The documentation is something like 2,000 pages, released very recently. Even aside from the length, much of it is highly technical; you can't really assess its impact unless you have a thorough knowledge of what the current situation is in that particular issue area.
The final text is, most assuredly, now being reviewed by specialists -- people at the Sierra Club concerning environment, the Electronic Frontier Foundation concerning freedom of information, etc. They'll be releasing their analyses. If the Obama administration thinks the NGOs are mistaken on particular points, the administration can offer responses.
When the leaked drafts were criticized on DU, the administration's defenders' main point was to pooh-pooh the information. It was only a draft, they said, implying that the product of several years' worth of negotiations might be radically changed in the final few months. Their fallback position was that maybe it wasn't even a draft, i.e., not an accurate leak, but was just a complete fabrication by rabble-rousers. We'll now learn the truth of the matter. My guess is that the leaks will prove to be very close to or exactly identical to the final approved text.
I will also be interested in hearing from Hillary Clinton. In office, she touted the TPP as the gold standard. In the candidates' debate, she lied about her past support, falsely asserting that she had only hoped it could be the gold standard. When it was finalized, she announced her opposition to it, allegedly based on the final text, although that text had not then been publicly released. I hope she'll explain to us what provisions in the final agreement differ from the version she praised.
= new reply since forum marked as read
