The link got lost. That happens occasionally. I always check and if there's a software glitch I immediately click the edit button and redo. It never glitches twice. A little annoying but not a big deal.

Thanks for asking CVille :-)  I did read the editorial when it came out.  It was interesting and counterintuitive.  I looked closely at the arguments.  Ultimately, it did not persuade me because Fred Hiatt (who edits the editorial page) failed to point to any language in the free trade agreement that addressed Panama's status as a tax shelter/money-laundering heaven which it remains.  Also, I note that many experts say the reason more Americans don't avail themselves of Panamanian shell corporations is because an eased up regulatory scheme and lax enforcement here have made the US one of the easiest places to hide money.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-n...

I lean to the belief that the Panama Trade Deal coupled with lobbying  from the big banks motivated the US to ease up on financial transparency laws.  In other words, we are racing Panama to the bottom.  http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/panama-papers-offshore-tax...

I am very skeptical of Hiatt's opinions.  He has been an ardent free trader for years.  It is therefore plausible he would look for reasons to defend the Panama deal against Sanders especially since Hiatt and the Post harbor strong antipathy towards the Vermonter.

It is also of interest that the Post's owner is noted libertarian/free trader Amazonian Jeff Bezos.  Bezos of course is one of the richest men in the world in part because globalization/free trade allows him to purchase in bulk at ultra-low prices products manufactured by low wage third world laborers and therefore undercut competitors.