US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3549

On April 06 2016 01:07 Plansix wrote:
Do we have any proof that the trade deal enabled the practices? The Panama papers are from a law firm and go back almost decades from my understanding. Law firms have built in privacy rules that are respected by a number of nations. And if the firm did not exist in Panama, it would exist elsewhere.

Or am I misunderstanding this discussion and it is separate from the Panama papers.

On April 06 2016 01:12 Ghanburighan wrote:


It's connected. But Panama has been a tax haven since 1919. Source

Note that the source doesn't mention the FTA at all. But the report mentions "Panama is yet to sign any tax treaties with foreign countries. In addition, Panama has no information exchange provisions." which I think the FTA would have changed around the same time as the report was published. (It isn't mentioned though.)

On April 06 2016 01:07 Plansix wrote:
Do we have any proof that the trade deal enabled the practices? The Panama papers are from a law firm and go back almost decades from my understanding. Law firms have built in privacy rules that are respected by a number of nations. And if the firm did not exist in Panama, it would exist elsewhere.

Or am I misunderstanding this discussion and it is separate from the Panama papers.

On April 06 2016 01:19 kwizach wrote:

GreenHorizons tried to develop a new line of attack on Hillary by linking the Panama papers scandal to the Panama FTA; he was then asked how the Panama FTA worsened the situation with regards to the practices revealed in the Panama papers, and he revealed himself to be utterly incapable of explaining how that was the case. He then started arguing that the Panama FTA was a terribly bad deal for the US and a great deal for Panama -- he was subsequently asked to explain how that was the case, and he again revealed himself to be utterly incapable to do so. He has now retreated into saying that the FTA should have stopped the practices revealed in the Panama papers, and that it should not have been signed without stopping them, basically mirroring what the GOP is saying about the Iran deal and American prisoners. He basically has no knowledge of these issues, and probably discovered the existence of the Panama FTA earlier today.

Thanks for your links and quote, Ghanburighan (also oneofthem). If there is any other study or report of the impact of the TFA on the practices unearthed by the Panama papers, I'll be interested in reading it.

The Justice Department's No. 3 official, Stuart Delery, is resigning to explore options in the private sector, leaving as the highest-ranking openly gay leader in the agency's history.

Delery started at the department on Inauguration Day in 2009, rising from his post as a top aide, to the chief of the civil division, and then serving as acting associate attorney general. Along the way, he personally argued appeals court cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and defended the Obama administration's counterterrorism initiatives as well as subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.

"It's been a complete privilege to work here at the Department of Justice," Delery, 47, told NPR in an interview Tuesday morning. "It's been a real honor to be part of it, and I feel really lucky as a lawyer to have had the chance to do it."

A high point of his time in the administration: leading a governmentwide effort to review federal statutes and regulations to make sure same-sex couples received equal benefits and rights after the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor, which held the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

On April 06 2016 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
Negotiated while Hillary was SoS, her support of the deal, something something

On April 06 2016 01:25 Plansix wrote:
Then why are we discussing the Panama FTA then? Its just one of many FTAs that exist.

It's an example of what we can expect Hillary to "get done" and the kind of people who will support her agenda (Rupert Murdoch) as evidenced by the near celebration of the trade deal when you all know that we shouldn't have even been at the table without them giving major concessions on their banking.

Hillary has got you all so twisted up you all are actually defending her pushing for a trade deal lobbied for by Rupert Murdoch. Just let that sink in for a while.

On April 05 2016 14:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't know how the man does it. Less than a year of butting heads and I already think some people are lost causes, he's been saying stuff like this and being right about it for decades.

On April 05 2016 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
What's the read from the Clinton camp about her pushing the Panama Trade deal?

On April 05 2016 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


From the person who's totally ignoring the question about Hillary's role in pushing for the Panama Trade deal.

On April 06 2016 01:31 oneofthem wrote:
the fta was actually in negotiation since 2007. hillary and obama made it better.

On April 06 2016 01:31 ticklishmusic wrote:






It was pretty obvious that the two were related (otherwise why the hell would we be talking about a FTA with a pretty tiny central American nation), and you didn't have a problem with arguing how financial regulation wasn't a part of the package up till that point. Unless you're suggesting you just coincidentally developed an interest in Panamanian free trade agreements or something.

On April 06 2016 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


Dude, the posts are right here. Show me where I linked Hillary's support of the trade agreement to the Panama papers scandal? Pretty sure that's the first time I even said Panama papers in this thread.

On April 06 2016 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


They should of let it die/walked away (for like the 3rd time)