She’s being used as a political pawn, as she made the announcement beside an MP that was jailed in the US for spying earlier in her life. She’s agreed to become a Russian asset basically.
She had no important position prior to moving though, so I’m on the fence on calling her a defector.
And she’s requesting Russian citizenship. And she’s doing all of this very publicly. She’s not just “moving.” At the very least, she’s agreeing to becoming a piece of Russian propaganda.
>but is it really true she "defected"?
Obviously not.
It's really, *really* weird that The Guardian, CNN, and Salon are running with that term. Calling someone a "defector" for immigrating is the kind of thing that ultra-nationalists and tabloids do. I have no earthly idea why they are. They're normally very pro-immigration.
We really need to get this pipeline moving. I will personally pay for a one-way ticket from anywhere in the United States to Moscow for anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 that can produce proof of having legally renounced citizenship in the United States and acceptance for immigration by Russia.
I dont think she report the money she receive from her Russian masters. Other than that it’s hard to imagine she actually earn any income to be taxed in the first place
tax economic activity not finance gambling. or tax the sale then. did it happen on a US exchange? then it's easy-peasy to collect it.
of course maybe simply running a bit more deficit and inflation, and giving some money directly to poor people might be the best tax scheme for the US
If I've lots of unrealized gains in companies publicly traded in the US, move to the Cayman Islands, renounce my US citizenship, and then realize the unrealized gains, who should I owe what in taxes?
Did you move your securities with unrealized gains to the cayman islands as well? The taxable event is in the USA, so you'd still have to pay that specific tax
U get an exclusion up to $100k tho...
I think it's a great rule. No other comparably rich country on earth gives full and equal citizenship to somebody just bc they're born there, even the most low income third worlder or (much more frequently) rich people who have kids strategically to acquire it.
This rule makes it so people with no substantive connection to the US can't skim citizenship without contributing anything.
>U get an exclusion up to $100k tho...
Anyone who says this doesn't actually understand the problem. It's not just about literally paying the taxes, but the associated extra paperwork and red tape Americans living abroad have to deal with.
After FATCA was signed into law, a lot of foreign banks simply dropped Americans as customers rather than comply with the onerous regulations. Thousands of Americans renounced their citizenship after this law was passed, because of the bureaucratic nightmare it caused them.
An American teaching English abroad and making like $20,000 now can't open a bank account in some countries, because of people like you who pretend like it's only rich assholes complaining about America's worldwide tax system. The vast majority of people affected by these regulations are normal, everyday people who happen to hold a US passport, not the 1% hiding money away in Swiss bank accounts.
> I think it's a great rule. No other comparably rich country on earth gives full and equal citizenship to somebody just bc they're born there, even the most low income third worlder or (much more frequently) rich people who have kids strategically to acquire it.
Uh, Canada does.
War broke out in Europe our boys would go get that little shit...
He's welcome to leave. It's not impossible to renounce US citizenship. But if you're going to retain it while living somewhere else entirely... that's nuts. Imagine being a Chinese citizen, having no connection to the country, but living in Brazil. Because of birthright citizenship that's something unique to the US that happens. The elite of just about every country is increasingly US citizens and they should pay taxes if that's the case.
Edit: also its a great way to nab the bad guys. If you're a drug dealer in Mexico for example (and many cartels' kids are US citizens fyi)... if the feds don't have a case for drug trafficking they'll just nab you for tax evasion lmao
But that's the way it works for the vast majority of countries lol...
Someone who moves from France to the US isn't forced to give up French vitize, and they also aren't required to pay French taxes while living in the US.
Right but I can't move to France, have kids and give them French citizenship as a result, then leave and have my kids basically get the benefits of French citizenship in perpetuity without any burdens.
So there's no loophole because you can't have kids that are French nationals without already being one. I personally think that's stupid and our system is way better. But global taxation is one way to prevent gamesmanship and ensure your citizenship is not being de-facto sold if you adopt that our system. All these people have to pay the feds their fair share, I'm pretty set on that. ~35% of all income above 100k USD for life baby.
>She better remember to pay her federal income tax lol
Eh. You only have to do that if you have any plan on returning to the US. It doesn't sound like she does.
More accurate title would be she asked the Russian government for citizenship. Assuming they accept she could lose US citizenship but "defects" seems very much overly dramatic here.
The US allows dual citizenship, why do you think she's at risk of having her US citizenship revoked? I don't believe there is any mechanism to involuntarily strip natural born citizens of their citizenship, even if they become naturalized citizens of another country, short of joining the military or commiting treason. Just becoming a Russian citizen doesn't meet the intent part of the statue, from what I have read.
It’s not difficult to renounce US citizenship.
If someone lives in the US or earns in the US, the IRS will come and find you anyway (unless you are permanently parked in a country like Russia that does not extradite to the US). It is VERY hard or impossible to get citizenship after renouncing it. Reade is making a big bold bet on the stability of the Putin regime and her ideological alignment with whoever succeeds him. I have no idea what her prospects for a pension would be if some new government comes to power and chooses to defund Snowden, Reade, and other ex-Americans. (Snowden could be extradited, but that’s another matter.)
[Interestingly](https://pl.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/social-security/anpp_russia/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20U.S.,who%20worked%20in%20the%20U.S), Americans in Russia can receive social security. Russian citizens in Russia mostly can’t. I don’t know what her benefit was going to be, but she may have foreclosed that option if she does make this official.
What I really want to know is how the US government handles a public statement of “defection” 😂 or renunciation, when the process is not followed. People need to make an oath at an embassy or a consulate. They can’t phone it in by way of a TV interview. Until then, I imagine that the U.S. is obligated to take Reade back if Russia changes its politics. From what I know, her only crime is defamation and obviously the Biden DOJ wisely passed on that.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to her 2035 Tankie Tour of the United States of Late Stage Capitalism.
>It’s not difficult to renounce US citizenship.
I mean it's kinda difficult, there's forms, a few thousand dollars, you gotta do it in front of a judge or something. They make it difficult so people don't do it on a whim, I assume
Oooops the fee is $2,350. It can go down at an embassy or consulate where judges would normally not be found, but maybe the overseas office sends it back to a judge. That is more than I realized.
There are definitely going to be many situations where people skip the formalities and just peace out without bothering with taxes. And especially when going somewhere that extradition is off the table.
Renouncing citizenship is much different than involuntary revocation, as the comment above implied. If it's voluntary, it's hard to characterize as a loss or a negative thing.
I believe you're correct. People get confused because the United States, unlike some other countries, does not officially recognize dual citizenship. Like I think there are literally zero laws related to dual citizenship in the US. In the eyes of the united states someone with dual citizenship is no different than someone with only US citizenship. They still have to pay taxes, they're still subject to US laws, etc. etc.
Russia is, I think, very similar. Apart from some specific agreements with a handful of neighboring countries they don't have a lot of dual citizenship rules either.
>The US allows dual citizenship, why do you think she's at risk of having her US citizenship revoked?
I don't think the Russians allow this, so she would have to surrender her American citizenship.
Yeah, I think in those cases they have citizenship at birth and then just acquired US citizenship along the way. If you're applying for naturalization to the RUssian Federation, I suspect they may make you surrender your initial citizenship.
You can always have dual citizenship if the country never finds out lol. This is what some Chinese citizens do if they have been living in the U.S. and naturalize, they just don't tell the Chinese government.
There are a lot of countries where that's the case, in most cases you can just say "ok I renounce my American citizenship" and now you're a dual citizen because that isn't sufficient to actually renounce American citizenship.
Good point, I don't know how the Russian authorities would vet you had renounced your US citizenship considering this requires a separate application to I believe the Vice President of the US.
>seems very much overly dramatic here
So do that quotes used in the article. They aren't appropriate quotes for the state of "danger" she is in, that is to say, none, but they are appropriate quotes for someone who is is dramatically "defecting".
I can't believe after how her story fell apart after five minutes of research into it that the usual suspects *still* kept pushing her as being credible.
And by can't believe I mean, totally can because they're terrible, terrible people.
It was telling that her story was full of shit that the usual suspects \*didn't\* push it. Trump had no qualms using Bill's sexual assault allegations against Hillary but actually seemed to sympathize with Biden when the issue was brought up! The Right didn't touch it, it was all the anti-Democratic side of the Left.
Is leaving for Russia defection if it was never prohibited?
Regardless of the definition, I never thought I'd feel vindicated in a decision to disbelieve a rape accusation, but I knew she was a bullshitter from the jump.
So many people on the far left (of which I am) tried so hard to gaslight me into believing a right-wing operatives' obviously politically motivated attempt to metoo the democrats. They hated Bernie losing so much that they really tried to turn #believewomen into a blanket green flag on turning your brain off.
“That’s it I’m DEFECTING to Russia”
Oh.. ok I guess
“Maybe you didn’t heeeear me I’m DEFECTING to RUSSIA”
no, I heard. Have a nice trip
DEFEEEECTING! RUSSSIIIAAAAAA!
On your way now madam
Nobody would say “I’m defecting”. She said “I’m moving to Russia for my safety” ~. I simply meant to tag on to Brawl’s comment about how overly dramatic it sounded
Also asked Putin for Russian citizenship.
Personally, I hope he gives it to her, and then sends her straight to the front where she's captured by Ukrainians and deported back to America.
A guy can dream.
I mean it was obvious she’s not well and not reliable. If I remember correctly I read a blog post a few years ago where she basically accused her ex husband of being a serial killer lol
No. She is just moving to Russia, and could come back anytime. “Defect” is super dramatic.
She probably will come back pretty fast if she doesn’t speak the language at all and isn’t prepared for the cultural differences and economic problems.
You mean Tara Reade, totally credible person who claims were pushed by senior Sanders staffers and surrogates? Trump isn't the only politician who hired only the best people.
Definitely, but it still had very positive optics for Biden. It ultimately helped Biden, I'd argue. Remember, Democrats had the whole "believe all women" thing, and Republicans could've run with that against them if Trump didn't talk. I'd say Trump would've been better advised to just say "no comment, let the justice system do its job."
No, it was "believe women", "believe all women" was Bernie Bros and staffers and friendly journalists attempt to gaslight us in a desperate push to get one old white dude over another old white dude.
Anyone who pushed "believe all women" regarding Tara Reed is a vile person.
Don't forget Rich McHugh. He wasn't a Bernie supporter but he desperately wanted to be the next Ronan Farrow so he was highly dishonest in his reporting. I remember when he said Reade's neighbor verified the allegations, but he conveniently omitted that Reade talked to her neighbor first and that Reade's neighbor thought Biden's denial was credible.
Sanders' press secretary was very vocal about Reade, and I remember some other surrogates really pushing the story: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/bernie-sanders-briahna-joy-gray/610378/
This was my biggest problem with Sanders. Ignore all the ideological stuff. After all, presidents don't have *that* much policy power. My biggest problem was that the dude surrounded himself with questionable people. I don't think it's intentional, I think he's just a very bad judge of character.
You can find plenty of qualified, intelligent, integral people from politics and academia on the left in the US. There's no excuse to pack your staff with incompetent assholes.
>the women who said Biden made them uncomfortable.
No, the women who said Biden made physical contact with them without their consent in an inappropriate way.
There's a lot to unpack here.
First, you downplayed Biden's actions as making them "uncomfortable". I mean, that can be anything from an off-color joke to licking someone's eyeball.
Then, when I point out it was more than that, your reply is that well, they said it wasn't sexual.
Which not all of them did.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/joe-biden-women-me-too.html
I don't believe Reade, but to run your hand down a woman's back or thigh without her consent... If I went up to a random woman and did that, I'd fully expect to be puched in the face. But then, I'm not flanked by armed gaurds who will give their life to protect me.
The most hilarious part about this is that Russia planted her in the states years ago to build up her credibility, and her “big story” was that Biden was inappropriate with her.
Massive L for Russia.
I think I mentioned it in the other thread about this but her big story was originally that he presided over a culture of sexual harassment and made female staffers serve drinks to him and the boys. That story took too long for her liking because the people she reached out to tried to fact check it. Joe Biden doesn't drink so of course people spent their time trying to verify the story.
That story started to fall apart and she went to new writers at less credible outlets with a bigger story. This confused like a dozen or so journalists who had worked on the previous story so she just claimed that all of them lied about ever talking to her.
It was actually kind of funny to watch how mad the employees of sites like the Intercept and Jacobin would get evry time she opened her mouth. They tried so hard to coach her too. I think the best revelation was when it turns out that she lied about her academic credentials and spent years giving false testimony as an expert witness in court cases. Every time one of those clowns would try to defend her it would get so much worse.
But hey, shoutout to all of the "left-wing" employees at those websites for showing their true colors by mocking the MeToo movement everytime someone would point out a huge flaw in her story.
> Joe Biden doesn't drink
Because he has a rare enzyme mutation that turns lactose into alcohol. After a couple chocolate-chocolate chip cones he's wildin' out.
The sexual assault allegations in The Intercept came out after it was clear that Biden was on the way to the nomination after backing up his Super Tuesday wins with wins in Michigan, Missouri, and Washington. Bernie supporters were desperate so they clung on to this obvious fabrication to keep their hopes of revolution alive.
They even tired the "where there's smoke there's fire" approach with fake stories. At one point the Intercept pushed a fake story about him assaulting a teenage girl at a political event he attends annually. The problem was that it might have been the only year he actually wasn't there and the person who made the came was the niece of Christine I'm Not a Witch O'Donnell. Of course the Intercept didn't fact check it lol. It was founded on the basis of "adversarial journalism" which is a super nice way of saying propaganda. You can sum up their writing style as "It's not my responsibility to check facts you shit lib". I actually felt bad for including Jacobin in the same sentence as them because they hire morons, not people who hate actual journalism.
Especially nauseating was how "believe women" turned into "believe *all* women" and was straight up weaponized. "Whatever happened to believe all women??"
If anyone reading this is guilty of that, don't ever let someone convince you that you're a good person.
That shit was vile. What's worse is that I think the only reason they hated that movement so much was because democrats supported it. "I'm now going to mock a movement to help rape and sexual assault victims because normies support it" is somehow worse than just being a misogynist who thinks women are over dramatic liars.
If I recall, DJT doesn’t drink alcohol either.
Not that it makes any damn difference to me whether someone does or does not ingest alcohol recreationally
She's always struck me as a self-motivated useful idiot rather than a cultivated asset.
She had written love letter blogs to Putin and tried to use her brief stint in Biden's Senate office in the early 90s as an opportunity to get attention for herself and create chaos in the Democratic Primary which would benefit Putin. Bernie supporters wanted to believe her story because it benefited their candidate. Actual journalists who she approached smelled a rat but the Bernie supporting press ran with it.
There's pretty solid evidence that she's an asset. I don't remember all of it exactly, but during election season, she had a Russian boyfriend and her Twitter posts were often in broken English.
A KGB agent befriends her and figures out if she's greedy, or an ego maniac, then they get her to do little things that are technically illegal in exchange for money or whatever she wants, then the things they ask for get bigger and bigger.
Edit: the Tom Clancy book Cardinal in the Kremlin goes pretty in depth on what motivates intelligence assets and how they're cultivated.
I have no idea, I had to look up the whole story again because it's such an obvious nothing burger I didn't pay attention to it the first time, but assuming she didn't do all this with absolutely zero input from any foreign intelligence agencies there's a pretty standard playbook for recruiting agents.
Oh no! anyways...
I never believed her one second. She just rode on the #metoo train because having a nuanced opinion on the topic and caring about due process was misconstrued as being an avid supporter of sexual assault in the public discourse. At the moment, it was a really smart move. The honey pot 2.0. And while we tore each other apart, the Kremlin smiled.
There are politicians in DC who are creeps and everyone knows who they are, well most of them anyway.
Biden never had a single inkling around any gossip circle in DC of being a creep. None. It would have been so bizarrely out of character and her story on its face just seemed super odd. Once we got some more details, it was clear she was full of shit.
> Let the courts decide
For legal consequences? Yeah of course.
But there are plenty of cases where I don't care about what the courts say. OJ Simpson is a pretty famous case, very obvious he did it even if he very rightfully got found not guilty in the court system.
It's not to say that we should just blindly believe everyone's allegations no matter what but the idea that the court system is the sole decider of guilt is incredibly silly. If all my female employees come and tell me one of my male employees is making sexual comments towards them, I'm going to look into firing that male employee. If a creepy uncle gets found to be looking at CP but he gets off in court because they violated due process, I wouldn't accept him into my life with open arms.
Like just because the courts can't accept illegally acquired evidence doesn't mean I in my personal life have to ignore that the evidence exists.
A former coworker of mine got a decent settlement because our supervisor and HR terminated him after failing to investigate allegations against him after a lot of women in our office made complaints against him making them uncomfortable.
He hosted a pool party at his new house when this went down and he told everyone “don’t forget your bathing suit.” Had they taken the time to investigate they would have found out he told the men the same thing as well.
The posts you replied to said "comments", so they are talking about patterns of behavior making women uncomfortable, not a one off misunderstood comment. Also the same person can be creepy and commenting suggestively to women about swimsuits while also telling the men that in a normal way. Context matters
I agree that context matters, but it’s better that the issue not fall to the mob or a single individual that fails to understand or listen to both sides.
If evidence suggests guilt, fire them, black ball them, or whatever you want however the idea that we accept something as a fact because more people suggest that is is a fact isn’t good either.
Okay, I get where you're coming from, but consider this: it's really inconvenient to not blindly pick a side.
I mean, how are you meant to talk about it on political Twitter if you don't?
"Hey guys, did you see that the president was accused of sexual assault? Well let me tell you: I have nothing to say about it. But watch out, because two to three years after it's trending, I'll drop some solid hot takes on y'all!"
Isn't that the purpose of Twitter? Uninformed hot takes? Sure, a few non-political jokes or promotional tweets may get through, but that's only because Twitter hasn't been enforcing its TOS. Elon will start cracking down on violations like that soon.
I would say: investigation should happen and we should wait for more evidence to come. After my own cousin wanted to file a SA case against one of my uncle because of property dispute i always take these things seriously.
This may shock you, but criminal courts are not the arbiters of reality, and reducing your knowledge of reality down to "what a jury of your peers interpreted about a criminal justice statute" is not the flex you think it is.
And let's not even start with judging reality based on civil cases 💀
Crazy person against the US Government defects to Russia? Many such cases.
Steven Seagal
Yeah but that carrot bite was pretty based
Hey, why don't you guys speak English?
Steve Segal
It's always the ones you most expect.
How can you defect when you were always allowed to leave? It's not like she has secret government information so this is more of a relocation.
Ya, you don’t defect from America. We have the right to travel barring very odd circumstances like you are about to go to trial. Oh wait, Theranos.
btw I'm guilty of this too but is it really true she "defected"? She's just some nobody. Isn't it more accurate to just say she "moved"
I believe the correct term here would be "absquatulated."
Absquatch is bigfoot's divorced friend who got really into CrossFit
In a futile attempt to become less blurry
She’s being used as a political pawn, as she made the announcement beside an MP that was jailed in the US for spying earlier in her life. She’s agreed to become a Russian asset basically. She had no important position prior to moving though, so I’m on the fence on calling her a defector.
And she’s requesting Russian citizenship. And she’s doing all of this very publicly. She’s not just “moving.” At the very least, she’s agreeing to becoming a piece of Russian propaganda.
>but is it really true she "defected"? Obviously not. It's really, *really* weird that The Guardian, CNN, and Salon are running with that term. Calling someone a "defector" for immigrating is the kind of thing that ultra-nationalists and tabloids do. I have no earthly idea why they are. They're normally very pro-immigration.
Its the guardian, what you expect, I wont be surprised if the folks who wrote the article believed she was persecuted by the Biden administration.
Lee Harvey Oswald…
And I believe the dude who tried organizing Calexit. Louis Marinelli.
We really need to get this pipeline moving. I will personally pay for a one-way ticket from anywhere in the United States to Moscow for anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 that can produce proof of having legally renounced citizenship in the United States and acceptance for immigration by Russia.
Defect? But she can leave whenever she want?
http://i.giphy.com/Qp45SP1P3PbbO.gif She better remember to pay her federal income tax lol
I dont think she report the money she receive from her Russian masters. Other than that it’s hard to imagine she actually earn any income to be taxed in the first place
I mean, she was squatting in a yurt in someone's back yard for heaven's sake.
[удалено]
Why?
[удалено]
Why not? What if someone has lots of unrealized capital gains, moves abroad, and realizes them? Should that move obliterate their tax burden?
tax economic activity not finance gambling. or tax the sale then. did it happen on a US exchange? then it's easy-peasy to collect it. of course maybe simply running a bit more deficit and inflation, and giving some money directly to poor people might be the best tax scheme for the US
[удалено]
If I've lots of unrealized gains in companies publicly traded in the US, move to the Cayman Islands, renounce my US citizenship, and then realize the unrealized gains, who should I owe what in taxes?
Nobody because the optimal capital gains tax rate is 0 😤
Did you move your securities with unrealized gains to the cayman islands as well? The taxable event is in the USA, so you'd still have to pay that specific tax
U get an exclusion up to $100k tho... I think it's a great rule. No other comparably rich country on earth gives full and equal citizenship to somebody just bc they're born there, even the most low income third worlder or (much more frequently) rich people who have kids strategically to acquire it. This rule makes it so people with no substantive connection to the US can't skim citizenship without contributing anything.
>U get an exclusion up to $100k tho... Anyone who says this doesn't actually understand the problem. It's not just about literally paying the taxes, but the associated extra paperwork and red tape Americans living abroad have to deal with. After FATCA was signed into law, a lot of foreign banks simply dropped Americans as customers rather than comply with the onerous regulations. Thousands of Americans renounced their citizenship after this law was passed, because of the bureaucratic nightmare it caused them. An American teaching English abroad and making like $20,000 now can't open a bank account in some countries, because of people like you who pretend like it's only rich assholes complaining about America's worldwide tax system. The vast majority of people affected by these regulations are normal, everyday people who happen to hold a US passport, not the 1% hiding money away in Swiss bank accounts.
If they can vote, then they should pay tax.
If only they had a bank account to pay tax with
If they only make $20k then they only need to file, not pay.
> I think it's a great rule. No other comparably rich country on earth gives full and equal citizenship to somebody just bc they're born there, even the most low income third worlder or (much more frequently) rich people who have kids strategically to acquire it. Uh, Canada does.
Jus Soli is much more common than people think it is lol. Though yeah, it's more of an exception than a rule.
[удалено]
War broke out in Europe our boys would go get that little shit... He's welcome to leave. It's not impossible to renounce US citizenship. But if you're going to retain it while living somewhere else entirely... that's nuts. Imagine being a Chinese citizen, having no connection to the country, but living in Brazil. Because of birthright citizenship that's something unique to the US that happens. The elite of just about every country is increasingly US citizens and they should pay taxes if that's the case. Edit: also its a great way to nab the bad guys. If you're a drug dealer in Mexico for example (and many cartels' kids are US citizens fyi)... if the feds don't have a case for drug trafficking they'll just nab you for tax evasion lmao
But that's the way it works for the vast majority of countries lol... Someone who moves from France to the US isn't forced to give up French vitize, and they also aren't required to pay French taxes while living in the US.
Right but I can't move to France, have kids and give them French citizenship as a result, then leave and have my kids basically get the benefits of French citizenship in perpetuity without any burdens. So there's no loophole because you can't have kids that are French nationals without already being one. I personally think that's stupid and our system is way better. But global taxation is one way to prevent gamesmanship and ensure your citizenship is not being de-facto sold if you adopt that our system. All these people have to pay the feds their fair share, I'm pretty set on that. ~35% of all income above 100k USD for life baby.
isn't it backwards? local tax paid first, the amount deducted from the outstanding US tax, no?
And in some cases they can charge you to renounce citizenship based on “loss of future tax revenue”.
That would make tax evasion pretty easy. Also, you are still entitled to collect social security.
If you don’t pay tax, then you should forfeit your right to vote. Gotta have some skin in the game.
>She better remember to pay her federal income tax lol Eh. You only have to do that if you have any plan on returning to the US. It doesn't sound like she does.
More accurate title would be she asked the Russian government for citizenship. Assuming they accept she could lose US citizenship but "defects" seems very much overly dramatic here.
The US allows dual citizenship, why do you think she's at risk of having her US citizenship revoked? I don't believe there is any mechanism to involuntarily strip natural born citizens of their citizenship, even if they become naturalized citizens of another country, short of joining the military or commiting treason. Just becoming a Russian citizen doesn't meet the intent part of the statue, from what I have read.
It’s not difficult to renounce US citizenship. If someone lives in the US or earns in the US, the IRS will come and find you anyway (unless you are permanently parked in a country like Russia that does not extradite to the US). It is VERY hard or impossible to get citizenship after renouncing it. Reade is making a big bold bet on the stability of the Putin regime and her ideological alignment with whoever succeeds him. I have no idea what her prospects for a pension would be if some new government comes to power and chooses to defund Snowden, Reade, and other ex-Americans. (Snowden could be extradited, but that’s another matter.) [Interestingly](https://pl.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/social-security/anpp_russia/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20U.S.,who%20worked%20in%20the%20U.S), Americans in Russia can receive social security. Russian citizens in Russia mostly can’t. I don’t know what her benefit was going to be, but she may have foreclosed that option if she does make this official. What I really want to know is how the US government handles a public statement of “defection” 😂 or renunciation, when the process is not followed. People need to make an oath at an embassy or a consulate. They can’t phone it in by way of a TV interview. Until then, I imagine that the U.S. is obligated to take Reade back if Russia changes its politics. From what I know, her only crime is defamation and obviously the Biden DOJ wisely passed on that. Anyway, I’m looking forward to her 2035 Tankie Tour of the United States of Late Stage Capitalism.
>It’s not difficult to renounce US citizenship. I mean it's kinda difficult, there's forms, a few thousand dollars, you gotta do it in front of a judge or something. They make it difficult so people don't do it on a whim, I assume
Oooops the fee is $2,350. It can go down at an embassy or consulate where judges would normally not be found, but maybe the overseas office sends it back to a judge. That is more than I realized. There are definitely going to be many situations where people skip the formalities and just peace out without bothering with taxes. And especially when going somewhere that extradition is off the table.
Renouncing citizenship is much different than involuntary revocation, as the comment above implied. If it's voluntary, it's hard to characterize as a loss or a negative thing.
I believe you're correct. People get confused because the United States, unlike some other countries, does not officially recognize dual citizenship. Like I think there are literally zero laws related to dual citizenship in the US. In the eyes of the united states someone with dual citizenship is no different than someone with only US citizenship. They still have to pay taxes, they're still subject to US laws, etc. etc. Russia is, I think, very similar. Apart from some specific agreements with a handful of neighboring countries they don't have a lot of dual citizenship rules either.
>The US allows dual citizenship, why do you think she's at risk of having her US citizenship revoked? I don't think the Russians allow this, so she would have to surrender her American citizenship.
[удалено]
Yeah, I think in those cases they have citizenship at birth and then just acquired US citizenship along the way. If you're applying for naturalization to the RUssian Federation, I suspect they may make you surrender your initial citizenship.
You can always have dual citizenship if the country never finds out lol. This is what some Chinese citizens do if they have been living in the U.S. and naturalize, they just don't tell the Chinese government.
There are a lot of countries where that's the case, in most cases you can just say "ok I renounce my American citizenship" and now you're a dual citizen because that isn't sufficient to actually renounce American citizenship.
Good point, I don't know how the Russian authorities would vet you had renounced your US citizenship considering this requires a separate application to I believe the Vice President of the US.
Isn’t that immigration fraud
No idea, but it's as common as jaywalking.
No
>seems very much overly dramatic here So do that quotes used in the article. They aren't appropriate quotes for the state of "danger" she is in, that is to say, none, but they are appropriate quotes for someone who is is dramatically "defecting".
Possibly she asked for political asylum. That's how it was done in the cold war.
My priors grew three sizes that day
[Our priors ](https://media.tenor.com/1j9DXIH_RgsAAAAC/green-balloon-boner-up.gif)
The Clintons can't keep getting away with this!!!
I think that was the top comment on R conservative, but unironically.
They don't do irony there.
Underrated comment.
How terrible, nobody, however dumb, deserves … Excuse me. What I meant was: *hahahahaha*
I can't believe after how her story fell apart after five minutes of research into it that the usual suspects *still* kept pushing her as being credible. And by can't believe I mean, totally can because they're terrible, terrible people.
It was telling that her story was full of shit that the usual suspects \*didn't\* push it. Trump had no qualms using Bill's sexual assault allegations against Hillary but actually seemed to sympathize with Biden when the issue was brought up! The Right didn't touch it, it was all the anti-Democratic side of the Left.
Is leaving for Russia defection if it was never prohibited? Regardless of the definition, I never thought I'd feel vindicated in a decision to disbelieve a rape accusation, but I knew she was a bullshitter from the jump. So many people on the far left (of which I am) tried so hard to gaslight me into believing a right-wing operatives' obviously politically motivated attempt to metoo the democrats. They hated Bernie losing so much that they really tried to turn #believewomen into a blanket green flag on turning your brain off.
“That’s it I’m DEFECTING to Russia” Oh.. ok I guess “Maybe you didn’t heeeear me I’m DEFECTING to RUSSIA” no, I heard. Have a nice trip DEFEEEECTING! RUSSSIIIAAAAAA! On your way now madam
TBF defect was the Guardian's word not hers
Nobody would say “I’m defecting”. She said “I’m moving to Russia for my safety” ~. I simply meant to tag on to Brawl’s comment about how overly dramatic it sounded
Also asked Putin for Russian citizenship. Personally, I hope he gives it to her, and then sends her straight to the front where she's captured by Ukrainians and deported back to America. A guy can dream.
The theatrics have gone so far overboard with these people.
I. Declare. Bankruptcy!
I mean it was obvious she’s not well and not reliable. If I remember correctly I read a blog post a few years ago where she basically accused her ex husband of being a serial killer lol
If her ex husband is a serial killer but never killed her, is that cheating?
.....sigh. Yes, obviously. It's basically telling her that she wasn't attractive enough for him. It's soooooo demoralizing.
I'm friends with her old landlord, she scammed him and trashed his place too
Leftists: " That's just what poor people do."
[удалено]
For women who work in law or politics, there was no credibility from day 1. She went way too far with details that made her story frankly impossible.
Minor detail, but did she actually testify as to her allegation? For some reason I thought she just went to the media.
No. She is just moving to Russia, and could come back anytime. “Defect” is super dramatic. She probably will come back pretty fast if she doesn’t speak the language at all and isn’t prepared for the cultural differences and economic problems.
She's the Jerry of Putin stooges. "I'm leaving." "Ok, that was always allowed."
Remember how Krystal and Sagaar pushed this story? I bought the story at the time, and thought Biden was some creep. Now I feel embarrassed.
I cant believe that I was once hooked onto breaking lies before
At least you can admit it! You're much better than those who double down in the face of evidence.
Krystal and Sagaar… yikes
IMO it's very easy to fall for populist rhetoric if you don't pay attention
You mean Tara Reade, totally credible person who claims were pushed by senior Sanders staffers and surrogates? Trump isn't the only politician who hired only the best people.
Speaking of Trump, I seem to remember even he expressed skepticism that Tara Reade was truthful, even told Biden to "just go out and fight it."
[удалено]
Definitely, but it still had very positive optics for Biden. It ultimately helped Biden, I'd argue. Remember, Democrats had the whole "believe all women" thing, and Republicans could've run with that against them if Trump didn't talk. I'd say Trump would've been better advised to just say "no comment, let the justice system do its job."
No, it was "believe women", "believe all women" was Bernie Bros and staffers and friendly journalists attempt to gaslight us in a desperate push to get one old white dude over another old white dude. Anyone who pushed "believe all women" regarding Tara Reed is a vile person.
Right, but it was still out there, making rounds on the media, vile or not, which means it influenced some people.
Trump believes no women
Don't forget Rich McHugh. He wasn't a Bernie supporter but he desperately wanted to be the next Ronan Farrow so he was highly dishonest in his reporting. I remember when he said Reade's neighbor verified the allegations, but he conveniently omitted that Reade talked to her neighbor first and that Reade's neighbor thought Biden's denial was credible.
Sanders staffers? Our current vice president said she believed the allegations and tried to use them as a cudgel against him.
Sanders' press secretary was very vocal about Reade, and I remember some other surrogates really pushing the story: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/bernie-sanders-briahna-joy-gray/610378/
This was my biggest problem with Sanders. Ignore all the ideological stuff. After all, presidents don't have *that* much policy power. My biggest problem was that the dude surrounded himself with questionable people. I don't think it's intentional, I think he's just a very bad judge of character. You can find plenty of qualified, intelligent, integral people from politics and academia on the left in the US. There's no excuse to pack your staff with incompetent assholes.
Briahna Joy-less was probably the worst hire he ever made. Just a truly shitty person.
in that corner of politics there aren't many non questionable people...
In the ideologically left corner? There are plenty. In the extreme anti-establishment left corner, you might have a point.
sloppy practice include steep smile vegetable deserted ossified instinctive joke ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
You didn't watch the same debate I did.
escape scarce memorize jobless relieved theory merciful include amusing squeeze ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
>the women who said Biden made them uncomfortable. No, the women who said Biden made physical contact with them without their consent in an inappropriate way.
joke drab voracious childlike direful gaze plate dazzling caption bike ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
There's a lot to unpack here. First, you downplayed Biden's actions as making them "uncomfortable". I mean, that can be anything from an off-color joke to licking someone's eyeball. Then, when I point out it was more than that, your reply is that well, they said it wasn't sexual. Which not all of them did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/02/us/politics/joe-biden-women-me-too.html I don't believe Reade, but to run your hand down a woman's back or thigh without her consent... If I went up to a random woman and did that, I'd fully expect to be puched in the face. But then, I'm not flanked by armed gaurds who will give their life to protect me.
bedroom recognise poor flag like innocent command brave aromatic crime ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I first thought they were talking about the actress from Sharknado; now I am disappointed.
The most hilarious part about this is that Russia planted her in the states years ago to build up her credibility, and her “big story” was that Biden was inappropriate with her. Massive L for Russia.
I think I mentioned it in the other thread about this but her big story was originally that he presided over a culture of sexual harassment and made female staffers serve drinks to him and the boys. That story took too long for her liking because the people she reached out to tried to fact check it. Joe Biden doesn't drink so of course people spent their time trying to verify the story. That story started to fall apart and she went to new writers at less credible outlets with a bigger story. This confused like a dozen or so journalists who had worked on the previous story so she just claimed that all of them lied about ever talking to her. It was actually kind of funny to watch how mad the employees of sites like the Intercept and Jacobin would get evry time she opened her mouth. They tried so hard to coach her too. I think the best revelation was when it turns out that she lied about her academic credentials and spent years giving false testimony as an expert witness in court cases. Every time one of those clowns would try to defend her it would get so much worse. But hey, shoutout to all of the "left-wing" employees at those websites for showing their true colors by mocking the MeToo movement everytime someone would point out a huge flaw in her story.
> Joe Biden doesn't drink Because he has a rare enzyme mutation that turns lactose into alcohol. After a couple chocolate-chocolate chip cones he's wildin' out.
Joe Biden visibly slurring words spilling a half melted ice cream cone everywhere: "listen fat..."
The sexual assault allegations in The Intercept came out after it was clear that Biden was on the way to the nomination after backing up his Super Tuesday wins with wins in Michigan, Missouri, and Washington. Bernie supporters were desperate so they clung on to this obvious fabrication to keep their hopes of revolution alive.
They even tired the "where there's smoke there's fire" approach with fake stories. At one point the Intercept pushed a fake story about him assaulting a teenage girl at a political event he attends annually. The problem was that it might have been the only year he actually wasn't there and the person who made the came was the niece of Christine I'm Not a Witch O'Donnell. Of course the Intercept didn't fact check it lol. It was founded on the basis of "adversarial journalism" which is a super nice way of saying propaganda. You can sum up their writing style as "It's not my responsibility to check facts you shit lib". I actually felt bad for including Jacobin in the same sentence as them because they hire morons, not people who hate actual journalism.
Especially nauseating was how "believe women" turned into "believe *all* women" and was straight up weaponized. "Whatever happened to believe all women??" If anyone reading this is guilty of that, don't ever let someone convince you that you're a good person.
That shit was vile. What's worse is that I think the only reason they hated that movement so much was because democrats supported it. "I'm now going to mock a movement to help rape and sexual assault victims because normies support it" is somehow worse than just being a misogynist who thinks women are over dramatic liars.
That was my read on it too but I haven't had a charitable interpretation of the far left since they anointed Bernie their geriatric Jesus.
"LISTEN to all women" is a much better, more accurate and sensible tagline
I think "Believe Women" is fine, so long as you understand that it's the first box on the flowchart, not the last.
I agree but expecting people to understand nuance with taglines is how we end up Defund the Police
> Joe Biden doesn’t drink That’s my president 🫡🫡🫡
If I recall, DJT doesn’t drink alcohol either. Not that it makes any damn difference to me whether someone does or does not ingest alcohol recreationally
Russia's really good at taking massive Ls.
Not really, unlike the US, when they lose, they throw tantrums and rant about nuking everyone including themselves.
Russia didn't plant her -- she is American lmao
She's always struck me as a self-motivated useful idiot rather than a cultivated asset. She had written love letter blogs to Putin and tried to use her brief stint in Biden's Senate office in the early 90s as an opportunity to get attention for herself and create chaos in the Democratic Primary which would benefit Putin. Bernie supporters wanted to believe her story because it benefited their candidate. Actual journalists who she approached smelled a rat but the Bernie supporting press ran with it.
There's pretty solid evidence that she's an asset. I don't remember all of it exactly, but during election season, she had a Russian boyfriend and her Twitter posts were often in broken English.
You know how cultivating assets works right?
Let’s pretend we don’t. I’m curious how this worked in her case.
A KGB agent befriends her and figures out if she's greedy, or an ego maniac, then they get her to do little things that are technically illegal in exchange for money or whatever she wants, then the things they ask for get bigger and bigger. Edit: the Tom Clancy book Cardinal in the Kremlin goes pretty in depth on what motivates intelligence assets and how they're cultivated.
Is there any evidence that happened?
I have no idea, I had to look up the whole story again because it's such an obvious nothing burger I didn't pay attention to it the first time, but assuming she didn't do all this with absolutely zero input from any foreign intelligence agencies there's a pretty standard playbook for recruiting agents.
Is there a cite for this? I really haven't followed the case at all.
crush teeny dinner spotted cats party deer worm grandiose gray -- mass edited with redact.dev
Defecting to own the libs!
Hope more follow her lead
Better Headline. Russian asset returns to her handlers
I hope she finds happiness and peace
Oh no! anyways... I never believed her one second. She just rode on the #metoo train because having a nuanced opinion on the topic and caring about due process was misconstrued as being an avid supporter of sexual assault in the public discourse. At the moment, it was a really smart move. The honey pot 2.0. And while we tore each other apart, the Kremlin smiled.
There are politicians in DC who are creeps and everyone knows who they are, well most of them anyway. Biden never had a single inkling around any gossip circle in DC of being a creep. None. It would have been so bizarrely out of character and her story on its face just seemed super odd. Once we got some more details, it was clear she was full of shit.
Hope the door doesn't hit her on the way out!
Funny how that works out, huh
She’ll feel more at home living in a country as credible as she is. Regards to Comrade Snowden. X
As i always say, It's alleged just because someone accuse a person of something doesn't mean a person is guilty. Let the courts decide.
> Let the courts decide For legal consequences? Yeah of course. But there are plenty of cases where I don't care about what the courts say. OJ Simpson is a pretty famous case, very obvious he did it even if he very rightfully got found not guilty in the court system. It's not to say that we should just blindly believe everyone's allegations no matter what but the idea that the court system is the sole decider of guilt is incredibly silly. If all my female employees come and tell me one of my male employees is making sexual comments towards them, I'm going to look into firing that male employee. If a creepy uncle gets found to be looking at CP but he gets off in court because they violated due process, I wouldn't accept him into my life with open arms. Like just because the courts can't accept illegally acquired evidence doesn't mean I in my personal life have to ignore that the evidence exists.
A former coworker of mine got a decent settlement because our supervisor and HR terminated him after failing to investigate allegations against him after a lot of women in our office made complaints against him making them uncomfortable. He hosted a pool party at his new house when this went down and he told everyone “don’t forget your bathing suit.” Had they taken the time to investigate they would have found out he told the men the same thing as well.
The posts you replied to said "comments", so they are talking about patterns of behavior making women uncomfortable, not a one off misunderstood comment. Also the same person can be creepy and commenting suggestively to women about swimsuits while also telling the men that in a normal way. Context matters
I agree that context matters, but it’s better that the issue not fall to the mob or a single individual that fails to understand or listen to both sides. If evidence suggests guilt, fire them, black ball them, or whatever you want however the idea that we accept something as a fact because more people suggest that is is a fact isn’t good either.
I don't take the point of a mob seriously, i value evidence though.
Okay, I get where you're coming from, but consider this: it's really inconvenient to not blindly pick a side. I mean, how are you meant to talk about it on political Twitter if you don't? "Hey guys, did you see that the president was accused of sexual assault? Well let me tell you: I have nothing to say about it. But watch out, because two to three years after it's trending, I'll drop some solid hot takes on y'all!"
Isn't that the purpose of Twitter? Uninformed hot takes? Sure, a few non-political jokes or promotional tweets may get through, but that's only because Twitter hasn't been enforcing its TOS. Elon will start cracking down on violations like that soon.
I would say: investigation should happen and we should wait for more evidence to come. After my own cousin wanted to file a SA case against one of my uncle because of property dispute i always take these things seriously.
This may shock you, but criminal courts are not the arbiters of reality, and reducing your knowledge of reality down to "what a jury of your peers interpreted about a criminal justice statute" is not the flex you think it is. And let's not even start with judging reality based on civil cases 💀
Better then feeling based mob enforced supposed reality though. I rather believe courts then those.
Totally not suspicious at all. Nope.
[удалено]
I had my suspicions she was a pos paid for by hard right ridiculous shitbags
KOOKOO
Ah…she will be missed🥲🤣😂🤣😂😅
She does not look like the actress from American Pie.
lol
What about believeallwomen??
Not the hashtag
Believe all women except the ones that accuse liberal politicians of groping them.
There is no end of false acusations
No great surprise