General Discussion

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)

12. Grayson has read it

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 08:13 PM

Apr 2015

and never said he couldn't

Rep. Alan Grayson: I've Seen The Details And There Is No Reason To Keep TPP Secret
edit-add date-Jun 24th 2013

Rep. Alan Grayson has apparently been allowed to see a copy of the latest text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and he's mystified about why it's being negotiated in secret. As we've noted in the past, the USTR likes to claim how "transparent" they are because (1) they "listen" to whoever wants to talk and (2) they'll show things to Congress.

Neither of those things are "transparency." Listening to people is great, but transparency is about information flowing in the other direction, from the government to the public. As for showing things to Congress, we've explained how that's not really accurate. Elected officials in Congress can see the text, but they have to go to the USTR, where they can look at the document, but they're not allowed to take notes, make copies or bring any staffers (such as experts on trade or any of the issues in the document) with them.

Grayson apparently took the USTR up on that offer, and he says there's no reason that the text should be secret.

Because of this pressure, the USTR finally let a member of Congress – little ole me, Alan Grayson – actually see the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a large, secret trade agreement that is being negotiated with many countries in East Asia and South America.

The TPP is nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids.” Now that I’ve read it, I can see why. I can’t tell you what’s in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.

1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.

2) This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

3) What they can’t afford to tell the American public is that (*the rest of this sentence is classified).

(Well, I did promise to tell you only two things about it.)

Of course, the USTR argues -- ridiculously -- that the reason they can't share it is not because of "national security," but basically some crap about how they've never negotiated in public and somehow no agreement could be reached if negotiations were made public. But that's hogwash...more
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130622/01545623580/rep-alan-grayson-ive-seen-details-there-is-no-reason-to-keep-tpp-secret.shtml

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

173 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Don't Sanders, Warren, or Grayson have Staff That Can Read the TPP? (Obama was Correct.) [View all] msanthrope Apr 2015 OP

Below is the link of Rachel maddow's interview with Elizabeth Warren on this issue diabeticman Apr 2015 #1

She's incorrect. Staff members with appropriate security clearance apparently can...per the Trade msanthrope Apr 2015 #2

The elected official must be present. TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #7

Of course. I can't imagine either Warren or Sanders not wanting to be there. They also get plain- msanthrope Apr 2015 #9

The legislation is huge and made up of hundreds of pages. newthinking Apr 2015 #14

Plain language explanations are availble for all chapters. Further....are you kidding me? If you msanthrope Apr 2015 #18

Boom! sheshe2 Apr 2015 #25

If Ted Cruz made these complaints, we'd laugh so hard we'd all pee ourselves. msanthrope Apr 2015 #38

Plain language. In other words, someone else's selective interpretation of selected parts. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #49

No--it's pursuant to the law..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #52

Would you sign an important legal document based soley on a summary created by the GoneFishin Apr 2015 #57

Don't get all accurate about this. merrily Apr 2015 #79

Oops. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #81

Glad you're duly contrite. Not to worry. All is forgiven. merrily Apr 2015 #85

How is the US trade Office the opposing party? And if I thought they were, then I'd msanthrope Apr 2015 #108

It's called an Executive Summary, and heads every complex document that ever crossed my desk... Hekate Apr 2015 #95

Correct. But that is generally not an adversarial process. This clearly is. I know many here are GoneFishin Apr 2015 #148

No, that is what staff is for. Anyone who gets elected should be in Congress. merrily Apr 2015 #77

If you need staff to read plain language explanations for you, because you msanthrope Apr 2015 #106

The "plain language" issue has already been addressed by other posters. It's a non starter. merrily Apr 2015 #113

I believe it's 15,000 pages Oilwellian Apr 2015 #51

Consider the fact that the trade representative weasels have had years to craft exactly the GoneFishin Apr 2015 #60

Oh please.You get all the staffers together from a bunch of Senators&Reps & give them each 100 pages Hekate Apr 2015 #68

Except they can't. Only staffers of Congress members on the Finance Committee riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #69

Any staffer with security clearance. Any member of Congress....that's how Grayson msanthrope Apr 2015 #109

That approach does not work with a long, complex, technical document. I'm not even sure it would merrily Apr 2015 #84

Actually, distributive proofreading works quite well when you set your mind to it Hekate Apr 2015 #90

you did that with international treaties of thousands of pages in legalese, with tons of merrily Apr 2015 #91

Why is it so unfeasible in your mind that a motivated group could do this research? Hekate Apr 2015 #92

Not what I posted at all. Too late/early for me to appreciate the straw man. merrily Apr 2015 #98

Not a straw man on my part, but if I misunderstood your intent... Hekate Apr 2015 #100

"proofing" or annotating any document by definition requires mark-up with pen/pencil or software package zazen Apr 2015 #134

Wait....lets not go there they said the same thing about health care bill.... Historic NY Apr 2015 #132

there is tape of Brown asking about this dsc Apr 2015 #145

Members have to babysit their staffers now, because of Darrell Issa--- msanthrope Apr 2015 #149

that is simply untrue dsc Apr 2015 #157

Do you really think Issa was the one uploading? We aren't talking about car theft..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #158

even if he ordered the staffer to do it dsc Apr 2015 #159

Well.....then the Senate should have addressed the breach at the time, not msanthrope Apr 2015 #160

No we shouldn't have stupid rules dsc Apr 2015 #161

It is unfortunate that Senators have to show up to work. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #162

their work is voting on things dsc Apr 2015 #163

Pay me 174k a year, plus perks, and I promise to find the time to read the msanthrope Apr 2015 #164

then you would be a piss poor Senator dsc Apr 2015 #165

He re-published an old draft that had been put out the year before riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #169

And who do you think was responsible for the leak the year before? Or do you just believe that msanthrope Apr 2015 #171

Warren was a professor of law at Harvard. amandabeech Apr 2015 #155

Too bad. Thank Darrell Issa for that. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #156

I beg you -- rogerashton Apr 2015 #130

Why do you need a security clearance in this instance? Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and msanthrope Apr 2015 #131

I read your link. rogerashton Apr 2015 #138

Have any of those on your list said THEY can't read it? morningfog Apr 2015 #3

They've complained about transparency---specifically, about not having staffers be able to read it. msanthrope Apr 2015 #6

It makes it easier to lie about it 4now Apr 2015 #4

What is the appropriate security clearance? n/t TexasProgresive Apr 2015 #5

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #8

I'm sure they do. joshcryer Apr 2015 #24

Confidential. joshcryer Apr 2015 #23

Jeez, I had that rating in 2 or 3 jobs just by virtue of working for the Big Boss. It means keeping Hekate Apr 2015 #93

That's why I was surprised the committee requires a babysitter. joshcryer Apr 2015 #94

Thank Rep. Grand Theft Auto---after he leaked on his website, the USTRO imposed that measure. msanthrope Apr 2015 #120

Holy shit, now it makes sense. joshcryer Apr 2015 #123

I started a new thread on this point. It's worth discussing..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #124

I GUARANTEE you that no one will credit Republicans. joshcryer Apr 2015 #125

It's Ratfucking, 101. The Republicans do wrong, the Democrats blame the President, who, at this msanthrope Apr 2015 #126

I didn't even know about it. joshcryer Apr 2015 #127

Wouldn't you expect frequent OP writers on the TPP to know this? I've written 2 OPs on the TPP, and msanthrope Apr 2015 #128

I mean, I don't know. joshcryer Apr 2015 #129

If it is classified "Secret," you would need a "Secret" clearance and "a need to know." Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #153

Wrong, Sherrod Brown explained all this regarding their Staff. Special clearance, unprecedented sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #10

I quoted the Trade Office itself. If Brown doesn't employ people with high enough security msanthrope Apr 2015 #13

Except that's a lie Oilwellian Apr 2015 #20

Which means staff does have access. Is Brown really complaining about having to show up for work? msanthrope Apr 2015 #27

Please do get real Oilwellian Apr 2015 #33

If the TPP is as bad as you say, isn't it worth reading in full? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #55

I smell a worm in Msanthrope StoneCarver Apr 2015 #73

Re-read the thread. Msanthrope is not being defensive but trying to make people see reason.... Hekate Apr 2015 #96

That's funny "I smell a worm in.." you. Cha Apr 2015 #103

We will see it. When it's done. In the meantime, our representative msanthrope Apr 2015 #107

Here's the video Oilwellian Apr 2015 #17

He's confirming that staff has access. Unfortunately, he has to show up to work that day, too. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #30

There's no reason why he needs to be there Oilwellian Apr 2015 #37

If Ted Cruz complained he was too busy to read a bill, we'd savage him. If Brown cannot show up to msanthrope Apr 2015 #42

Boom goes the dynamite. Nail, meet hammer. Got it in one. Hekate Apr 2015 #99

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Apr 2015 #45

So all our elected officials have to do is set in a secret room all day so that their staff can do jwirr Apr 2015 #70

Wait a second...if I were a Senator complaining about the TPP, I'd want to read msanthrope Apr 2015 #110

And what about all the other things they need ot do. What is reguired to read this thing is the jwirr Apr 2015 #141

Indeed. Blame Issa. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #142

Now that I have no trouble believing! jwirr Apr 2015 #143

Work isn't one issue, is your assertion that he should blow off all other responsibilities TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #111

Shouldn't he be reading it, too? At least the summaries? Especially if one is msanthrope Apr 2015 #114

Let's talk about WHY the need for confidentiality. MH1 Apr 2015 #11

Grayson has read it nationalize the fed Apr 2015 #12

Well, now Alan doesn't have to go the USTR--he and his aides don't have to leave the Capitol. msanthrope Apr 2015 #15

Another great Dem whom I trust on economics arcane1 Apr 2015 #78

We KNOW Warren (or her staffer) read it. joshcryer Apr 2015 #16

Indeed--what I find most surprising is that Bernie apparently doesn't have a staffer who can read msanthrope Apr 2015 #19

If that is actually true Bernie has a problem. joshcryer Apr 2015 #26

Security clearance? hay rick Apr 2015 #21

Currency manipulation, conterfeiting, and our drug supply aren't national msanthrope Apr 2015 #32

Those are the reasons why all those crooked big banks got shut down. Octafish Apr 2015 #76

That's exactly what it is Oilwellian Apr 2015 #40

Didn't seem to me that Bush had much trouble getting that unconstitutional POS passed. merrily Apr 2015 #89

Why are the lucky few who CAN read the TPP, then gagged? 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #22

You mean our elected representatives, and those with the proper security clearance? msanthrope Apr 2015 #29

The Cuba & Iran deals were NOT written by greedy Mega-corporate Lobbyists & lawyers 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #62

You really think big businesses aren't involved in our Cuba deal? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #112

Apples & Oranges 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #144

Kick....already reced sheshe2 Apr 2015 #28

Sheesh MFrohike Apr 2015 #31

So you agree that members always had the ability to review? And now that staff with the proper msanthrope Apr 2015 #36

I do MFrohike Apr 2015 #39

Link? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #43

Yes. You must have missed this (it even has an oblique Snowden reference) riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #47

Are you suggesting that is a quote from President Obama? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #50

That's an excerpt from the linked article riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #53

I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. Cite it, msanthrope Apr 2015 #54

Unlike you in other threads that I won't call you out on, I can riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #61

I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. As proof, msanthrope Apr 2015 #116

Ugh MFrohike Apr 2015 #48

I overstated it MFrohike Apr 2015 #56

Wow, that's awesome of you to realize that you overstated your initial point and apologize Number23 Apr 2015 #170

Why are they acting so damn ignorant? Cha Apr 2015 #34

Money. You raise funds as you can....and the FDL wing always opens their coffers msanthrope Apr 2015 #46

Yeah, I know.. it's pathetic. Elizabeth Warren is no better than anyone else. Cha Apr 2015 #64

Why is this a secret to begin with. How is this democracy when congress onecaliberal Apr 2015 #35

I assumed this was probably the case, cheapdate Apr 2015 #41

K&R nt Andy823 Apr 2015 #44

What a fucking pantload. 99Forever Apr 2015 #58

+1000 nt 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #63

... yep 840high Apr 2015 #72

"What a fucking pantload." Cha Apr 2015 #86

yup Skittles Apr 2015 #121

The 151 Democratic House members that signed a letter opposing Fast Tracking the TPP must think Apr 2015 #59

... bahrbearian Apr 2015 #65

It isn't that they can't read it-They aren't allowed to discuss it. midnight Apr 2015 #66

Why the hell not? All this secrecy. 840high Apr 2015 #74

That is Elizabeth Warren's point... And it's getting attention. midnight Apr 2015 #82

Kick, kick, I want to kick something. >sigh< Hekate Apr 2015 #67

Enough. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #71

If it's "human lives", as you claim, then shouldn't our Senators be reading it? Apparently Grayson msanthrope Apr 2015 #118

Very sad indeed Andy823 Apr 2015 #168

Somehow you imagnine this bolsters your argument? LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #75

This isn't the plans to prevent WWIII. So why is it being so protected and secret? Cleita Apr 2015 #83

Yeah, you better invoke the BOG 'cause you have nothing. When all else fails.. blurt out the BOG. Cha Apr 2015 #102

Desperation. His term is ending and they desperately need a colossal clusterfuck. great white snark Apr 2015 #136

Well said, snark! I miss you!! Cha Apr 2015 #166

Yep Andy823 Apr 2015 #150

"Hypocrits" comes to mind! Cha Apr 2015 #167

Absolutely. Are you upset that the Administration did not provide you a copy of the Iran deal msanthrope Apr 2015 #117

Let's see: National security vs. Trade agreement LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #135

Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and our drug supply msanthrope Apr 2015 #137

Please provide a link to the text in the agreement that supports your point. KeepItReal Apr 2015 #152

The agreement isn't online yet. But if you look at the IP chapter that Darrell Issa msanthrope Apr 2015 #154

You claim all this stuff is the TPP but can't link to the original source material KeepItReal Apr 2015 #172

it's all they have Skittles Apr 2015 #122

Why isn't it available to me and the rest of the citizenry to read online Cleita Apr 2015 #80

Oh, but you can read it! LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #87

I know. Ironic isn't it? Cleita Apr 2015 #88

It will get the same 60 day notice MaggieD Apr 2015 #101

+1 Historic NY Apr 2015 #133

So then why can I usually see what's pending online and not this? Cleita Apr 2015 #139

Because it's still in negotiations MaggieD Apr 2015 #146

Because it's not pending legislation. It's in draft still. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #105

According to this it is pending legislation: Cleita Apr 2015 #140

Exactly. MaggieD Apr 2015 #97

It's no secret, then... Guess you've read it. I've read it, haven't you read it? Oh yeah, Kip Humphrey Apr 2015 #104

I will read it, when it's pending legislation. It will be available to msanthrope Apr 2015 #115

Same here. joshcryer Apr 2015 #119

LOL - not many, I'll bet MaggieD Apr 2015 #147

It's the secret shit that bugs me! ananda Apr 2015 #151

You forgot the photographic memory part... Agony Apr 2015 #173