fight in court and not on truth 
social, take on Ramaswamy as VP and focus on economic, foreign policy, and 
governmental overreach issues, the democratic defeat will be McGovernesque. 
Even worse if Biden falters late and the democratic ticket is Harris-Newsom.

4-Trump is too stupid to recognize his own best interests; so the election will 
be close and polarizing to an extraordinary degree.

The future is bleak!!!

davew


On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, at 3:38 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I think your points are correct, Jochen, while to me there is also another 
> important thing that I want to be able to frame, and find that I cannot in 
> any satisfying way.
> 
> Having lived under trump et al.’s (and it is a big et al.) daily degradation 
> and violation of every aspect of decent or even sane life for years, I along 
> with many others feel almost frantic wanting somebody to DO SOMETHING TO STOP 
> ALL THIS!!!  But the slowness, incompleteness, and partial resignation we see 
> in the legal response reflects to me the fundamental problem of democracy as 
> the people practicing it think they understand it.  They appreciate that the 
> de jure institutions of a law can be employed by autocrats and other corrupt 
> actors as readily as by the polity as a whole.  They also understand that a 
> significant wing of a populace can become fascist, at which point it is not a 
> counterweight to the corrupt, but an enabling resource for them.  So they are 
> trying, on one hand, to use the law to exercise force to counteract and 
> contain the abusers, but they are hoping to do so in such a way that the 
> precedents within that use of the law are as hard as possible to hijack by 
> the authoritarian elements that clearly intend to do that wherever they can 
> find strategies for it.  
> 
> The interesting question for me is whether their efforts to use law in this 
> way are really making a difference.  It will be great if they can pound some 
> of these bad actors, and it is a good division of labor that the federal case 
> is narrow for the sake of being very robust to prosecute, while the Georgia 
> state case takes on a _much_ more complicated and difficult prosecution for 
> the sake of acknowledging more of the scope of the wrongdoing.  But at the 
> end, will they have created legal precedent that better holds off fascist 
> abuses going forward?  How will we decide, since we have only this run of the 
> tape as it is playing out?  One wants to use empirical validation to update 
> one’s views of how causation works, but for these situations that are so 
> large they are effectively sui generis, it is hard to set up a protocol to do 
> so.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
>> 
>> The countless indictments against Trump remind me of the innumerous 
>> indictments against Navalny in Russia. The indictments against Trump look to 
>> me totally justified. He tried to undermine and to destroy the democratic 
>> system by all kinds of lies and deceit and treachery, by the things that 
>> Ruth Ben-Ghiat calls the authoritarian playbook - by violence, corruption, 
>> lying, election fraud. Now the democratic system is strong enough to protect 
>> itself and strikes back. 
>> https://open.substack.com/pub/lucid/p/to-escape-prosecution-mussolini-had 
>> 
>> 
>> The indictments against Navalny on the other hand are similar in magnitude, 
>> but they are clearly fabricated. Again we have a system - this time an 
>> autocratic and authoritarian one - which defends itself. In Navalny's case 
>> we can observe a deceitful autocratic system that fights against an opponent 
>> by using unjustified indictments and deceitful accusations. In Trump's case 
>> we can observe a democratic systems that defends itself against a deceitful 
>> opponent by using truthful and justified indictments.
>> 
>> What's interesting to me is that democracy and autocracy as a system are 
>> apparently both resilient and resistant to change. If the system is 
>> threatened, then it tries to protect itself. This could be observed also in 
>> the protests in 2020 in Belarus 

Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

[Marcus Daniels]

I spent most of the evening last night watching MSNBC’s coverage of the 
indictments.   What I keep noticing is how these (MSNBC) legal analysts talk 
about how some of these defendants could really go to prison!  Like how 
terrible and devastating for them!  [..ahem, for a white-collar person]
Wait.  Martha Stewart really went to prison.   If anything, her reputation is 
even bigger!

From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

I think your points are correct, Jochen, while to me there is also another 
important thing that I want to be able to frame, and find that I cannot in any 
satisfying way.

Having lived under trump et al.’s (and it is a big et al.) daily degradation 
and violation of every aspect of decent or even sane life for years, I along 
with many others feel almost frantic wanting somebody to DO SOMETHING TO STOP 
ALL THIS!!!  But the slowness, incompleteness, and partial resignation we see 
in the legal response reflects to me the fundamental problem of democracy as 
the people practicing it think they understand it.  They appreciate that the de 
jure institutions of a law can be employed by autocrats and other corrupt 
actors as readily as by the polity as a whole.  They also understand that a 
significant wing of a populace can become fascist, at which point it is not a 
counterweight to the corrupt, but an enabling resource for them.  So they are 
trying, on one hand, to use the law to exercise force to counteract and contain 
the abusers, but they are hoping to do so in such a way that the precedents 
within that use of the law are as hard as possible to hijack by the 
authoritarian elements that clearly intend to do that wherever they can find 
strategies for it.

The interesting question for me is whether their efforts to use law in this way 
are really making a difference.  It will be great if they can pound some of 
these bad actors, and it is a good division of labor that the federal case is 
narrow for the sake of being very robust to prosecute, while the Georgia state 
case takes on a _much_ more complicated and difficult prosecution for the sake 
of acknowledging more of the scope of the wrongdoing.  But at the end, will 
they have created legal precedent that better holds off fascist abuses going 
forward?  How will we decide, since we have only this run of the tape as it is 
playing out?  One wants to use empirical validation to update one’s views of 
how causation works, but for these situations that are so large they are 
effectively sui generis, it is hard to set up a protocol to do so.

Eric



On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Jochen Fromm 
mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote:

The countless indictments against Trump remind me of the innumerous indictments 
against Navalny in Russia. The indictments against Trump look to me totally 
justified. He tried to undermine and to destroy the democratic system by all 
kinds of lies and deceit and treachery, by the things that Ruth Ben-Ghiat calls 
the authoritarian playbook - by violence, corruption, lying, election fraud. 
Now the democratic system is strong enough to protect itself and strikes back.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lucid/p/to-escape-prosecution-mussolini-had<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fopen.substack.com%2fpub%2flucid%2fp%2fto-escape-prosecution-mussolini-had&c=E,1,Y7H-Js-j6vIwK8s0UwFSg0Q2qpSqQqs8UxkEO0q85ciiHj9AUNzCMJ-0ystw0dC92On4IxsqykBsyVtHgs5w2jr99NRyrZhLC31XjQ_N8c0BKC-XnzQuQGo,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>

The indictments against Navalny on the other hand are similar in magnitude, but 
they are clearly fabricated. Again we have a system - this time an autocratic 
and authoritarian one - which defends itself. In Navalny's case we can observe 
a deceitful autocratic system that fights against an opponent by using 
unjustified indictments and deceitful accusations. In Trump's case we can 
observe a democratic systems that defends itself against a deceitful opponent 
by using truthful and justified indictments.

What's interesting to me is that democracy and autocracy as a system are 
apparently both resilient and resistant to change. If the system is threatened, 
then it tries to protect itself. This could be observed also in the protests in 
2020 in Belarus after the election and in the protests in 2022 in Russia after 
the invasion that have been squashed by mass imprisonments. The protests in 
Iran in 2022 have been silenced by mass imprisonments and capital punishments 
as well.

Democratic backsliding can happen, but it doesn't have to as long as the 
democratic system is able to defend itself. Similarly a collapse of an 
autocratic system is not happening if the system is able to silence protests by 
mass imprisonments and capital punishments. This blog article from last year 
still seems to fit.
https://blog.cas-g

Re: [FRIAM] Democracy & Autocracy

[David Eric Smith]

I think your points are correct, Jochen, while to me there is also another 
important thing that I want to be able to frame, and find that I cannot in any 
satisfying way.

Having lived under trump et al.’s (and it is a big et al.) daily degradation 
and violation of every aspect of decent or even sane life for years, I along 
with many others feel almost frantic wanting somebody to DO SOMETHING TO STOP 
ALL THIS!!!  But the slowness, incompleteness, and partial resignation we see 
in the legal response reflects to me the fundamental problem of democracy as 
the people practicing it think they understand it.  They appreciate that the de 
jure institutions of a law can be employed by autocrats and other corrupt 
actors as readily as by the polity as a whole.  They also understand that a 
significant wing of a populace can become fascist, at which point it is not a 
counterweight to the corrupt, but an enabling resource for them.  So they are 
trying, on one hand, to use the law to exercise force to counteract and contain 
the abusers, but they are hoping to do so in such a way that the precedents 
within that use of the law are as hard as possible to hijack by the 
authoritarian elements that clearly intend to do that wherever they can find 
strategies for it.  

The interesting question for me is whether their efforts to use law in this way 
are really making a difference.  It will be great if they can pound some of 
these bad actors, and it is a good division of labor that the federal case is 
narrow for the sake of being very robust to prosecute, while the Georgia state 
case takes on a _much_ more complicated and difficult prosecution for the sake 
of acknowledging more of the scope of the wrongdoing.  But at the end, will 
they have created legal precedent that better holds off fascist abuses going 
forward?  How will we decide, since we have only this run of the tape as it is 
playing out?  One wants to use empirical validation to update one’s views of 
how causation works, but for these situations that are so large they are 
effectively sui generis, it is hard to set up a protocol to do so.

Eric


> On Aug 16, 2023, at 5:44 AM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:
> 
> The countless indictments against Trump remind me of the innumerous 
> indictments against Navalny in Russia. The indictments against Trump look to 
> me totally justified. He tried to undermine and to destroy the democratic 
> system by all kinds of lies and deceit and treachery, by the things that Ruth 
> Ben-Ghiat calls the authoritarian playbook - by violence, corruption, lying, 
> election fraud. Now the democratic system is strong enough to protect itself 
> and strikes back. 
> https://open.substack.com/pub/lucid/p/to-escape-prosecution-mussolini-had 
> 
> 
> The indictments against Navalny on the other hand are similar in magnitude, 
> but they are clearly fabricated. Again we have a system - this time an 
> autocratic and authoritarian one - which defends itself. In Navalny's case we 
> can observe a deceitful autocratic system that fights against an opponent by 
> using unjustified indictments and deceitful accusations. In Trump's case we 
> can observe a democratic systems that defends itself against a deceitful 
> opponent by using truthful and justified indictments.
> 
> What's interesting to me is that democracy and autocracy as a system are 
> apparently both resilient and resistant to change. If the system is 
> threatened, then it tries to protect itself. This could be observed also in 
> the protests in 2020 in Belarus after the election and in the protests in 
> 2022 in Russia after the invasion that have been squashed by mass 
> imprisonments. The protests in Iran in 2022 have been silenced by mass 
> imprisonments and capital punishments as well. 
> 
> Democratic backsliding can happen, but it doesn't have to as long as the 
> democratic system is able to defend itself. Similarly a collapse of an 
> autocratic system is not happening if the system is able to silence protests 
> by mass imprisonments and capital punishments. This blog article from last 
> year still seems to fit.
> https://blog.cas-group.net/2022/05/modeling-democratic-backsliding-into-authoritarianism/
>  
> 
> 
> -J.
> 
> 
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.