A lesson I learned a long time ago is that the people who are most to be trusted . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . are those would never dream of making demands of it. If, in fact, Warren and Brown are lying as the President suggests, then it is within the President's ability to demonstrate that bu releasing the text of the entire document. Even apart from the parts of the TPP draft that have been leaked to date, the fact that he is resisting doing so, expecting the public and most of Congress to simply take his word for it. and at the same time is so uncharacteristically energetic in his attempts to impugn the integrity of critics who are, on most other issue, staunch allies, speaks volumes.

Another thing I learned a long time ago is that when faced with a choice about whom to believe among two parties, each of whom is accusing the other of lying, one rarely goes wrong by asking oneself one simple question: which party stands to gain or lose the most both by misrepresenting an issue, and/or by falsely accusing the other party of lying? Frankly, if the deal is all it is cracked up to be by the President, then I can see nothing that Warren or Brown would have to gain by opposing it. But I can certainly see that a President, now in the home stretch of his Presidency, casting about for a new 'legacy' since the future of his single biggest achievement is in doubt, I can see where he would have plenty to lose if the deal falls apart, and thus plenty to gain by falsely characterizing the deal's opponents as lying.

For me, then, the determination whom to regard as being the most credible between the PResident and Senator Warren is not even a close call.

[ucrdem]

1. He can't release the text. There is no text and there won't be if he doesn't get fastpass.

That's what Warren is being dishonest about, and he doesn't have to prove it.

[markpkessinger]

2. There IS a text . . .

. . . It is just not a final text. Fast Track precludes amending that text in any way. THAT is what is dishonest here. In fact, if indeed there were no text, then how could the President go on and on about what a good deal this is for the environment, how it won't result in any loss of jobs, etc., etc.?

[okaawhatever]

5. Do you even know the meaning of the word dishonest? Obama has never made the claim that

Congress could amend it. If he did, it would be dishonest. Having a bill go through the Fast Track process (that has been in place since, what 1976?) is not dishonest. Your attempt to frame it that way is dishonest at it's finest.

No, Congress cannot amend the bill. They can vote up or down after 60 days of debate, discussion, etc. They can read it in its entirety right now (again, in its current form)

It is unlikely any trade bill involving so many countries would come to finalization if Congress were allowed to amend it. You are advocating Congress going through the amendment process, then sending it back to the other 12 countries, who then want to amend it, send it back to Congress, etc. Do you even see how ridiculous that is?

Democracy is not being harmed here. Our representatives will ultimately decide if this bill becomes law. It will go through committee, be debated, etc.

Why do you insist on Congress' ability to amend it?

[markpkessinger]

6. I'm not aware of any requirement that says making a sweeping trade deal must be quick or easy . . .

. . . but maybe I'm missing something here.

[Enthusiast]

13. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[MannyGoldstein]

26. The stuff that gets posted on DU these days is epic

The Grand Canyon of bizarre.

[Andy823]

29. Straight from the horses mouth

If anyone would know about bizarre posts it would be you Manny!

[MannyGoldstein]

31. I'm guessing that you'll produce a factual rebuttal, rather than

fact-free BS?

Actually, I'm lying. I'm not guessing that. But I hope that you'll surprise me.

[LanternWaste]

46. Much like 'Grand Canyon of Bizarre" is a factual rebuttal rather than mere editorial and melodrama.

"produce a factual rebuttal..."

Much like 'Grand Canyon of Bizarre" is a factual rebuttal rather than mere editorial and melodrama.

Quite bemusing when observing someone hold others to a higher standard they hold themselves to, yet it does tend to separate the chaff from the wheat, and the editorial from the analysis.

[okaawhatever]

33. And this has been neither. It has been negotiated since 2008. nt

[markpkessinger]

35. And for most of that time, its contents have been almost exclusively . . .

. . . in the hands of those unelected negotiators. Those negotiators are not our representatives. Fast tracking this legislation will allow a mere 60 days for Congress to vote it up or down -- that is hardly sufficient time for members of Congress to fully investigate those details and fully analyze their implications, let alone for the public to be informed and have a sufficient opportunity to provide input. Sorry, but the fact that this deal has taken seven years to hammer out -- even in secret -- only strengthens the argument that 60-day window for an up or down vote is completely and utterly inadequate, especially since you can bet your ass that corporate lobbyists will be bringing enormous pressure to bear for quick passage, and will be flooding the airwaves with pro-TPP ads during that time.

When I said there was no requirement that the passage of such a deal should be quick or easy, I was referring to the process of passing it through Congress, not the time it took for secret negotiations to get it to this point. The time it took to secretly negotiate a draft of the treaty stands completely outside of the democratic process contemplated by the Constitution, and thus is utterly irrelevant. And if slowing down and taking the time to do a full and complete study of any proposed treaty, and affording the public a reasonable opportunity to be educated as to what it might entail, winds up scuttling the deal, then so be it.

[okaawhatever]

43. Fast Track Authority has been in effect 1975-1994 and 2002-2007. Do you see a trend of when it

wasn't renewed? Yes, when Dems were President. The GOP doesn't want Dems making trade deals. They aren't corporate-friendly enough.

Why is it that you haven't said one word before about your opposition to Fast Track authority but now suddenly have a problem with it?

Trade deals are led by Senate confirmed US Trade Representative. right now Michael Froman.

[GoneFishin]

11. "Why do you insist on Congress' ability to amend it?" Because they are supposed to represent

all of the people, not just the 0.01% wealthiest. And so far only the multibillionaires have had a seat at the TPP table.

This process is totally corrupt. The voters and taxpayers don't have any say as to the contents of TPP, neither directly nor through their representatives. But they are supposed to hand over hard earned taxpayer money to corporate scam artists who weaseled preposterous one-sided provisions into it, and are badgering congress to go along with it.

They are high-end bunco artists in expensive suits who have dreamed up the most sweeping taxpayer ripoff in history.

[Vincardog]

44. How likely would this trade treaty be to become law if the provisions were published

and the public was invited to pitch their opinion in? How ridiculous would that be?

[robinlynne]

36. Are you crazy? What on earth are you saying? it makes no sense at all. What do you think congress re

read? a fortune cookie?

[sabrina 1]

39. There are thousands of pages of text. After years of denying Congress any access to

these negotiations, under intense public pressure and AFTER leaks of part of the Draft Text, he was forced to make it available to members of Congress.

But under such restrictions they are unable to do their jobs. Those restrictions have been explained by Sherrod Brown and other Democrats.

It is simply unacceptable that any administration would ever hinder the People's Representatives from doing their job. A Democrat? Even more unbelievable.

Warren is absolutely correct. WE THE PEOPLE are not being allowed to know what this bill has in it which affect OUR lives for decades to come.

We do have the leaks, Thanks again Wikileaks, and the little revealed in those leaks make this an impossible bill to pass, IF Congress were not being prevented from doing so.

He is asking, as Bush did, that Congress Fast Track the bill.

That means that they will NOT BE ALLOWED to take out anything that is harmful to the American people, OR add Amendments.

When Bush tried it, it failed, but now Obama is doing what Bush tried to do and I am hoping beyond hope it fails AGAIN!

[BlueJazz]

3. I've got a beautiful Men's Gold and Diamond ring for sale. I want $4575.00. I'll show you part of it

No..You can't see the diamond. It's pretty large.
The Caret weight is a secret and so is the true amount of gold.

You'll like it. Trust me.

[840high]

16. ....

[Vincardog]

45. If you buy it includes this Guaranteed Replacement Value insurance that only costs $4999/Month

[okaawhatever]

4. I call b.s. on this. First, the President's claim about dishonesty isn't about the content of the

TPP, it is about the claim made in the fundraising letter that stated Warren couldn't read the TPP. That is untrue. Warren can read the TPP, in it's current form. That is a dishonest claim made by Warren (and quite frankly, I wonder if she even knew the exact content of the letter since it was a fundraising letter).

It isn't about examining one's intentions or character. To get to the truth, one needs to examine the facts. Nothing more. And to claim that he is impugning Warren's character is also b.s. Warren did that when she allowed a fundraising letter to go out in her name that isn't true.

The content of the document isn't being released because it isn't finalized, plain and simple.

When faced with a choice about whom to believe among two parties, one should ask themselves who has something to gain or lose. One should ask themselves, "what are the facts". God your propaganda is getting thick.

One thing is evident by your diatribe. You don't even know the issues and are using this to bash the President. Surprise, surprise. The issue isn't that Warren & Sanders are being dishonest about the content of the TPP. The President was addressing the fundraising letter and it's false claims.

Notice netiher Warren nor Sanders have addressed that particular claim (that I have seen), instead they have changed the subject and are again talking about the TPP in general. That speaks volumes If, in fact, the President said something that was untrue they should address it directly. Anything else is suspect.

"For me, then, the determination whome to regard as being the most credible between the President and Senator Warren is not even a close call" Of course it's not, it won't ever be for one who reaches a conclusion and then ignores the facts that don't support it.
It's funny, I really like Warren and wanted to see her run in the future. Warren's supporters are really making me change my mind.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Quote please.

Elizabeth Warren saying she can't read it.

Or a retraction.

Thanks.

[robinlynne]

37. because it isn't finalized? seriously? or because of the public outrage which would ensue?

[Bluenorthwest]

7. That's just not how it works. Have you ever been part of any negotiated contract, say with a Union?

The negotiations are not open to the membership, they are carried out by chosen representatives on each side, when an agreement is reach that is sent to the membership of the Union and then a vote is taken.
I am not that keen on insinuation that they are not planning on releasing the agreement before the vote couched in demands that it be released prior to completion. Saying Obama should release the full document as if that was not his intention and the stated plan and the only legal way to vote on it is nothing but bullshit. This is why you do not hear actual organized labor demanding Obama release it today or implying that he does not intend to release it at all. Labor is fully aware of protocols and process.
There is plenty of time to engage in the destruction of political rivals if that becomes the last and only choice. To rush to such tactics is the very thing that makes progress impossible.

[truedelphi]

8. Why're you not simply coming out and saying that you stand with the One Percent.

We have over two decades of NAFTA experience to seer what happens to Americans when these Trade "agreements" go into effect.

You can qualify by saying, as you do "Saying Obama should release the full document as if that was not his intention and the stated plan and the only legal way to vote on it is nothing but bullshit," but we on DU have heard these arguments so many damn times before. (Examples: "Sure, today there is no public option being discussed regarding the ACA, but give the President and Congress time!" Or, "Okay, we are seeing the Administration switching from Bush Admin torture policies to killing people under Obama through almost daily use of drones, but the policy is all right as only terrorists will be killed. If you disagree, you need to wait and see until we have several years of stats to convince me otherwise.&quot

There was a reason why the Founding Fathers stated in the Federalist Papers and even in some parts of the Constitution words to the effect that it is Totally Unconstitutional and UnDemocratic to have our government's highest elected officials negotiating away our sovereign rights in secret with other officials from foreign nations?

So if someone on DU wants to talk about "the legal nuts and bolts" and/or the strengths of this or that negotiating ploy, first and foremost they need to realize what it actually means to have a Democracy.

If the workings of a democracy are not important to you, and your main concern and objective is in giving strength to a Trade Act that is only semi-Constitutional (and probably not even semi!) please indicate that all you care about is the One Percent.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Hilarious. Me, AFL-CIO my entire adult life, active, actually active on trade issues and

the many other issues related to TPP. Yammering about the Federalist Papers does not impress me. I've been demonstrating against this sort of shit since the 90's. Get real.

What you and the OP say is all up to you. I do it the Union way. Wanna make an issue of that? I'm involved in actual activism on this fucked up thing. For months on end. And involved in contract negotiations my entire life, ever dime I have ever earned has been negotiated collectively then individually. I'm not going to pretend to not know things I know because it upsets the rhetorical narrative of people on the internet.
What's your Union? Can you counter any of what I said without doing that personal insult filth?

[truedelphi]

10. Being a woman in the construction trades before

It was kuhl to do that, I never was able to be in the Union. You had to have a job offered to get in the Union - but the only men who would hire a person of the female persuasion was to0 work at whatever jobs were offered - always non-Union.

There was a paucity of African Americans in the trades as well.

I think things changed in the Eighties, but by then I had rather given up.

[robinlynne]

38. You said it all. collectively, then individually. That is what congress was meant to be when

created!
Thank-you!

[Stonepounder]

20. OTOH, contracts are negotiated all the time.

I am a software manufacturer trying to sell you a $1,000,000 contract to install and maintain my product. I send you a quote. On the back of the quote is a lot of boilerplate. One of the lines in the boiler plate states that "In the event of a problem with the software we will provide technical support guaranteed to be up to our usual fine level of response".

You decide that is a little too vague. You scratch out that part and write in "Software is guaranteed to be on-line and functioning properly 99.99% of the time."

I decide that is a little too much, scratch out your notation and replace it with something to the effect that I will dedicate a support effort on a continuous 'best-effort' basis in the event of downtime.

And back and forth until we either reach an agreement or you decide not to make the purchase.

All contracts and agreements may be negotiated.

And you are damn straight that I want to see the TPP agreement (or someone who is familiar with Trade Agreements and speaks legalese read it and digest it for me). NAFTA was a disaster for the US. I want to know before it is signed that TPP won't be NAFTA on steroids. If that kills the agreement, so be it.

[markpkessinger]

30. Thank you for that most excellent post! n/t

[Kablooie]

12. If it was as good as the president says ....

Wouldn't he pull Warren aside, lay out all the positive aspects and expect to convince her to support it?

To publicly denounce her sounds like a pretty desperate move.
He's not even making a strong case for the positive aspects of the agreement.
He just makes vague claims that it's good for America.

It just doesn't sound like he's handling it like he would if it were really good for the future of American workers.

[Enthusiast]

14. I agree with you, Kablooie.

"To publicly denounce her sounds like a pretty desperate move."

[Demeter]

19. It's his inherent misogyny breaking through.

Elizabeth is not only smarter, she's a better person than he is...principled and honest.

[Enthusiast]

22. I share your impressions.

[Demeter]

23. Thank you for the affirmation

It's such a rare thing on DU, these days.

[SomethingFishy]

34. And there it is... if he wants her support, equating her opinion with "Death Panels"

is probably a really stupid way of going about it.

I love a party that calls me a "professional leftist" a "retard" and someone who is as clueless as Sarah Palin, and then laughs in my face and says "who else you gonna vote for".

Not sure why Obama's sycophants can't understand why people get pissed.

[Scuba]

41. +1

[Enthusiast]

15. Kicked

and recommended a whole bunch!

[KG]

17. pro-tip: this president is just as ready to lie as any other politician.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. +1

[blkmusclmachine]

18. 11 dimensional chess: being "against" Citizens United, but FOR the TPP.

[h2ebits]

21. Iran, Iran, Iran

The Republicans are working very hard in Congress to destabilize the Iran nuclear deal. The Republicans in Congress are also in overdrive to pass the TPP for their corporate overlords.

It appears to me that the Iran nuclear deal has disappeared from conversation as Obama has switched to fast tracking the TPP. I always keep at the top of mind that politicians are just that: POLITICIANS!

I wouldn't be surprised if this aggressive push by Obama to fast track the TPP is a political (agreement with Repubs) move until he can get a signed Iran nuclear deal.

[Demeter]

24. It's the search for a legacy

that conceals his droning and killing of kidnapped aid workers. The only reason we got his public apology is Israel, I suspect, demanding it for Mr. Wienstein's death....

[markpkessinger]

32. When Presidents -- even Democartic ones -- go casting about for a 'legacy' . . .

. . . bad things often happen. Witness Bill Clinton.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. K&R for a dead-on post

Thank you!

[BainsBane]

40. We've gone from a blatantly distorted accusation

that the president accused Warren of being dishonest, when it fact the actual statement was about what the President saw as dishonest arguments made by a group of senators. Now you further fabricate claims by saying he called them liars.

You may well have legitimate concerns about TPP, but when people go ought of their way to twist and contort a statement in a way that has no bearing on the actual issue hand, they throw all credibility out the window. There is something particularly ironic when people engage in dishonesty and distortion in the name of transparency. No one who has actual points to make feels the need to engage in this degree of falsification.

There may indeed be liars involved in this discussion, but it is not the President or members of the senate who disagree with him on TPP.

[Scuba]

42. Kick.