BOOM! Hillary Pushed Trade Deal Amid Warnings It Would Make Money Laundering, Tax Evasion Worse

[berni_mccoy]

From David Sirota on the Panama Papers:

http://www.ibtimes.com/panama-papers-obama-clinton-pushed-trade-deal-amid-warnings-it-would-make-money-2348076

Years before more than a hundred media outlets around the world released stories Sunday exposing a massive network of global tax evasion detailed in the so-called Panama Papers, U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for a Bush administration-negotiated free trade agreement that watchdogs warned would only make the situation worse.

Soon after taking office in 2009, Obama and his secretary of state — who is currently the Democratic presidential front-runner — began pushing for the passage of stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that opponents said would make it more difficult to crack down on Panama’s very low income tax rate, banking secrecy laws and history of noncooperation with foreign partners.

Critics, however, said the pact would make it easier for rich Americans and corporations to set up offshore corporations and bank accounts and avoid paying many taxes altogether.

“A tax haven ... has one of three characteristics: It has no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank secrecy laws; and it has a history of noncooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters,” Rebecca Wilkins, a senior counsel with Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates changes in U.S. tax policy, told the Huffington Post in 2011. “Panama has all three of those. ... They’re probably the worst.”

Get your forks ready people... she's nearly done!

[dana_b]

1. this is crazy

it doesn't look good for either Obama or Clinton.

[berni_mccoy]

3. David Brock's phone just lit up

The Hillary Fans are bombarding with panic calls!

[dana_b]

4. oh he's too busy coming up with some reason that this is Bernie's fault

Bernie must have billions in off shore accounts or something.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. It looks great for them ...

... I'm sure they'll get a cut, probably sent to their "foundations".

[brewens]

2. Or make money laundering and tax evasion better, depending on what your goals are.

I think we know who's side $hrillary is on by now.

[azmom]

5. Bush, Obama and Clinton in coordination

Helping their 1% buds.

[scottie10]

6. Just asking...

All over DU I see Hillary supporters defending her in generalities. I don't see any of them here. Could some of you Hillary supporters address this issue specifically? Thanks.

[berni_mccoy]

7. Their response to similar posts is this: There's nothing wrong with it...

That's their take... to move to the right and support the 1%.

[rhett o rick]

19. They see honesty as weakness and H. Clinton is tough. That's all they care. They learned

in jr High to always be on the side of the tough one.

[Segami]

8. Here's one position.....

"..Clinton hasn't been mentioned...nobody will care..."

OK,........now let me respond......

[Zira]

27. have you seen what they've defended? Hillary suporters love the 1% corruption or they wouldn't be

defending it so fiercely.

Thank goodness there are liberal dems with actual morals and we keep them no matter who the candidate running is.

[BernieforPres2016]

9. The Hillary people apparently won't go near this one

8 replies, I see them all.

Indefensible even by the Hillary apologists.

[Segami]

11. lol!..."8 replies, I see them all.."

The new DU gauge......"I see them all"........none hidden


Priceless and funny.....thanks for the chuckle....

[BernieforPres2016]

12. It's kind of strange

There's a thread with Bernie talking to a UAW group yesterday and saying that he doesn't talk to unions and then go to a Wall Street fundraiser. He never mentions another candidate by name. There were 39 responses there, I see one.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. They'll be here in a couple of hours, and they'll all be experts.

That's how talking points work. They're just waiting for their instructions.

[NorthCarolina]

10. To some "It Would Make Money Laundering, Tax Evasion Worse"

and so were against it. To others "It Would Make Money Laundering, Tax Evasion Easier", and so were for it.

[Gman]

13. Such hypothetical idiocy in this article

To the point it's friggin stupid.

And no one else is expounding on it. Not the shrillest Bernie sites, not the most rabid right sites. It's just a paid promo post on FB.

[rhett o rick]

21. That's the best response you've got? It's a terrible article. Ad hominem anyone? nm

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. No one is expounding on it? Google News shows about 1.8 million hits

The search term is Hillary Clinton "Panama Papers". Those quotation marks mean something to the initiated, namely that I'm not inadvertently pulling up hits involving Van Halen's Panama or some company's brand of rolling papers. So yeah, it's a thing out there, way beyond the boundaries of DU.

[BernieforPres2016]

24. Why the Panama Papers are a very big deal

How about CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/opinions/panama-papers-ghitis/index.html

<The documents detail potential malfeasance in democracies, autocracies and dictatorships alike, and powerful people around the world are no doubt breaking out in a cold sweat. To be sure, a name in the Panama Papers is no proof of wrongdoing. A disclaimer by the ICIJ, which coordinated the investigation, states that "There are legitimate uses for offshore companies, foundations and trusts," adding that those listed in the papers may not have "broken the law or otherwise acted improperly." Indeed, throughout history, people have often sought to conceal their assets in unstable political environments, sought protections from predatory regimes that persecuted their enemies and might confiscate their belongings, or simply wanted anonymity.>

[lore]

14. I believe it is just another JUDGEMENT issue called out

where Hillary is on one side and Bernie is on another.

Oh, wait! This is Bernie attacking the president again! While Hillary uses him as cover! lol

So who were they pushing this for?

[slipslidingaway]

15. knr nt

[Armstead]

16. I'm a Bernie supporter, but I suggest holding your fire on this for now

The extent of involvement by Americans has not yet been released.

Might be best to wait and see if there's fire where there seems to be smoke.

[FailureToCommunicate]

17. K & R

[stevenleser]

18. That is not correct. For example, virtually all of the offshore corps set up that came to light in

the Panama Papers were set up long, long, lonnnnng before this 2011 trade agreement.

Nothing changed in terms of setting up offshore corporations in Panama as a result of the agreement.

The argument that is being made is that the agreement made it more difficult for the US to demand Panama change its laws in that regard. That is also a difficult argument to make since this has all been going on for 50+ years and the US has not been successful in getting Panama to change their laws.

The 2011 trade agreement had very little impact on setting up offshore corporations.

[rhett o rick]

23. That is not true. The law made it more difficult to demand Panama change its laws. nm

[stevenleser]

25. Which is what I said. Apparently you only read the title of my post.

And you didnt consider the implications of what you wrote.

I am sure you are in general against the United States bullying other sovereign countries into changing their laws that their populations are perfectly happy with.

Panamanians shouldnt have to change their laws because people in other countries want to break their countries laws.

[rhett o rick]

29. You seem to have a problem with telling me what I read and what I considered. You might

want to discuss that problem with someone.
This is in fact what I read that you said, "The argument that is being made is that the agreement made it more difficult for the US to demand Panama change its laws in that regard." I agree with that argument and you did not refute it.

I am against bullying other sovereign nations by the USofA. But I don't believe for a minute that they don't. Obama, a Democrat, so to speak, is killing suspects in sovereign nations via drones with a kill ratio of 1 suspect to every 110 innocents. That's bullying. I don't think for a minute that we can't encourage Panama to behave if we truly wanted them to. I believe that the Ruling Class the Oligarchy if you will, likes what Panama does and takes full advantage of it. I also think you support the Ruling Class.

[stevenleser]

30. Nope, no problem at all, its obvious. And your contradiction here is glaring.

You are violently against the US bullying anyone else for any other reason, but now you want the US to bully someone for something that is ridiculous.

It is not Panama's responsibility that citizens of other countries are using Panama's corporate secrecy laws to evade laws in their own countries, nor is it appropriate for the US for instance, to try to bully Panama to change laws that Panamanian citizens are happy with because they can't make US citizens obey the law. There are other ways of doing that that do not amount to a form of colonialism.

And what you think I support doesnt matter.

[rhett o rick]

31. When you try to put words in my mouth is the only time my posts are contradictory.

"You are violently against" what the frack does that mean? I am against the US bullying in all cases. But asking Panama to stop aiding Americans to avoid paying taxes, seems like a small thing compared to what we did in Iraq, Lybia and today with drones.

The Wealthy that control our government like the services of Panama. It's us peons that are getting screwed here.

[berni_mccoy]

28. Not untrue.They were warned.And the Agreement did make it impossible for the IRS to pursue evaders.

[factfinder_77]

32. Panama-tpa is strengthening financial transparency - thumbs up for Hillary

Article 12.11: Transparency

1.The Parties recognize that transparent regulations and policies governing the activities of financial institutions and cross-border financial service suppliers are important in facilitating both access of foreign financial institutions and foreign cross-border financial service suppliers to, and their operations in, each other’s markets. Each Party commits to promote regulatory transparency in financial services.

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/panama/asset_upload_file494_10346.pdf

and

Article 18.8: Anti-Corruption Measures

1. Each Party shall adopt or maintain the necessary legislative or other measures to establish that it is a criminal offense under its law, in matters affecting international trade or investment, for:
(a) a public official of that Party or a person who performs public functions for that Party intentionally to solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any article of monetary value or other benefit, such as a favor, promise, or advantage, for himself or for another person, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions;
(b) any person subject to the jurisdiction of that Party intentionally to offer or grant, directly or indirectly, to a public official of that Party or a person who performs public functions for that Party any article of monetary value or other benefit, such as a favor, promise, or advantage, for himself or for another person, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions;
(c) any person subject to the jurisdiction of that Party intentionally to offer, promise, or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official, for that official or for another person, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business; and
(d) any person subject to the jurisdiction of that Party to aid or abet, or to conspire in, the commission of any of the offenses described in subparagraphs (a) through (c).
2. Each Party shall adopt or maintain appropriate penalties and procedures to enforce the criminal measures that it adopts or maintains in conformity with paragraph 1.
3. In the event that, under the legal system of a Party, criminal responsibility is not applicable to enterprises, that Party shall ensure that enterprises shall be subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive non-criminal sanctions, including monetary sanctions, for any of the offenses described in paragraph 1.
18-4
4. Each Party shall endeavor to adopt or maintain appropriate measures to protect persons who, in good faith, report acts of bribery or corruption described in paragraph 1.

Article 18.9: Cooperation in International Fora
The Parties recognize the importance of regional and multilateral initiatives to eliminate bribery and corruption in international trade and investment. The Parties shall work jointly to encourage and support appropriate initiatives in relevant international fora.