Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Don't Sanders, Warren, or Grayson have Staff That Can Read the TPP? (Obama was Correct.) [View all]jwirr
(39,215 posts)141. And what about all the other things they need ot do. What is reguired to read this thing is the
same kind of practice that says I need an ID to vote. The reading of this ought to be made easier not harder.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
173 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
Of course. I can't imagine either Warren or Sanders not wanting to be there. They also get plain-
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#9
Plain language explanations are availble for all chapters. Further....are you kidding me? If you
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#18
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
Would you sign an important legal document based soley on a summary created by the
GoneFishin
Apr 2015
#57
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
The "plain language" issue has already been addressed by other posters. It's a non starter.
merrily
Apr 2015
#113
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
"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
Do you really think Issa was the one uploading? We aren't talking about car theft.....
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#158
And who do you think was responsible for the leak the year before? Or do you just believe that
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#171
Why do you need a security clearance in this instance? Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#131
They've complained about transparency---specifically, about not having staffers be able to read it.
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#6
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
Thank Rep. Grand Theft Auto---after he leaked on his website, the USTRO imposed that measure.
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#120
It's Ratfucking, 101. The Republicans do wrong, the Democrats blame the President, who, at this
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#126
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
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
Which means staff does have access. Is Brown really complaining about having to show up for work?
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#27
Re-read the thread. Msanthrope is not being defensive but trying to make people see reason....
Hekate
Apr 2015
#96
He's confirming that staff has access. Unfortunately, he has to show up to work that day, too. nt
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#30
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
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
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
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
Indeed--what I find most surprising is that Bernie apparently doesn't have a staffer who can read
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#19
Didn't seem to me that Bush had much trouble getting that unconstitutional POS passed.
merrily
Apr 2015
#89
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
So you agree that members always had the ability to review? And now that staff with the proper
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#36
Yes. You must have missed this (it even has an oblique Snowden reference)
riderinthestorm
Apr 2015
#47
I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. Cite it,
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#54
I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. As proof,
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#116
Wow, that's awesome of you to realize that you overstated your initial point and apologize
Number23
Apr 2015
#170
Money. You raise funds as you can....and the FDL wing always opens their coffers
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#46
The 151 Democratic House members that signed a letter opposing Fast Tracking the TPP must
think
Apr 2015
#59
If it's "human lives", as you claim, then shouldn't our Senators be reading it? Apparently Grayson
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#118
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
Absolutely. Are you upset that the Administration did not provide you a copy of the Iran deal
msanthrope
Apr 2015
#117
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 no secret, then... Guess you've read it. I've read it, haven't you read it? Oh yeah,
Kip Humphrey
Apr 2015
#104