Oops, Those QAnon Are Serious!

One of the things that I have consistently written about about is how the followers of Donald Trump are members of a cult. I consider myself knowledgeable about how a cult leader recruits followers and how those followers remain cultists. I was involved in a cult for many years until I reached a breaking point and got out. I have heard speculation not only from Trump supporters but also from the media regarding how some Trumpists having reached a breaking point and were turning against Trump. This is due to Trump's recent statements regarding the Epstein files. Supposedly this proved that Trump followers were not cultists after all and were able to think for themselves. I disagreed. My prediction was that eventually his base would come around and accept Trump's explanation about the Epstein files, whatever they turn out to be. 

One of the building blocks of the Trump electoral base was conspiracy theories. Trump was adept at painting himself as a hero who would address whatever insanity the fringe believed. One conspiracy theory involved child sexual trafficking by prominent politicians: QAnon. QAnon believed that there was a cabal of powerful elite who abused and murdered children in Satanic rituals and drank their blood in order to stay young forever. This wasn't all that they believed; they also thought the government was using chemtrails to control the weather; but child abuse was their main drumbeat. This kind of belief wasn't new: in the Middle Ages Jews were accused of murdering children for Passover, or the Satanic panic in the eighties. QAnon followers thought that Trump had been recruited to expose the deep state pedophile conspiracy that they were convinced was running things behind the scenes. The incident where a QAnon cultist fired shots in a pizza restaurant because he believed that Hillary Clinton operated a pedophile ring in the basement (in a building with no basement) is an example of someone who took this all seriously. The possibility that child abuse was being covered up wasn't that unbelievable, since it sometimes happened - for example the long history of the Catholic Church's cover-up of child abuse. See the reprint of a transcript of an interview about this subject: "The Perfect Storm"

Not every Trump supporter was caught up in QAnon. Some others accepted the basic premise without directly listening to "Q" as they posted on social media. Others just folded it into their overall cheerleading of Trump. But for a core of true believers, this was the main reason they started following Trump and the possibility that he no longer thought the pedophile ring worth his time was seen as a betrayal. For those deep in the conspiracy, the Jeffrey Epstein case became a symbol of the reality of their belief, evidence that it was really taking place. They remained confident that Trump would expose those responsible for it all, including making public Epstein's "client list". Even as far back as in 2015 Trump suggested that Bill Clinton was involved in Epstein's sex trafficking, confirming for some QAnon conspiracists that Democrats were deep into the whole scheme. One of Trump's campaign in 2024 promises was that he would release the Epstein files, suggesting that his political enemies were part of it. (Federal court orders prohibited the files from the Epstein investigation from being made public, which is why it had not been released under Biden's term or Trump first term)

In early Trump’s second term he must have decided that he didn't need to pander to the tinfoil hat part of his base, and began to brush off questions about the Epstein files that he had promised to release the files. He even attacked his own supporters, insulting them:

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “bullshit” hook, line, and sinker, They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore! Thank you for your attention to this matter,”

Not only did Trump offend his own people, but Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that there really wasn't anything there, and that there was no client list after saying that one was on her desk. I'm not going to suggest that Democrats and other Trump opponents didn't also push for the release of the Epstein files, including the theoretical client list. Many people pointed to the multiple photos of Trump and Epstein together, just as Trump pointed to the multiple mentions of Bill Clinton in the records previously made public. But Trump is the one who continually brought it up and dangled the possibility of transparency for those who saw it as a major issue. 

The fallout from all this spawned several different Trump rationales. One was that Trump supporters expressing Trump's betrayal on this subject proved that they weren't a cult and that anyone who thought so was simply suffering "Trump Derangement Syndrome". I think that this could go two different ways. One, which I think is the most likely, is that the majority of Trumpists will eventually fall into line and their criticism will fade. They will create rationales whereby Trump really isn't really betraying them, how he hasn't really decided that this is no longer an important issue, and how it's the Democrats who are really the ones who don't want the files released. This is already happening. Despite Trump mocking of those who want the files put out there, how his AG has announced that it's a "nothing burger", the fact that he changed course and is now asking for the files to be unsealed is suddenly seen as transparency. I read someone claiming that the House Oversight Committee subpoenaing the files by a bipartisan vote is somehow "punking" the Democrats, as if Trump, who barely understands checkers, is a three dimensional chess master. 

The second possibility is that Trump supporters will abandon Trump. If this happens, it won't be all of them, and it certainly won't be a majority. If it happens at all it will be the ones who are the true tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts who made this their major, if not only, reason for following Trump. What most people don't understand is that cult members sometimes leave their cults. They do so for various reasons. Everyone has a breaking point. Sometimes they split off into an offshoot, sometimes they're deprogrammed, sometimes something simply causes them to decide that it's not worth it anymore. I was in a cult for decades. Until I wasn't. I know many other people who also were in...until they weren't. Being in a cult doesn't make one a zombie who is programmed like a robot. A cult member made a decision to join a cult, and makes a decision every day to stay in that cult. They cede, however, some of their critical thinking and decision making skills to the cult leader, rationalizing their decision to stay in the cult no matter what. They chose to interpret events in ways that confirm what the cult leader says. Despite all of that, cult members leave their cults every day and Trump cultists sometimes abandon their devotion to Trump. 

I don't know what new information about Epstein's depredations is revealed. I don't know who was involved and I don't we ever will know. But Trump's followers are no less a cult for questioning him...they're already backpedaling. 

Some Dare Call It Treason (Even When It Isn't)

Bluesky thread laying out, with evidence, why Bondi’s accusations against former President Obama are bullshit. For those who don’t have Bluesky, I will compile it all in a blog post. But really, you should get Bluesky

I'm at RosedaleTom@Bluesky.social

The Bluesky thread includes screen shots from the declassified reports that Bondi refers to; I have elected to not include the screenshots, but to include the text from those screenshots with a light grey background

Bluesky post by Laura Jedeed

‪@laurajedeed.bsky.social‬

The "Obama did a coup" thing is a pathetic attempt to distract from growing evidence that Trump and Epstein abused kids together. Also, it's total bullshit Here's a fully-annotated point-by-point refutation of Gabbard's nonsense, evidence-free accusations:

For this thread we'll be comparing Gabbard's 7 basic accusations as written in her press release and parroted on Fox and now a White House press conference (dni.gov/index.php/ne.... ...With the 118-page report she claims proves the accusations (dni.gov/files/ODNI/d...)

Gabbard uses precise, actionable language. She's using the same words and phrases over and over both in the press release and all her media appearances You can read about those phrases and also find an article version of this thread here: 3/ www.bannedinyourstate.com/p/cornered-d...

1. “In the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the Intelligence Community (IC) consistently assessed that Russia is “probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means” This quote comes with some HUGE caveats Gabbard leaves out:

Subject: RE: Russia and the US Elections --- Classification: ; ; cia Classified By: Derived From: Declassify On: ====================================================== I took the intent of this email to get the basic starting point regarding Russia. We agree with: Russia probably is not (and will not) trying to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure. Yes, if we're going further, while Russia has some capability to conduct cyber manipulation of election infrastructure, we judge that efforts by them (or others) to change the outcome of an election through cyber means would be detected. That's a key element of our cyber-focused PDB. We assess that foreign adversaries, notably Russia, are more likely to focus their cyber operations on undermining credibility/public confidence. That assessment feeds directly into the influence operations, some cyber-enabled, that we've seen related to current and historic election cycles. We concur with CIA's change related to that.

It's weird that Gabbard chose to quote discussion of the report rather than the report itself Maybe it's because the report itself clearly states that the intelligence community IS worried about Russia influencing the election in ways that don't involve altering vote totals

We judge that foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks on the diverse set of information technologies and infrastructures used to support the November 2016 US presidential election. We have only moderate confidence in our overall threat assessment, The most likely cyber threat to the election is from low-level, detectable, cyber intrusions and attacks that cause localized disruption but do not threaten the overall functionality of the election services or infrastructures. Nonetheless, even the perception that such low-level intrusions and attacks have occurred risks undermining public confidence in the legitimacy of the electoral process, the validity of the election’s outcome, and the mandate of the winning candidate. We further assess that foreign adversaries are more likely to focus election-related cyber operations on undermining the credibility of the electoral process than on clandestinely manipulationg the vote outcome through cyber means.

The report Gabbard declassified states "with only moderate confidence" (see above) that Russia will "probably" not pull off successful cyber operation capable of changing election results The report explicitly does NOT rule out the possibility of Russia pulling it off

Despite the diverse nature of the computer-enabled US election infrastructure and the difficulties associated with anticipating decisive tipping points in advance—in cases where an election is decided by a few closely contested areas that also employ vulnerable technologies—a targeted cyber attack on these locations might have significant impact on public confidence in the election or even actually be able to shift the overall outcome. If a “perfect storm” of coincident political and technological sensitivity were to develop, a cyber adversary might be able to target a small number of critical counties in highly contested states with significant numbers of Electoral College votes. This could potentially alter the apparent outcome of, and almost certainly undermine public confidence in, the election. Although we understand this scenario is unlikely, it remains a possibility that we cannot discount.

This declassified intel report from September 2016 -- the one Gabbard says proves the intel community didn't think Russia would interfere with the election "using cyber means" -- very explicitly states (with high confidence!) that Russia was actively preparing to interfere

Key Judgment 4. We judge Russia has conducted cyber and intelligence operations that suggest that it has potential interest in disrupting the US presidential election. Russia is probably the most capable and willing actor to conduct such operations based on its probable involvement in US election-related disclosures, the downward trend the bilateral relationship, and Russian leaders’ deeply held belief that Washington has tried to influence past Russian elections.  We assess that Russian intelligence services were behind the compromises of the DNC and DCCC networks and of email accounts from members of Congress, state political parties, a voter registration organization, and seven other US political organizations. We have high confidence in our assessment

Claim 2: “On Dec 7 2016, after the election, talking points were prepared for DNI James Clapper stating “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter US Presidential election outcome" That's the first sentence, yes. There were some others

ACTIVITY ON AND SINCE ELECTION DAY We assess that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome this year.  We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter results.  There was, however, minimal targeting of election infrastructure probably by cyber criminals to steal data, although these efforts did not disrupt the election. o Unattributed denial-of-service attacks against election infrastructure were reported on election day, including a 4-minute attack against an unspecified Illinois elections website that had no impact on the website’s availability. Since the election, cyber actors linked by signals intelligence to Russia’s SVR on 9 November conducted multiple election-themed spear-phishing campaigns. 1 Large quantities of emails – purportedly Clinton Foundation election postmortems from a Harvard University email address – were sent to individuals in national security, defense, international affairs, public policy and European Asian studies organizations. Multiple U.S. government agencies report having received the emails

OTHER INTRUSIONS Prior to the election, there were two reported instances of compromises against state election networks (Arizona and Illinois) and 20 or more states reported experience vulnerability scanning attempts and attempts to compromise web sites, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company.  We now assess with low-to-moderate confidence that Russian Governmentaffiliated actors compromised the Illinois voter registration database and tried to compromise comparable infrastructure in multiple other states.  We assess that a probable criminal cyber actor targeted the voter database in Arizona, based on the fact that a known criminal posted credentials for the database online. DNC INTRUSION The US Intelligence Community has high confidence in its attribution of the intrusions into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) networks, based on the forensic evidence identified by a private cyber-firm and the IC’s review and understanding of cyber activities by the Russian Government. Most IC agencies assess with moderate confidence that Russian services probably orchestrated at least some of the disclosures of US political information. Our level of confidence is based on the timing and that Russian intelligence was in possession of leaked information from both the DNC and DCCC as was subsequently leaked by Guccifer 2.0, the WikiLeaks website, and the DCLeaks website. In addition, the disclosures of White House e-mails by the DCLeaks website appear to be consistent with the tactics and motivations of the Russian Government.

While Russia did not ALTER the 2016 election through cyberattacks, the Clapper talking points accuse Russia of mounting cyberattacks against US election infrastructure: 1) Russia compromised an Illinois database and attempted at least 20 more breaches in other states

OTHER INTRUSIONS Prior to the election, there were two reported instances of compromises against state election networks (Arizona and Illinois) and 20 or more states reported experience vulnerability scanning attempts and attempts to compromise web sites, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company.  We now assess with low-to-moderate confidence that Russian Governmentaffiliated actors compromised the Illinois voter registration database and tried to compromise comparable infrastructure in multiple other states.  We assess that a probable criminal cyber actor targeted the voter database in Arizona, based on the fact that a known criminal posted credentials for the database online.

2. The Clapper talking points from December 7, like the intel assessment from September 12, clearly state that Russia is behind the DNC and DCCC hacks and probably participated in leaking some of that info with the intent of influencing the 2016 election

DNC INTRUSION The US Intelligence Community has high confidence in its attribution of the intrusions into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) networks, based on the forensic evidence identified by a private cyber-firm and the IC’s review and understanding of cyber activities by the Russian Government. Most IC agencies assess with moderate confidence that Russian services probably orchestrated at least some of the disclosures of US political information. Our level of confidence is based on the timing and that Russian intelligence was in possession of leaked information from both the DNC and DCCC as was subsequently leaked by Guccifer 2.0, the WikiLeaks website, and the DCLeaks website. In addition, the disclosures of White House e-mails by the DCLeaks website appear to be consistent with the tactics and motivations of the Russian Government.

Accusation 3: “On Dec 9 2016 President Obama’s White House gathered top National Security Council Principals for a meeting that included James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others, to discuss Russia.” This did happen, yes

Summary of Conclusions for Meeting of the Principals Committee DATE: December 9, 2016 LOCATION: White House Situation Room TIME: 11:30 a .m. - 1:30 p.m. 005018 SUBJECT: Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic Participants: Chair Susan Rice OVP No Representative State Secretary John Kerry (SVTS) Victoria Nuland Treasury Adam Szubin DOD Brian McKeon Justice Loretta Lynch Mary McCord WH Counsel Neil Eggleston DNI James Clapper FBI Andrew McCabe CIA John Brennan JCS (SVTS) Gen Joseph Dunford

Gabbard has declassfied a "summary of conclusions" from a meeting that seems to discuss Russian attempts at election interference, along with a spear-phishing campaign outlined in James Clapper's talking points (here's a screenshot of that part of the talking points)

Since the election, cyber actors linked by signals intelligence to Russia’s SVR on 9 November conducted multiple election-themed spear-phishing campaigns. Large quantities of emails – purportedly Clinton Foundation election postmortems from a Harvard University email address – were sent to individuals in national security, defense, international affairs, public policy, and European Asian studies organizations. Multiple US Government agencies report having received the emails.

Claim 4: “After the meeting, DNI Clapper’s Executive Assistant sent an email to IC leaders tasking them with creating a new IC assessment “per the President’s request” that details the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.”....."[the email] went on to say, “ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS.”"

The “to” line of the email is redacted but the attribution makes logical sense. All those quotes do, in fact, appear somewhere in the email

The IC is prepared to produce an assessment per the President’s request, that pulls together the information we have on the tools Moscow used and the actions it took to influence the 2016 election, an explanation of why Moscow directed these activities, and how Moscow’s approach has changed over time, going back to 2008 and 2012 as reference points. ODNI will lead the effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS. The goal would be to produce a highly classified version and an unclassified version: o The classified version would include a comprehensive analysis of Russia’s activities, drawing from all available sources, with a target delivery date of 9 January to the President. The unclassified version would follow the classified delivery, and to the greatest extent possible would include the same information while still protecting sources and methods. The goal would be to make the unclassified document publicly available.

The implication of Gabbard's accusation here is that Obama commanded the intelligence community to alter their previous assessment. Unfortunately for Gabbard, those "tools" Moscow used? All covered in previous intel assessments Let's look at them now!

2. Interagency Tiger Team will draft assessment of “what happened” a. CIA, FBI, NSA officers will participate; DHS and OSE analysts will contribute b. Assessment will address the following questions i. How did Moscow seek to influence the US presidential election in 2016? What tools did they use? 1. Hacking (CIA, FBI, NSA lead) 2. Leaks (CIA, FBI, NSA lead) 3. Cyber activity against voting system (DHS input) 4. Media spin, trolls, fake news (OSE lead) 5. Domestic Russian Intelligence efforts (FBI input) ii. Why did Moscow direct these activities? What have the Russians hoped to accomplish? (CIA lead)

Tool 1: Hacking. Previous reports consistently stated, with high confidence, that Russia hacked the DNC and DCCC Tool 2: Leaks. Previous reports also consistently stated that Russia was likely behind at least some of the leaked info from that hack

Tool 3: Cyber activity against voting system. the James Comey talking points discuss attacks against Illinois and at least 20 other states, as mentioned above

Tool 4: Media spin/trolls/fake news. Not mentioned in the previous declassified reports, it's true Also: this section is assigned to Open Source Enterprise (OSE). The report does not include comms from OSE, so we're missing any previous discussion that might have happened

2. Interagency Tiger Team will draft assessment of “what happened” a. CIA, FBI, NSA officers will participate; DHS and OSE analysts will contribute b. Assessment will address the following questions i. How did Moscow seek to influence the US presidential election in 2016? What tools did they use? 1. Hacking (CIA, FBI, NSA lead) 2. Leaks (CIA, FBI, NSA lead) 3. Cyber activity against voting system (DHS input) 4. Media spin, trolls, fake news (OSE lead) 5. Domestic Russian Intelligence efforts (FBI input) ii. Why did Moscow direct these activities? What have the Russians hoped to accomplish? (CIA lead)

Tool 5: Domestic Russian Intelligence efforts: Unclear what they're referring to. The report they eventually wrote based on these instructions suggests Russian agents tried to gain physical access but were denied access. That's the only thing that matches this description

Other Russian Influence Efforts Some Russian influence efforts appeared to be short lived or have little traction, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] indicates Russian officials were unable to conduct their desired election monitoring plan because US officials denied them access [REDACTED] indicates plans for a Russian-language newspaper supportive of President-elect Trump to be published in the United States were scaled back in late October after Moscow deemed the President-elect's chance for victory to be unlikely

While it's true that the declassified reports don't talk about "domestic Russian intelligence efforts" prior to these post-election instructions for producing an intelligence report, it also doesn't factor into the end report, so I'm not really seeing the scandal here

Claim 6: “Obama officials leaked false statements to media outlets, including The Washington Post, claiming “Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.”” The report does not mention WaPo even once

Claim 6 quotes from Obama's alleged leak: "Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election." This quote appears nowhere in the docs and there's no record of this quote anywhere, at any time, before Gabbard's press release

Just want to emphasize that: Gabbard's press release contains a quote that exists nowhere else on the Internet except in her press release So, you know. She's lying

Claim 6: “On January 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.” No it fucking doesn't That's not true

Nothing in the report contradicts anything stated in previous released intel assessments. It has more info on Putin preferring Trump over Clinton, but that was never discussed either way and seems to draw on open source data

The report emphasizes the most damning aspects of the previous reports, it uses more strident language, but that’s not a contradiction, never mind a "years-long coup" I don't even know what to screenshot here. How can you screenshot something that doesn't exist?

The report includes a LOT of information media spin/trolls/fake news, which does not appear in previous reports

This is because -- as stated earlier! --we don’t have any reports or emails from OSE, the department tasked with investigating that aspect of Russian interference

FINAL CLAIM: “After months of investigation into this matter, the facts reveal this new assessment was based on information that was known by those involved to be manufactured i.e. the Steele Dossier or deemed as not credible.” The report LITERALLY SAYS THE OPPOSITE

The last 10 pages of Gabbard's released report contain a 2019 FOIA request from all communications between FBI and the DNI office from May of 2016 to February of 2017 pertaining to the Steele Dossier

The National Intelligence Officer for cyber issues from 2015 to time of email (Sean Kanuck) answers the request He says the only “highside” (classified) email that referenced the Steele Dossier during the specified time frame (May 2016-Feb 2017) was a news compilation

An email with the from and to fields redacted U: To u only at this time; U: First - when I search all my mail highside items, only 9 hits match ("Steele + "dossier") and I believe these are 1 error plus 8 open-side news compilations sent to me as a member of a wide distro. Only one of these is as old as 2017 (attached). I can also run lowside if needed. However,

Kanuck points out that seraching 9 months of emails between DNI and the FBI for terms like "dossier" and "James Clapper" would be, in the understatement of the year: "impractical"

Please review the attach [sic] document and conduct a search for the time period May 2016 through February 2017 of all records of communications (including emails on both .gov and non-.gov accounts, text messages, and instant chats) between the office of the Director of National Intelligence, including but not limited to former ODNI Director James Clapper, and the office of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including but not limited to former FBI director James Comey, regarding the collection fo memos known as the "Steele Dossier." Recommended search terms the "Steele" "Dossier" "Cater Page" "James Comey" and "James Clapper" "John Brennan" in my election-related files

Kanuck states, unequivocally, that his office never even reviewed the Steele Dossier, never mind used it in an Intelligence Community report The only time the report came up at all was when some other colleagues made the same baseless accusation, which he found "concerning"

To this day, I have never seen or reviewed dossier materials in a work setting. I did recently hear them referenced by two colelagues in terms consistent with the email below, which struck me as concerning and at odds with my personal experience working election issues during 2015-2017. With that single, recent exception, other than the email below, at not ime in my I career has "dossier" material ever been represented to me in a work setting as something the NIC viewed as credible, or that was influential in crafting NIC products.

Within the intel world, people receive info on a need-to-know basis. Kanuck says it's possible that some secret working group used the dossier He also heard SECOND-HAND that the dossier was used in one presidential briefing This is not "overwhelming proof" of ANYTHING

I have intermittently participated in IC foreign influence and election security efforts from 2014 through this evening I was asked by NIO Cyber [ to participate in the analytic scrub of the non- compartmented version of what I think is the 2017 ICA referenced below. It included no dossier reference that I recall. o I was not / am not in all of the Russia compartments, and so I did not participate in the crafting of the compartmented version o At no point did suggest that there was any analytically significant reporting that I was NOT seeing, with the exception of compartmented material (I asked repeatedly, because of analytic concerns I held regarding a KJ that remain unresolved to this day.) o At no point did I see or consider what I gather is, or was represented to be, 'dossier' materials. I did hear second hand from ostensibly recounting words of then DNI Clapper, on the day of a briefing to current [then, I think, just elect] POTUS, about inclusion of dossier materials in a presentation to POTUS elect. This was characterized as an unexpected and unwanted sudden and unilateral act by then DIR FBI Comey, and as a source of concern to the DNI.

The exchange ends with an extremely snippy demand for Kanuck to execute the FOIA request That’s the end of the report. There is nothing else

An email with the to and from fields redacted I think you just need to respond to the request based on a plain reading of what it is asking. If you have further questions about what is responsive, I think we can link you to the FOIA officers and they probably have better expertise to guide you. Obviously, this all predates me. On #3, it is routine that we get material and don't share it with everyone--and it's not a matter of a particular clearance

So yeah. The accusations are baseless bullshit; a completely manufactured conspiracy and a Hail Mary pass to save a floundering, failing president from his own stupidity

if this absolute nonsense somehow lands a former president in jail it will be one of the most embarrassing things to ever happen in this country — and that’s a high bar.

Here's a whole article about Gabbards bullshit, plus analysis of MAGA's reaction to the "Obama did a years-long coup and should be in jail" thing This is groundwork for arresting Dems at a time when Trump is desperate. Unfortunately, the story matters

https://www.bannedinyourstate.com/p/cornered-dogs-bite

What About Whataboutism?

Many of us first heard the term "whataboutism" during the 2016 election. Any criticism of Trump's corruption, dallying with the Russians, or anything else was often met with the cry of "What about her emails?" It was often dismissed as a "fake logical fallacy" by Trump supporters, but as it turns out, it's a very real logical fallacy. It's a variation of the Tu Quoque fallacy, which is Latin for "you too". Tu Quoque is itself a subtype of the ad hominem fallacy, by which the person making an argument is attacked, rather than the argument itself. Whataboutism can also be a red herring, which is communication meant to distract from the topic. In general whataboutism is used to deflect criticism by pointing out that someone that the critic supports (sometimes the critic themself) is guilty of the same thing. 

Is it a legitimate rhetorical retort?

Maybe.

It depends.

I can see where in a political argument if you're criticizing a politician for something and your interlocutor points out that you support other politicians who do the exact same thing, it could be that you're being accused of hypocrisy. Or it could be that the person defending the politician that you're accusing doesn't really believe that your accusation is all that serious; after all, everyone is doing it. In neither case does the existence of others guilty of the same infraction excuse the original person's infraction. What I often hear when I point out whataboutism is that the "whatabouter" is simply "telling the truth". Let's look at a real life example:

* "President Trump" spews hate, he said that he hates all Democrats and that they're all evil"

* "Oh yeah, well Democrats says hateful stuff too"

* "What does that have to do with anything? Why are you excusing Trump's hate speech?"

* "I'm just telling the truth, Democrats do say hateful things"

You have to follow up with these kinds of statements. Sure, it's "the truth"; Democrats do say hateful things, but what is the purpose of bringing it up in this conversation? (And you can use any political topic: executive orders, immigration enforcement, presidential pardons - same pattern) Is the responder trying to make the point that you are hypocritical for pointing fingers? If so, it doesn't change the fact that Trump did what he is being accused of. Is the responder trying to excuse the action? If this is the case then he is either admitting that it was okay when the other guy did it, or it wasn't okay when Trump did it. 

Look, I know I'm getting in the tangled weeds of rhetoric here, but the point is that whataboutism is a deflection, it's a ploy to take the focus away from what you're pointing out and direct it elsewhere, so you find yourself arguing a completely different issue. 

Don't take the bait.

It's Schadenfreude Down in Texas

Here we go, another natural disaster, this time it's  catastrophic flooding in Texas. There's a lot we still don't know about the response, the advance warnings, the respective roles of the National Weather Service (NWS) and local warning systems. What I want to address is some people's responses to the floods and associated deaths. 

I've interacted with two Trump supporters in the last few days who have expressed horror at what some people have been saying about the situation. In particular they have taken offense at statements like "This is what they voted for", referring to Texas having voted 56-42% for Trump in the last election, and to the cuts to government agencies, including NWS that Trump's team initiated. Or variations on the theme of "Fuck Around and Find Out", suggesting that Texans got what they deserved. Considering that a large percentage of the deaths were pre-teen girls (who didn't vote for anyone) at summer camp, this take is a cruel one. Schadenfreude can sometimes be quite satisfying, but gleeful comments about dead children is beyond the pale. 

I haven't seen too many of these comments, but they're out there. 

But is it out of line to question whether NWS gave sufficient warning about the potential severity and whether any shortcomings were due to the cutbacks initiated by Trump? Absolutely not. It's always appropriate to question the government. Is it really so incredible to think that after all government agencies (except ICE) were gutted in the last six months that these cuts could have contributed to the death toll in the first massive natural disaster for this administration? Of course not. It's the first question that we should be asking. We'd be fools not to question whether NWS cuts contributed to the deaths. We'd be idiots to listen to Ted Cruz - of course it's political!

Based on the probably incomplete information available so far, NWS did send out flash flood warnings, at one point calling them "catastrophic", but it is unclear whether all residents heard the warnings. Presumably more information will be available in the coming days. 

But while the Republicans are wringing their hands at Democrats for blaming Trump for a natural disaster, they conveniently forget that Trump played the blame game during natural disasters during Biden's term. In the aftermath of last year's hurricane in North Carolina, Trump accused Biden of avoiding sending help to Republican-majority areas. During the California fires earlier this year Trump blamed Democrats for the fires. Sure, I'm engaging in whataboutism, but calling out hypocrisy is always in season. When questioned about whether the NWS cuts contributed to the deaths in the Texas flooding, he waffled about blame:

    “What a situation that all is. That was really the Biden setup. That was not our setup. But I                 wouldn’t blame Biden for it either.”

A lot of the quotes I have seen didn't include the last sentence, attempting to make Trump look like he was unambiguously blaming Biden, but why would you blame Biden? He's not the president any more! Maybe he belatedly realized that he was opening up himself for blame that he reflexively was trying to pin on his predecessor. 

And for extra context, we have this quote by Tom Homan, a Department of Homeland Security official: 

    “Bottom line is,” he said, “I looked at the response that occurred, it’s a far better, quicker, appropriate response than you would have seen under the Biden administration.”

So let's keep it classy and refrain from crowing about the deaths of people we disagree with politically, even if they are horrible people. Their inhumanity is no excuse for us to sink into the muck with them. But at the same time let's not fall for the line that it's not the right time to ask questions of our government. 

Tips, Overtime and Taxes on Social Security Benefits

The 2025 Republican tax bill passed. There's many horrible and harmful things in that bill, but today we'll be focusing on the changes in how tips, overtime and Social Security will be taxed (or not). Trump and the Republicans campaigned on eliminating taxes on all three. They haven't really done so, despite the propaganda email from the Social Security Administration. 

Let's start with Social Security, and how portions of it are taxed now. First of all, not all Social Security benefits are taxed. For a taxpayer filing singly, total adjusted gross income plus half of social security benefits is $25,000 or greater then up to 50% of benefits count as taxable income. If the total is greater than $34,000, then up to 85% of benefits count as taxable income. (The exact percentage is a sliding scale - the formula can be found in the Form 1040 instructions). For married couples filing jointly the thresholds are $32,000 and $44,000. So whether someone's Social Security benefits are taxable or not is based entirely on whether their combined income exceeds the levels mentioned above. 

If the formula indicates that a portion of one's benefits will be taxed, this is not deducted from their monthly benefits, but is calculated when completing the annual tax forms and determines tax liability, and therefore either the refund or amount due. 

The new tax law does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. What it does is provide an additional deduction for seniors (age 65+) of $6,000 per individual ($12,000 for married filing jointly). In other words, it reduces taxable income by $6,000. This phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 or married filing jointly over $150,000. This reduces the number of  seniors who will have their benefits taxed, but does not eliminate the tax itself. For example an individual who is still working with combined adjusted gross income and half of benefits exceeding $31,000 (the statutory threshold plus the new deduction) will have some of her Social Security benefits taxed. 

This additional deduction is only in effect for four years. It will also hasten the insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, since taxes on benefits go back into the Trust Fund. This additional deduction is for all seniors, not just those who are receiving Social Security benefits. 

Next up: tips

Tips are taxable income, the same as any other source of income like W-2 or 1099 remuneration. The only reason it appears to be tax-free is that many people who receive tips do not report them as income unless compelled to do so by their employer. It's virtually impossible for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to track every tip paid in cash (i.e. not by credit or debit card). The IRS has attempted to make it more difficult for employees to avoid paying taxes on their tip income by holding their employers accountable. Currently, in a business with tipped employees, the employees are required to report all tips to their employer who will include those tips as part of their gross income, and withhold federal and state taxes, as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Since it's likely that not all tips will be reported, the business is required to calculate what reported tips would be if they were 8% of sales. If total reported tips fall below 8%, the business is then required to allocate the difference between actual reported tips and 8% among all tipped employees. (Not sure if this allocation is based on sales or hours - nothing prevents an employer from having a stricter policy). This results in a tipped employee being taxed for income that they may or may not have actually received.  

The new law does not eliminate taxes on tips. What it does do is allow workers in "occupations that customarily and regularly received tips" to deduct $25,000 in tipped income from their taxable income. (This clause is supposed to prevent people who don't receive their income from tips to classifying their fees as "tips" and avoiding some taxes. With all the cuts in IRS staffing, I'm sure there will be abuses.)  All tips above $25,000 are taxable. One recurring misunderstanding is that this deduction applies only to tips paid in cash. The IRS defines "cash tips" as tips paid in cash, check, card etc. The definition of "cash tips" excludes in-kind gratuities or services in lieu of cash. This change will not benefit low income workers if their total income was already below the standard deduction, but it will reduce taxable income for many tipped workers. 

Expires after four years. 

Finally: overtime

This is similar to tips in that overtime pay is still taxable, but that a portion can be deducted from taxable income. Individuals can deduct $12,500 and married couples filing jointly can deduct $25,000. This deduction only applies to the "and a half" portion of "time and a half" paid for overtime hours. 

Expires after (you guessed it) four years. 

The bill requires that the IRS formulate regulations to govern withholding for both tips and overtime by 2026, so it remains to be seen whether paycheck withholding will take into account the tax exempt portion of tips and overtime. For the remainder of the 2025 tax year taxes will continue to be withheld as before. Taxpayers will claim the applicable deductions when filing their 2025 tax return in 2026. Since those who are claiming tip and overtime income will effectively be overpaying, I imagine that most in these categories will seeing higher than usual refunds next year. 

How will this affect state taxes? This remains to be seen. For Nebraska, taxable income is mostly based on federal adjusted gross income with a few Nebraska-specific adjustments. (Nebraska already completely exempts Social Security benefits from state income tax.) So, if these deductions reduce federal taxable income, will it also affect state taxable income? States can adjust their tax codes to compensate, or they can go along with the federal regulations; although Nebraska's legislature is out of session for the year. It looks like I got out of the Nebraska Department of Revenue just in time. FICA withholding will continue to be based on an employee's gross wages, so tips and overtime will still be subject to FICA. 

I'm sure more details will become clear in time, and if I'm missing anything I will issue updates, but that's what I know for now.