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.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

This third post in this weekend's trilogy ties together the cultish aspects of Trumpism with "the end justifies the means" mindset of those who revel in Trump's retribution upon his enemies. 

Trump's supporters just aren't that smart.

No surprise, Trump isn't that smart either. 

A Trump supporter would immediately argue with me. They'd be angry and insulted with the label I hung on them, and incredulous that I would think that someone who was a billionaire and president of the United States wasn't, by definition, smart. I guess if defrauding the government, cheating your customers, stiffing your contractors and still bankrupting your businesses several times is smart, then I suppose I'm wrong. Trump's fortune was originally based on inheriting his father's real estate business. Fred Trump's unethical shenanigans have been well-documented, and his ill-gotten gains should have gotten him thrown in prison for fraud. Donald took over the family business by screwing over his siblings and several times almost lost it all. It's been said that if he simply put his inheritance into a money market fund he'd have a fortune many times larger than what he supposedly has now. It's no secret that prior to his deification as a business god on The Apprentice Trump ran business after business into the ground, bankrupting several casinos and losing millions on bad real estate deals. If he can be considered smart in any category, it's his choice of smart lawyers and accountants. Even when businesses he ran went belly-up, he managed to secure a paycheck for himself. Once The Apprentice created his reputation as a consummate deal-maker, banks fell over each other to loan him money, even when he became a serial defaulter. He became too big to fail. He was obviously not a good businessman, but his supporters were too stupid to see that. 

Once in office Trump's stupidity in the realm of government became obvious. He may have been politically aware enough to get elected by telling people what they wanted to hear, but he had no idea how things worked, whether in government, economics or international relations. One example of his willful ignorance is tariffs. He persisted in his belief that foreign governments pay tariffs and that a trade deficit meant that we were losing money. In his second term he imposed tariffs with little regard to any discernable strategic objective, and held on to his lack of understanding like a security blanket. His constant blustering about the 2% NATO spending goal was another example. Should NATO nations take on more responsibility for their own defense? Of course. But the 2% figure was not "dues" or payments where the United States was picking up the slack, but was a percentage of GNP that each NATO member was supposed to be spending on their military. Of course our percentage was higher since we had a military presence throughout the world, where most NATO members' militaries were concentrated close to home. Surely someone was attempting to correct him -- maybe not, he doesn't like to admit he's wrong. That's just two easily checked examples of him insisting on a view that isn't factual. It's not even a matter of interpretation. He's just wrong. 

Which brings us to the stupidity of Trump supporters. 

Most of what Trump says can be easily checked. Referring to my examples in the previous paragraph, they will celebrate as a "win" Trump's actions on tariffs when high school level economics will debunk everything he says. His ramblings about NATO spending can be checked with a 20 second Google search. They high-five each other over Trump victories that didn't happen. How many MAGA folks think the current budget bill eliminates taxes on Social Security and tips? (Spoiler alert: it doesn't -- it does contain some new deductions that are supposed to balance out those taxes). How many Trumpists believe that Trump brought peace to Israel and Iran after dropping bombs on Iran? 

Trump lies. Of course his apologists will either deny that he's lying, or will claim that all politicians lie, so it's no big deal that Trump does. Usually they just ignore the lie and engage in some "whataboutism" and point out some lie that a Democrat supposedly told. Sometimes the lie is so obviously transparent, so obviously a lie, so easily checkable, that anyone who believes it has to truly be stupid. I sometimes see posts or tweets doing a victory lap about some supposed Trump accomplishments and think "None of that happened". Do Trump voters not have internet access? Or are they just stupid? To be clear, I'm not talking about whether a particular policy is good or bad, or that I disagree with projected results, but whether or not something actually happened! 

I'm sure that Trump supporters believe  that they are very smart and discerning. The evidence would suggest otherwise.

Hail Caesar

Yes, it's a cult, as I have said many times, but there are aspects of Trump's agenda where he has been consistent about his intentions, and his supporters have been consistently for those policies. Unlike his changeable war vs. peace policies, or his view of the stock market -- these policies were no surprise. One of them is immigration.

There's no serious argument being made that our immigration and border security was "just fine" under President Biden, or for that matter under any previous president. People are highly motivated to leave the dangerous situations in their home countries, and they're going to come here. If the hoops are too high, too numerous, too expensive, they're going to find ways to come here outside the system. Instead of finding ways to balance controlling the border with expediting an immigrant's request to stay here, Trump's simplistic answer was to "close the border" and attempt to deport all non-citizens, whether they were here legally or not. A large percentage of his supporters were in favor of this before voting for him, and are still in favor of it now that they see how it's being carried out. 

Deporting people who are here illegally is perfectly legal. An argument can be made that they took a chance by entering illegally or overstaying their visa and that they brought the situation upon themselves. Of course, this isn't the moral, or even practical argument, whereby many people who do not have legal status have been contributing members of their communities for decades, working hard, paying taxes and are indistinguishable from anyone who was born here. The legal vs. illegal absolutists, however, are not interested in morality, they come down firmly on the side of the law, and have no sympathy for those who are breaking it, no matter the mitigating circumstances.  You don't have to be a racist to hold this position, but there is considerable overlap between racists and law and order absolutists on this issue. But are they really concerned about following the law?

Of course the fact that they voted for a convicted felon who was under indictment for more serious crimes than the one he was convicted for -- who saw all his legal troubles go away after being elected -- cast doubt upon their respect for the law. The methods that the administration is using to deport non-citizens (and in some cases, citizens) is itself illegal. Contrary to what Trump would have us believe, not every person being deported is here illegally. Most of the people who have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have had some kind of legal status which allowed them to remain here. Some were awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims, others were permitted to stay under a program called Temporary Protected Status. Even Permanent Legal Residents (holders of Green Cards) have been detained and deported. ICE is picking up legal residents as they reported for their annual ICE check-in, or at the courthouse where their asylum claim was being heard. Few if any of these people are receiving any kind of due process before being disappeared into an ICE facility. None of this is legal but the Trump supporters don't care. All they care about is that deportations are being done, that Trump's agenda is being carried out, and legality is irrelevant. 

The whole "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) purge is another example. Trump supporters tend to believe that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are discriminatory against white people and are a waste of taxpayer money. It was no surprise that DOGE targeted these programs as part of their assault on government. There's certainly arguments to be made that these programs as well as foreign aid and numerous other programs shouldn't be taxpayer funded. However, all of these expenditures, all of these gutted agencies were established and funded by law. Trump has embarked upon a mission to unilaterally remake government. The role of the president is to implement and execute the law, not to decide what the law is. But is the Trump base concerned about the Constitution being ignored? It sure doesn't seem that way. 

The political philosophy of the Trump base is evidently "the end justifies the means". They are willing to abandon the law, the constitution, and democracy in order to see Trump achieve his goals.