Elizabeth Warren: I agree with Hillary Clinton

[brooklynite]

Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts

XXXXX,

I have serious concerns about ISDS – a policy in the new TPP trade agreement that would let foreign companies challenge American laws outside of American courts.

I’ll give you a recent example of how it works: A big mining company wanted to do some blasting off the coast of Nova Scotia. The Canadian government refused to provide permits because it thought the blasting would harm the local environment and scare off fish that local fishermen needed to make a living.

Thanks to an ISDS provision in a past trade agreement, that mining company didn’t have to go to a Canadian court to challenge the permit decision – they went right to a special ISDS panel of corporate lawyers. Last month, the international panel ruled in favor of the mining company, and the decision cannot be challenged in Canadian courts.

Now the Canadian taxpayers may be on the hook for up to $300 million in “damages” to the mining company – all because their government had the gall to stand up for its environment and the economic livelihood of its local fishermen. And the next time a foreign company wants a blasting permit, what will the Canadian government do?

ISDS isn’t a one-time, hypothetical problem – we’ve seen it in past trade agreements. Just in the past few years:

A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.

A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.

A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.

Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.
The Obama Administration has said that they have fixed all the problems, and nothing like that will happen here. They just won’t show you how.

Let's send a loud message to our trade officials: No vote on a fast-track for trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – ISDS and everything else. Sign the petition right now.

I’m not the only one worried about ISDS. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in her book last year:

"We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."

In March, more than a hundred law professors from all around the country wrote a letter about their concerns about ISDS. And five of the country’s top legal and economic experts – Joseph Stiglitz, Larry Tribe, Judith Resnik, Cruz Reynoso, and H. Lee Sarokin – all agree:

"ISDS weakens the rule of law by removing the procedural protections of the legal system and using a system of adjudication with limited accountability and review. It is antithetical to the fair, public, and effective legal system that all Americans expect and deserve. Proponents of ISDS have failed to explain why our legal system is inadequate to the task. For the reasons cited above, we urge you to uphold the best ideals of our legal system and ensure ISDS is excluded from upcoming trade agreements."

This isn't a partisan issue. I don’t often agree with the conservative Cato Institute, and I suspect they don’t often agree with me. But the head of Cato’s trade policy program said:

"[ISDS] raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of power... Sen. Warren’s perspective on ISDS is one that libertarians and other free market advocates should share."

The Obama Administration says you have nothing to worry about – to trust them that nothing could possibly go wrong. But they won’t release the text of the TPP agreement to the public for you to see it for yourself.

Frankly, "just trust us" isn’t good enough – not for a trade deal that multinational corporations have been working on for years while the public has been kept in the dark.

Tens of thousands of people have already signed our petition: No vote to fast-track trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – including ISDS. Please sign the petition now.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Paid for by Elizabeth for MA

[leftofcool]

1. Warren and Clinton are pretty close on the issues that matter the most.

[misterhighwasted]

4. Yes they are. Closer than a few people want to admit.

I dont believe any of the 2016 Dem candidates will work against each other.
I believe it is a concerted effort to defeat the GOP.
I think that is a unifying goal. They each bring strengths and all know what is at stake after 2016.

I believe this powerful Dem coalition is in the 2016 game together.
One alone will not defeat the billion dollar RW corrupt election & this Dem team knows it.

[MADem]

28. +1.

Stalking horse game, perhaps. Good for them!

[misterhighwasted]

31. That is an interesting link. Well now I am wondering

..how often it occurs in politics that we are not aware of.
Stalking Horse.
Thanks for the link.

[MADem]

36. If you are a HOUSE OF CARDS fan, the concept is perfectly illustrated

in Season Three.




Usually it's done without the dire "overtone," and the persons who are playing at it are fully aware of what they're doing--though there is an element of plausible deniability at play in the entire scenario. Oftentimes, the stalking horses are running for Vice President or a cabinet post, or maybe even a cool ambassadorship, and the better they do in their role, the more likely they are to get a nice portfolio.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. I could totally see Hillary doing this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/12/enough-is-enough-elizabeth-warrens-fiery-attack-comes-after-congress-weakens-wall-street-regulations/

No?

[JDPriestly]

26. We shall see whether the TPP has an this kind of

kangaroo court provision in it and whether if it does Hillary comes out strongly against it.

I think it is too soon to say whether Warren is trying to get Clinton to really oppose the TPP which probably has a court provision in it. We shall see whether Clinton agrees with Warren or not.

I think that e-mail was a reminder more and a warning more than an affirmation since, as far as I know, Hillary has not made any recent comments on the TPP.

Am I wrong about Hillary not making any recent comments on the TPP?

If you know of any, please post them -- something recent. Best, if you know of any really recent comments by Hillary on the international trade courts please post them. I am unaware that Hillary has taken a really strong, recent stance against them.

I am strongly opposed to those courts.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. She can say whatever the hell she wants about it and I will not be impressed.

I just don't anticipate much connection between what she says on the campaign trail and what she would do in the White House.

Hillary already betrayed Liz once, and there is no love lost between them.

TPP is the perfect platform to mark the sharp contrast between the two women. Warren doesn’t shape her statements politically. Conversely, Hillary’s public positions and comments are political palindromes. They read the same backward or forward. No matter how the media tilts them, they’re the same careful lettering as can be seen in her TPP quote.

Then there’s a January article on Warren and Clinton, written by The Atlantic’s David Frum, a former G.W. Bush speechwriter. Frum reveals that Warren is no fan of Hillary’s (he apparently isn’t either) as evidenced by this statement: “Warren has characterized Hillary Clinton herself as a conscienceless politician who betrayed her professed principles for campaign donations.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-tpp-lurking-elizabeth-warren.html

There is also this bit from the Guardian

{There was an} incident between Clinton and Warren, when, according to Warren, Clinton agreed to help her stop a bankruptcy bill “that Warren felt was written, essentially, by the credit-card industry”. Once she had become senator for New York, however, Clinton voted for a version of the same bill.

“There were a lot of people who voted for that bill who thought that there was going to be no political price to pay,” Warren told the magazine.

When the New Yorker presented Warren with the critique – ascribed to Clinton advisers – that she places too much blame on Wall Street as the root of America’s economic problems, Warren responded: “I think it’s important to hold Wall Street accountable. Some of the biggest financial institutions in this country developed a business model around cheating American families, and they put out the riskiest possible products. They sold mortgages that were like grenades with the pins pulled out, and then they packaged up those risks and sold them to pension plans and municipal governments, groups that did not intend to buy high-risk financial products.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/27/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-eh-progressive-populist

[JDPriestly]

33. Excellent!

[hootinholler]

2. Elizabeth Warren: I agree with the Cato Institute

[Maedhros]

29. That's a pretty stupid thing to post.

The truth is the truth, regardless of who speaks it.

[hootinholler]

45. It is

I agree.

[MADem]

55. She made it clear that she doesn't often agree with them, but she does in this instance.

It's in the letter.

[hootinholler]

59. Yes kind of like the headline n/t

[MADem]

60. I guess that's why she signed the "Run Hill Run" letter AND has had a number of

private meetings with Clinton....because she doesn't agree with her at all.

Either that, or she is scoping out her future cabinet gig.

But hey, whatever gets you through the process!

[MADem]

60. I guess that's why she signed the "Run Hill Run" letter AND has had a number of

private meetings with Clinton....because she doesn't agree with her at all.

Either that, or she is scoping out her future cabinet gig.

But hey, whatever gets you through the process!

[MannyGoldstein]

3. But one only one of those two is against the TPP.

While the other, as virtually always, won't take a stand until she has to, and when she has to she'll side with Wall Street while voicing some misgivings.

[KMOD]

5. I don't think Elizabeth Warren has said she is against TPP.

She is against the fast track authority.

Hillary, unlike Senator Warren, does not get to vote on the fast track authority.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. LOL

And are you saying that a presidential candidate shouldn't weigh in on issues that they're not deciding in the imminent future?

[mother earth]

8. You beat me by one minute. I'll remove mine, lol. Sorry for butting in.

I just couldn't help myself.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. The more, the merrier

Feel free!

[MADem]

63. That video is from an appearance on APR 15.

Senator Warren posted this on her blog, TODAY....

http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton

[KMOD]

9. Hillary has weighed in on TPP, twice now.

edit to add: See the sign next to Elizabeth? It's says no fast track, not no TPP.

I believe she would like to see what is in it, before she says no TPP.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Do Senators Warren, Sanders and othe Congressional Democrats who are fiercely opposed

not know what's in it?

[KMOD]

13. Every opposition I've read is that the details regarding how

currency manipulation, environmental protections, US job protections, wage protections, human right protections and most importantly ISDS will addressed and enforced.

That is what they seek to know before they agree to sign off on the fast track authority.

[cali]

15. you are flat wrong

Killing the tpa kills the tpp. The President will not introduce it if it's going to be subject to changes through the amendment process

[KMOD]

17. Yes, but as I said down thread,

they are all merely kicking it down the road. Republicans and Democrats. Union pressure on this is immense. If the President wants this, he is going to have to convince the unions.

[cali]

14. Hillary has obfuscated in her statements on it

No tpa and there's no tpp. Period, no ifs ands or buts. The best way to kill the tpp is to kill the tpp

Warren has seen it and used strong language in opposition to it

[KMOD]

16. HRC's statements are perfectly clear to me, and they

absolutely mirror Senator Warren's statements.

Senator Warren wants to see what protections, and how they would be enforced, before she is willing to give the President fast track authority.

And yes, if the TPA is not approved, the TPP goes bye-bye. We will see how this gets resolved. It seems to me that the current plan is to kick it down the road.

[MaggieD]

43. +1

Her statements sound perfectly clear to me as well.

[cascadiance]

18. So, when as SOS she was negotiating with other countries on the TPP, did she wants to wait...

... to see what's in it before she could tell them what she wanted them to sign up for?

Come on! If you believe that, many of us have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you!

If she doesn't like ISDS, and has any kind of thoughts of passing the TPP without it, then she should come out and say she's against the Fast Track bill for this reason. Otherwise, it will either get passed with it in it, which she says she doesn't want to happen, or the treaty completely gets voted down, which apparently she doesn't want to recommend publicly should happen either.

Can you blame the public for wondering what really is the truth from her?

[KMOD]

20. I'm sure she was very intrumental in bringing the countries to the table,

and beginning the discussions and negotiations. It's been a couple years though, and John Kerry, who seems to love the TPP btw, has taken over further negotiations.

Once again, she cannot vote on the fast track authority.

All of her concerns, including concerns about ISDS, mirror Senator Warren.

The President needs to sell this. And I believe that is what he is setting out to do now. I'm very interested in hearing him speak about it tomorrow.

[cascadiance]

23. If she was instrumental, then how can she not know what's in it?

Either she knows what's in it, and has the information she needs to have a public opinion on it, or she wasn't really doing much of her work effectively in talking to other nations on the TPP.

The question isn't whether she can "vote" on Fast Track Authority, but whether she can SPEAK on it PUBLICLY so that the citizens can know where she stands on it. She could state her opinion on it, and put some details in that opinion and recommend that congress votes up or down on that and note that she has a stake in it if she as future president is going to have to work with that treaty in place down the road.

She has NOT spoken against Fast Track. Elizabeth Warren HAS! You must have had a tough time with basic math on what denotes equal conditions or not in grade school. Mirroring implies that they are the same. THEY ARE NOT!!! At least what is publicly known is not equivalent.

Why does Obama "need" to sell this? If he believe, like many of the rest of us do, that this is a sellout to the corporations that have been pretty much the only entities consulted in building the details of this secret treaty, then he should be standing against it rather than pushing it. If he believes it is good for us, then why doesn't he find a way to communicate that to us. He's doing quite frankly a PISS POOR job of selling it. None of us are going to buy it, nor are we going to be allowed to be told that we should show that we are "buying it" just to show we support a Democrat. I'm guessing that Republicans have similar concerns of how to sell it to their base, when they don't want to hear details of this country losing its sovereignty either.

We shall see what he says tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath.

[KMOD]

25. "You must have had a tough time with basic math"

Was that necessary?

Ok, first, I'm sure the negotiations have evolved since she left office, no?

second, I don't think she needs to make a fast track authority statement. She's can't vote on in and there are already enough voices against it and they don't need her backing.

Third, the President needs to sell it, because he believes it addresses the concerns. He will be making statements about it tomorrow.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. "People have told that we can't make this public . . ."

". . . because if we made it public and the American people saw what was in this trade deal, they would be opposed it. My view is that if the American people would be opposed it then it should not pass."

She is there talking about the TPP itself, not the trade promotion authority.

True, TPA is a different issue. There are two reasons to oppose it. First, in this specific case, defeating TPA would delay the TPP and allow Congress and the public to discuss this issue openly; second, because no president should ever again have this kind of power.

[KMOD]

27. Context matters.

Here’s the real answer people have given me: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

I am curious to who the people were who said that to her.

I agree that there is debate about whether or not fast track should ever be given to a President. But that is a different argument.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. The actual quote is attributed to former USTR Ron Kirk

He is quoted in an editorial from The New York Times.

[KMOD]

39. Thanks.

appreciate the link.

[KMOD]

42. OK, so I was easily able to find the original article the opinion writers

were referring to.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/us-usa-trade-kirk-idUSBRE84C0AQ20120514

reading the article, it's clear they are taking liberty with Ron Kirk's context.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. No, I can't find it (not for want of trying)

There are several other articles from where the quote could have have been found.

That the opinion writers took liberties with Reuters' article is one possibility, but not the only one and, therefore, not at all clear. That the remark was scrubbed from web version is another. Either way, it's speculation on our part.

Frankly, I believe that if the NYT were going to take liberties on this issue, they would have taken them in the opposite direction. The NYT may not be the zenith of journalistic standards it used to be or pretends to be, but it's not in the habit of being that outrageous, either.

[KMOD]

54. Perhaps speculation, but it seems to me that the writers took

this:

"There's always that tension between when you release and not," Kirk said, noting that about a decade ago negotiators released the draft text of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas and were subsequently unable to reach a final agreement.

and converted it to this:

Ron Kirk, until recently Mr. Obama’s top trade official, was remarkably candid about why he opposed making the text public: doing so, he suggested to Reuters, would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.

I could be entirely wrong, of course.

On a different note, you are an absolutely delightful poster to converse with. Thank you for that.

[JDPriestly]

34. All that Obama talk about "enforceable"?

That's lawyer-speak for the international kangaroo court.

There is no way to enforce labor or environmental standards on another country without some sort of court, and I seriously doubt that the corporate representatives who negotiated the TPP on our behalf would provide for the resolution of disputes in our courts with our juries and our procedural rules. No way.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. She has seen what's in it.

Senators were allowed to see it under very restrictive conditions (no notes, no copies, etc.), although it remains secret from the public.

[KMOD]

40. Yes, I'm aware of that.

However, I think many Senators wish for more clarity, and the answer they are receiving is that negotiations are not finished yet.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Sure, that's certainly the case.

But what we already know of it from leaked portions (which are the only parts Liz is bing specific about), it's a fucking disaster coming down the line right at us.

I just hope that when the Chinese buy up our hollowed-out country and take us over, they leave us our Social Security.

[KMOD]

47. and that's why so many are sounding alarms.

I do not believe it has the votes in the house to pass. My congressman, Paul Tonko is voting no and in his words, "working the house" in opposition to it.

The President is going to have to offer more clarity in order to win over the votes. His remarks tomorrow will be interesting, and I'm curious if he can clarify enough to win back some votes.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. Given the level of secrecy that has prevailed so far,

I'm not sure that "clarity" is the path to winning votes. The more people find out about the giveaways to the International Corporate State, the less they may be inclined to like this deal.

[MaggieD]

22. She has said plenty about it

Just because you're not keeping up doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[MADem]

37. You might want to read her letter in the OP before you say that.

This sentence, particularly:

No vote to fast-track trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – including ISDS.

Sounds like a "show me the money, first" comment, to me. It doesn't sound like she is categorically "against" the TPP.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. She's already read the thing

she wants the American people to see all the lovely gifts in it, and give feedback to their representatives, before the things put on greased rails.

[MADem]

52. If that's the case, why wasn't she more definitive?

She didn't say "Let's not pass it," did she?

[MannyGoldstein]

53. LOL

She certainly has said it. Just not in the quote you selected.

[MADem]

56. This letter is her most recent comment on the topic.

I notice you're busy LOLing, but not too quick on the linking. Hey, it's easier to snark than read the OP....

So, where's your proof that this is her current attitude on the topic? No quotes from years ago, now--we need something that's recent. Like this letter.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6637035

[MADem]

62. You'll have to do better than that. Her letter is more recent than Apr 15.

Which is when she made her appearance at that rally, which was not in opposition to the TPP, it was in opposition to "fast track"--I think most people are in agreement with her on that score.

You do know the difference between "fast track" and the TPP itself?

You are starting to sound like you've got them confused.

FWIW, when your subject line is "." it's not suggestive of anything "cool," it suggests that you are chain-jerking and requiring people to whom you reply to fiddle around in order to open your post. It is almost like a signal that there's not anything of real substance in the message text box. Bit of a flail, there.


Here's a link directly to EW's blog--is she lying? This was posted just HOURS ago....

http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton

[font color="blue" size="5" face="face"]BLOG
I agree with Hillary Clinton
May 7, 2015 | By Elizabeth Warren[/font]

[MannyGoldstein]

64. I think the answer's pretty obvious

sounds like you do, too.

We just disagree on what that obvious answer is.

[MADem]

67. I think the obvious answer can be found in Senator Warren's words, posted by her TODAY.

http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton

And the money quote is that excerpt I posted earlier, that you derided.

[Jackpine Radical]

50. She can only give details from the leaked portions,

which are probably less than 10% of the whole package.

She can't even warn us about the rest; all she can do is say she wants people to see it before it is crammed down our throats. That is the maximal level of warning that she can give under the circumstances. All of the liberal Senators who have seen it are opposed at least to fast-track.

[MADem]

51. I take the woman at her word. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

65. Me too. After she won that fire fight at the airport in Bosnia, I take her at her word every time.

[MADem]

66. I was talking about Senator Warren's word...

The words she posted here, on her blog, today: http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton

But hey, if you don't want to stand with Senator Warren on this matter, step aside.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. Well, I did get the antecedent wrong--I obviously thought you were referring to Hillary Clinton

Mea culpas out of the way, I'll need to remind you once more that your directives to me are meaningless, and there's just not a thing you can do about that.

[MADem]

69. It's not really cool to use those kinds of cheap shots.

I didn't appreciate the "Fauxahontas" and "Pow Wow The Indian Girl" jokes that got flung at Warren during her Senatorial campaign, either. I found those kinds of digs childish and underhanded--the resort of those who "got nuttin'" save a cheap shot.

People do misstate on occasion. It's not always the result of deliberate mendacity. Fear does have an effect on perception, as anyone who has spent any time in a hostile fire zone knows. People do sometimes believe what they are told, even when they're told fairy tales.

I really don't care if you don't want to take my guidance; that won't stop me from offering it, regardless!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. Tell it to Brian Williams. nt

[MADem]

71. He's not a politician, though he used to be the GOP go to guy. Warren and Clinton are. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. Got it: untruths are lies if from Brian Williams, but are mere slips for politicians.

I really do learn something new every day.

[MADem]

73. Brian Williams didn't tell "a" lie--he told a litany of them.

You probably need to learn that, if you didn't know it already.

Here's some light reading for you: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/brian-williams-alleged-lies-a-list-202585.html

Politicians don't report the news, either. They aren't held to a journalistic standard.

I suppose you're unaware of LBJ's comments about one of his opponents and a barnyard animal. I'll let you do your own homework on that, if you're really interested in politicians and lies. I'm sure you can find Google on your own.

[stonecutter357]

19. K&R!

[magical thyme]

24. I haven't seen Hillary's statement against TPA or TPP

Hillary has criticized perhaps the most critical chapter of TPP.

But criticizing one chapter is not the same as saying she is against the whole of it.

And since TPA would mean it can't be changed, you must be against TPA to prevent TPP complete with ISDS.

Agreeing on one single chapter of TPP is not quite the same as the thread title would suggest.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. I think she wants to have a conversation about it.

There is a great deal to be discussed about it, and she wants to bring all the stakeholders* into the discussion so they can air their concerns before moving the bill along to passage.


I think she will want to include a clause saying that the interests of the peasants should maybe be taken into serious consideration for a couple of minutes before dismissing them.


*people who stand to get even richer when it passes

[Hoyt]

30. Typical Warren bull. In Balcon v Canada, Canada selected a law professor,

Balcon selected a Canadian law professor, and together the two parties agreed on a judge. The tribunal was held under UN rules. It was not decided by "corporate lawyers," and it is doubtful Balcon will get much in damages, f anything. Finally, no laws were overruled,, changed, etc.

Warren needs to find some people who actually look at the facts before spreading crud to other people who aren't going to check the facts.

[Hekate]

41. Interesting. Thanks for this. nt