Liz Warren is correct - give the public the facts

[malaise]

If it's such a great deal, why the secrecy?

[Logical]

1. So damn true. What a scam. I love her. So clear and so smart. Wow, we need her. nt

[appalachiablue]

6. Right, lay it all out, let the press & people see it as she said. Also how Americans have been

hurt by these trade deals in the past. Warren's truth and courage are precious, esp. in this corporate age-

[malaise]

8. Fugg the press and their hacks

the vast majority of the press are corporate hacks. Make it public -let the people read and understand the deal.

[appalachiablue]

15. Including independent, alternative media, not only M$M is likely what Warren meant

when she brought up the press. The woman's smart, as we know.

[malaise]

27. OK to that part of the press n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. The public will never the facts when they have been established. n/t

[morningfog]

4. I think there's a typo in your post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Yes ... Darned "smartphone ...

The public will HAVE the facts when they are established.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

11. After the law is passed?

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. That is not what is going to happen ...

there will be a release to the public (and Congress) 120 days before any congressional vote.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

16. How many of those days does Congress have to be in session?

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. I don't know; but, I suspect ...

the clock is based on congress in session.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

18. 120 days is a lot. Can't wait to see how they divvy it up once...

They start the clock.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. 120 days is more than enough time for ...

the agreement to be released, advocates (on both sides) to analyze and parse every single line of the document, and then communication assent or rejection to our Congressional Reps.

[morningfog]

21. So no public input as to what is or is not included,

and we'll be given 120 days to bark at the cloud. Meaningless. This is a secret deal to benefit those privy to it. Those on the outside are getting screwed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. There has NEVER been public input into ANY international negotiation ...

this brand new "public input/negotiation transparency" bone being chewed is completely ahistorical.

[morningfog]

25. You prefer it this way? You like NAFTA?

You think this is going to be a great deal?

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Having participated in "high stakes" negotiation ...

I recognize the efficacy of non-public negotiations, where only the final deal is made public.

You think this is going to be a great deal?

I don't know. But if I had to guess (based primarily on the speculation track record of DUers that are convinced it will be a bad deal), I would goal in that it'll be a GREAT deal.

But if I had to guess based on the available information ... I'd have to pass, as there is no way to know.

[JDPriestly]

31. It's a corporate coup!

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Yeah. Okay. n/t

[polichick]

3. On this issue she's the champion of the people - and also of democracy.

[still_one]

5. More than reasonable

[emulatorloo]

9. Yes.

[KeepItReal]

10. Agreed.

[djean111]

12. There are protests in the other signatory countries. And EU has protests about the TTIP.

Just Google TPP protest country of your choice.

Not just us protesting.

[KMOD]

14. The public will see it

The final wording of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has to be made public at least 60 days before Obama signs any agreement. Congressional action likely would take another two months, which Wyden said gives the public and lawmakers plenty of time to understand and debate the provisions in the trade pact, which is still under final negotiations.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/04/ron_wyden_reaches_deal_on_fast.html

http://www.finance.senate.gov/download/?id=FEC41212-F7AF-4A6D-BF83-978401999DAF

[morningfog]

19. It's incredibly naive to think that after all the effort

put in this far, that it won't be signed at the end of the 60 and 120 days.

The problem is, any public input at that point would be aye or nay for a done deal.

[KMOD]

22. But Wyden won a provision that will allow the Senate to turn off the fast track authority .

Wyden fought for, and won, a number of provisions aimed at ensuring greater public transparency in the trade negotiations, as well as a key provision that would allow the Senate to turn off the fast-track authority if the Obama administration fails to live up to certain requirements during the negotiations.

"One issue that has come up again and again is the excessive secrecy that seems to have accompanied so much of this debate," Wyden said Thursday. "American trade policy needs to be debated openly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/16/senators-bipartisan-bill-would-give-obama-key-powers-on-trade/

[Elwood P Dowd]

23. Plus Obama and the next President has Fast Track authority until 2021.

Remember CAFTA? Bush submitted that using Fast Track authority given him a few years earlier. Everyone said it didn't have the votes to pass. They called a late night session, greased a few palms, twisted a few arms, and passed it at 2:00 AM one Saturday morning.

Passing TPA could come back to haunt us for years depending on who wins in 2016.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. This has been addressed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026551860

The real question is why people are following a "former" Republican. Very telling, I think.

Regards,

TWM

[SheilaT]

28. And where is Hillary Clinton on this issue?

The oh, so populist Hillary these days. Have I missed all the threads crowing about how she's ahead of Warren on this issue? Do I need the sarcasm thingy?

[JDPriestly]

30. K&R.

[AzDar]

32. Yep. So much for President Transparency, huh?

[blkmusclmachine]

33. https://jahanc.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/obama-laughing-on-af1.jpg

[closeupready]

35. The truth will set us all free. K&R

[Skittles]

36. stupid people think we just need to TRUST

VERY stupid people