Donald Trump’s team billed the Liberty and Freedom inaugural balls as populist celebrations, open to the general public for as little as $50 a ticket. The balls were supposed to be “the most affordable in recent history, ensuring that they are accessible to the American people,” according to a January 17 release from the President’s Inaugural Committee.
But internal documents obtained by The Intercept show that the Liberty Ball was a more exclusive affair for high-dollar donors. Smaller donors were diverted to the much larger Freedom Ball.
The Liberty Ball’s 8,000 attendees were listed as “Donors over $TBD/ Foreign Diplomats/ Cabinet Officials & Appointments/ US Senators and Congressmen/ Family and Friends.”
The Freedom Ball’s 22,000 attendees were listed as “Campaign Staff, Volunteers, Low Dollar Donors and supporters.”
In late December, following a “behind the scenes tour” of the inaugural committee, the pro-Trump Breitbart website wrote that Trump’s inauguration would be focused on “regular working class people across the country.” The Washington Post also suggested that the balls would be low-cost, populist events, repeating a spokesman’s message that ticket prices would be kept low “so that working-class Americans who helped fuel Trump’s victory can take part.”
The Radio City Rockettes perform at the Liberty Ball following Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President of the United States, in Washington on Jan. 20, 2017.
Photo: Molly Riley/AFP/Getty Images
In fact, Trump’s inauguration, which reportedly raised $100 million from private donors, did little to change Washington’s traditional intermingling of money and power. On Friday, five hours after Trump took the presidential oath, The Intercept published documents showing that at least 12 mega-donors and fundraisers were given platform seats, where they sat beside former presidents and members of the Supreme Court.
The newly obtained documents also show that select donors at Trump’s Liberty Ball had access to two VIP areas and a higher-tier “VVIP Room.”
President Donald Trump dances with First Lady Melania Trump as guests take photos at the Liberty Inaugural Ball on Jan. 20, 2017 in Washington.
Photo: Rob Carr/Getty Images
Here’s how the Liberty Ball was described:
In one of the Liberty Ball’s VIP areas, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Energy, chatted with reality star and transgender activist Caitlyn Jenner:
And here's Rick Perry meeting Caitlyn Jenner at the Liberty Ball pic.twitter.com/7WqsoffDFv
— Dan Duray (@DurayDan) January 21, 2017
This was the scene there during the “first dance”:
The First Dance @POTUS @VP #LibertyBall pic.twitter.com/dQTAPqT6aB
— Trump Inauguration (@TrumpInaugural) January 21, 2017
Billionaire hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen also made the Liberty Ball’s VIP scene, according to W Magazine’s Dan Duray. Cohen told Duray that he hoped Trump would push “corporate tax reform” from the White House. (Cohen’s hedge fund, SAC Capital, paid a $1.8 billion settlement after pleading guilty to charges that its employees had engaged in insider trading.)
The Freedom Ball may have been attended by at least some of the “working class-Americans” whom the Post suggested Trump would be treating with such largesse:
It is unclear how many $50 tickets were ultimately distributed by the inaugural committee. Sara Armstrong, CEO of the inaugural committee, directed The Intercept to Boris Epshteyn, an inauguration spokesman who now works in the White House. Epshteyn directed The Intercept’s questions to the White House press office, which did not return an email seeking comment.
The new documents contain additional details regarding the “underwriter benefits” packages described in a donor solicitation document that surfaced in late November. According to that document, individuals and corporations who contributed $1 million or more to the inauguration received tickets to a three-day package of parties, the most exclusive of which was a “leadership luncheon.” Each million-dollar donor received four tickets to the luncheon:
Floor plans for the luncheon show seating for 600.
The luncheon took place on Thursday at the Trump International Hotel at the Old Post Office at Washington. It appears that Trump’s hotel catered the event: Trump employees with “trumphotels.com” email addresses are listed for the event as catering and venue contacts.
The sample menu at the “Vice President’s Inaugural Dinner,” reserved for donors who contributed $500,000 or more, was rather fancy:
One “Guest of Honor” at this event was Lew Eisenberg, a former Goldman Sachs executive. He now serves as the Republican National Committee’s finance chairman. A timeline for the dinner shows that he served as emcee.
An “Events Grid” marked confidential gives a five-day overview of the inauguration, including the swearing in, the parade, and a private wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. Out of 20 events, 9 note the presence of donors. Notably, Saturday’s National Prayer Service at Washington National Cathedral appears to have been attended by 600 of Trump’s “friends and family” and 350 of Pence’s “friends and family” but “no donors.”
Download the Intercept’s second set of internal Trump inauguration documents here:
Top photo: Guests attend the Freedom Inaugural Ball for President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2017, in Washington.
As a Vietnam Veteran it would be interesting to see the percentage of veterans at each event. Also, I have been a volunteer campaign worker and I wonder which party they got invited to.
Inside the Inaugural Balls as Washington celebrates President Donald Trump taking office. http://www.slideserve.com/zurielstarbuck/inaugural-balls-for-the-45th-president
Meine Damen und Herren!
Schwartz, regardless of “his age”, “hypocrisy”, . . . does have a point! That thing they used to call “privacy” is a (very) silly illusion, anyway in the kind of police state we are living nowadays.
Probably, my opinion is to a large extent conditioned by the fact that I am under Zersetzung so I know they know who I am and also, because, I myself personally don’t try to hide at all. I like to be true and honest as a way to keep, own my sanity and keep my own demons apart from that kind of Zersetzung cr@p. (Mona, please! ;-))
I do understand why some of you would rather not use your names and I respect that. If you google my name you will see exactly what employers see. Some have even told me, they know well police do that kind of stuff and “they have nothing whatsoever against me”, that they just don’t need, want extra hassle . . .
Having said that, I don’t really need any kind of persuasion regarding politicians being corrupt liars and abusive sh!t from the government. At times I come here, just I looking for “il Duce”‘s comments ;-)
RCL
Mr. Schwartz,
Your comment to me down-thread got me thinking:
So, as a self-described reporter for The Intercept, both here and on Twitter, your public position on Wikileaks is somehow unassailable?
I’m going suggest that you’ve lost your way here, and that your moral compass has been damaged.
When recent actions by you are compared with a previous article,”The Trials of Minerva,” written by you about the anonymous South Korean blogger that was jailed after his identity was discovered, you demonstrate this hypocrisy of yours quite well:
The perplexity of what you write here on anonymity versus how you’ve treated others here is highlighted even more so in another piece you wrote, “For Zoe Strauss,” where you extol the virtues of personal discovery and how you (yes, you) utilize the methododology of “search, rapport, exchange, repeat” in becoming a better, more rounded person:
As with the other article of yours I commented on previously, its tone and tenor allows the reader in, making them a part of the journey as well.
How is that working for you here? Perhaps you should try it again.
Although I can’t speak for others here, I began reading Greenwald and The Intercept because of the intrinsic lack of hypocrisy, because they held public officials accountable to the public, and because they have the courage of their convictions – not much of which you have shown to us here.
The more I observe your interactions, and research who it is that you align yourself with most recently (it’s not the readers here) the more I realize that you are essentially the “Peter Daou of the Intercept,” some kind of incremental, neoliberal concessionist that seems they can’t decide whose side they are on, but instead actually chooses elite groups with questionable public positions over having an individual and principled stance that they are willing to defend in the public square.
My advice to you is to abandon your Council of Foreign Relation cohorts – the Kissinger’s, the Cheney’s, and the rest of that cabals morally corrupt inhabitants – as fast as you can, lest your credibility becomes as completely untrustworthy as theirs.
By the way, Mattathias, my name is Adrian, and I hope to meet the former you again…sometime soon.
On Anonymous Comments
Mattathias:
Beyond Mona’s description — “unpleasant and unfortunate” — I have to say that your remark, below, is entirely wrongheaded and suggests ignorance of the reality people live in and of the tradition (and legal status) of anonymous speech in America.
Do you imagine that the Federalist Papers would have been “taken more seriously” if they had been signed by Madison, Hamilton and Jay rather than Publius? That would hardly have been possible, would it? The whole point of pseudonymous publication, in that instance and many other before and since, was to focus attention on the points and arguments made, rather than the identities or personality of the writers.
Further, could you possibly be unaware that free speech protection in America only applies to governments and certain other official entities? Have you somehow failed to notice that saying “the wrong thing” — which may be anything your employer, your landlord or your neighbors don’t agree with or find objectionable — can have a deleterious, even ruinous effect on one’s life? If you haven’t noticed, it strongly suggests you haven’t been paying attention to the world you (or at least most of us) live in.
I think you owe nuf, with whom I have agreed on very little for many years, an apology. And I think you need to learn better strategies for dealing with challenge and dissent, even harsh challenge and dissent, if you are going to continue to publish here — unless, of course, you can convince the TI PTB to silence those who hurt your feelings.
Instead of talking sh!t about how well Trump invitees danced, we should be talking about this kind of crazy @ss sh!t
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/trump-once-said-women-should-be-punished-for-abortion-t
Now, as if that wasn’t irrationally misogynistic enough, the craziest part I find is “… or even discusses abortion with patients seeking educational materials or referrals”
So, you are even “legally” penalized for talking about life or death issues now?
At least Trump is squarely open about his crazy views. I wonder what his wife and daughters, even Palin, have to say about that, since we already know Ann Coulter views . . .
Why is it so hard to report about his stupidity? What do you need whistleblowers for in his case?
RCL
@Mattathias Schwarz
How unpleasant, and unfortunate, to see that sentiment from a writer at a site co-founded by Glenn Greenwald. There’s been no bigger champion than Greenwald of the benefits of, and right to, anonymous Internet participation. (Here’s just one of many possible examples of Greenwald’s discussions of how to be anonymous online. He’s also gone at length about the value of online anonymity for the individual to explore ideas.)
Indeed, the anonymous writers whom I have taken very seriously are legion, and include such individuals as “billmon” and “Digby” (when she was anonymous), and myriad of Greenwald’s long-time commenters, e.g., coram nobis, Pedinska, TallyHoGazeHound, Shenebraskan, Presumptuous Insect, Gator, and Joe/024601. That’s just off the top of my head — the list could go on and on.
Some of us have no reason to need anonymity to speak our minds; I’m one of these. No one is stalking me, I have no job at risk, clients to lose, or prospective employers who might find me oh-so radical.
Again, Mr. Schwartz, your sentiments are most unfortunate.
Schwartz isn’t even being honest when he says he’d take critics more seriously if they were to post under their real names. He would’ve been just as glib and dismissive to Sillyputty called him out on his hypocrisy and petulant partisanship.
And, if you don’t mind a bit of advice, I’d suggest that you try signing your opinions with your real name sometime. You might find that people take you more seriously if you do.
Not sure how old Mr. Schwartz is but perhaps he’s too young to remember the era of blogging. There were many people at that time who blogged anonymously, for good reasons of their own, who became quite well-known and who were taken seriously because they wrote well and expressed opinions and shared information that simply wasn’t available elsewhere in the mainstream media.
Names like Digby, Emptywheel and Atrios come to mind. Even Glenn Greenwald began his career as a “dirty blogger”, though he’s always used his legal name. Likewise, many people commenting here have been doing so using recognizable pseudonyms under the various venues where Greenwald wrote and elsewhere. And people learn our positions and take us more or less seriously based on the comments we make.
Perhaps one might be seduced into thinking that one’s name alone should render someone more credible, and that the more well-known one’s name, the more credibility should be attached, but I would declare that opinion naive at best. At worst, it suggests that the person using that frame thinks readers aren’t intelligent enough to evaluate ideas on their merits, independent of who is proposing them. I find that condescending to say the least.
And the proposal to take the conversation offline is suspect. Reminds me of when I complained about AT&T’s service wrt my aging mother on twitter. I was deluged in pleas to remove myself to the DM zone where we could hash out our differences without them having to own their faults in public. If one is going to put one’s work out for public consumption, whether under one’s given name or as “RainbowUnicornySexMachine”, or whatever, then one ought to either be willing to defend it, as Greenwald often does, or to grow a thicker skin, because the idea that the public can now be ignored with total impunity has been rearranged by the internet and that genie isn’t going back into the bottle anytime soon.
p.s. Most of us want The Intercept and its writers to succeed. That is especially true for the small contingent – of which you’ve run afoul – who followed Greenwald from his blog, to Salon, to The Guardian, to TI.
Some of us can be harsh and short-tempered, but we try to offer honest opinions. It’s not easy to be on the receiving end of criticism of any sort. It’s particularly hard to take it constructively, or to even sort out that which is so-offered versus the ordinary bullshit that always gets tossed in the mix.
But if you can do that, with some introspection and equanimity, then you might just be amazed at how you’ll grow and at how your readers will work on your behalf when you finally get around to taking on things more serious than who gets to attend what parties. ;-}
“Not sure how old Mr. Schwartz is but perhaps he’s too young to remember the era of blogging. There were many people at that time who blogged anonymously…”
In 2009, Mr. Schwartz wrote a fine human interest piece on Wired entitled “The Trials of Minerva.” His intro:
I encourage others to read this and other pieces he’s written in the past.
Many paint pictures which stand in stark contrast to how he treats humans today.
“Many paint pictures which stand in stark contrast to how he treats humans today.”
An internship at CFR can do just that.
Mr. Schwartz,
In good faith, I’ve given you an opportunity to explain your public position publicly regarding Wikileaks on several occasions, and met with the following:
Your proclamation that I’m confused, without explaining why you think that.
Your proclamation that “it’s Twitter! Deleting my comments is what makes it fun!”
Your proclamation that you stand by what you say; something that the deletion of your comment and refusal to explain your public comment in public contradicts.
Your patronizing attempt to get a reader to call you privately to address your public comment in order to explain yourself.
Your back-handed assertion that the comments of anonymous commenters have, because of that anonymity, somehow less validity than commenters who “sign their name.”
A bit more background on why I think your public position on Wikileaks deserves a better explanation:
I was a union representative at a public institution in the 1980’s – 90’s. We worked for the public, held public contracts, held public meetings, and did the publics business. But because we had mealy-mouthed administrators who tried to do the public’s business in private for reasons that they wished to keep private, my entire time spent there before being blacklisted was making sure these pubic officials did the publics business in public.
Because of my feelings about doing the publics business in public for reasons that the public can understand, I’ve been chased down in broad daylight on my off hours in my private vehicle by administrators driving in our public vehicles; been cornered in rooms and threatened in public buildings by public officials because I’ve used my voice in public; and finally lost my job because of that.
Now, regarding your public position on Wikileaks; you could have simply said “If you don’t mind, that’s my private opinion” and I’d have left it at that. But being a reporter with a Twitter bio that reads “reporter at The Intercept” justifiably leaves you open for scrutiny as well – be they anonymous critics or not.
You are an elitist. There’s simply no other explanation – without you explaining it, that is.
I’ll wait for that explanation, or as I suggested earlier, an article explaining what your public stance on Wikileaks is, right fucking here – in public.
I hope you brought along a crossword puzzle or two. You might be waiting a while.
You, Mattathias Schwartz are a disgrace to The Intercept — and a fucking snotty punk.
“Mattathias Schwartz [to] Sillyputty
January 24 2017, 12:06 p.m.
I hope you brought along a crossword puzzle or two. You might be waiting a while.”
I’m guessing ducking out to grab some Chinese, sans MSG, …
Mr. Schwartz seems to take the fortune The object of oratory is not truth but persuasion seriously with his writings lately.
What is the difference between liberty and freedom? Nothing; that’s right there a Owerlian trick.
Segregation by $ the real America apartheid, accept no substitute, don’t leave home without it. $ Trumps the Constitution???? True for the last few decades. We will see what the future brings. Many We the people of all political perspectives are watching. Enough to chart new directions if We join in common purpose and compromise for common good.
I would never go to an event like the Liberty Ball; they are decadent.
I would attend just for educational purposes and for a brief time to be in a “club” that would never have me for a member. Fred is here there goes the neighborhood. Sarcasm WARNING: Is it rich man’s economic rules “grab not get not?”
No surprise that rich assholes don’t offer any vegetarian/vegan meal options. ‘The more suffering the better! Here, Here!’
Donald Trump never learned how to fly a kite. His children disappointed.
RCL
“Trump’s inauguration, which reportedly raised $100 million from private donors, did little to change Washington’s traditional intermingling of money and power.”
Etch this in consciousness because it expresses the reality of our political monolith while implicitly exposing the mind-game diversion of ‘resistance’ to Trump; An intelligence agency contrivance intended to co-opt actual critical perspective of the unified neoliberalcon monolith solidly, if covertly, in charge.
Notice the immediate backpedal done by tricky Don in his repeated, committed pronouncements to prosecute the “CRIMINAL” Clintons.
Well, all it took was an initial CIA briefing to establish that Hillary’s chronic corruption of everything she touches, especially internationally, is indeed sanctioned operations and therefore untouchable.
Now, he lauds the Clintons as exemplary to public service and has them standing for applause.
Sickening displays of hypocrisy are what makes American politicians so lovable, after all. The rare exceptions to that modality are so quickly eliminated.
RIP, (Really, It’s Pretense), truth, justice and the ‘American way’. Back to bloody bidness as usual. Medals all around, now.
American politics is nothing but theater in a different guise.
And how is this different to any other presidential ball?
That’s kind of the point, isn’t it John? Trump the populist who duped people into thinking he could ever represent the issues of everyday Americans is just as greedy and obsessed with mega-money as every other politician.
“Donald Trump wipes his @ss (#trumpars3) with brand new one dollar bills. Melania finds it creepy but, choosing her battles, just takes it as just one of his quirks. She is starting a charitable fund”.
RCL
Schwartz and Mackey sometimes get side-tracked on their way to Salon and will, unbidden, occasionally favor us here at TI with some of their off-the-cuff establishment quasi-thoughts and partisan piffle. We should all be duly appreciative and it distresses me to see that some regulars here are less than grateful for their pronouncements.
The old hag has a charisma, how can one blame their addiction to getting some fucking from politicians.
Btw, Joshua88, if you’re reading this, there’s a book on Putin/Russian politics, that was adviced for all journalism students, ‘Tales of the Kremlin Digger’ by Yelena Tregubova. Worth reading, if you can get yourself a translated copy.
As far as I can tell, Tregubova’s books have only been translated into German and Italian. No English.
An excellent post. Might I venture to speculate that the true cognoscenti of TI click on their missives only to access the comments, in which any actual content resides?
The article just blew me away. Showing the invites–a stroke of genius. But in your explorations of various social registries, I would like put in a request. You know that party that Hillary arranged as a thank you for her wealthiest donors at the Plaza Hotel? I would appreciate a listing of all the rich people who attended that affair. And second, is it true that the staff the the Plaza Hotel is not unionized? The list of the rich donors would help me understand if the democrats have the ability to be an effective opposition party to Trump–or just another party full of corporate lackies like Booker. It could help understand on which issues the democrats will cave on ahead of time. (Also what was on the menu.)
Now, now. One must realize that some corporatist whores and billionaires are good and others are bad. It all depends on whether there is a D or an R emblazoned on the jersey.
The final act for my civil disobedience in politely questioning Mr. Schwartz both here and on Twitter? I’ve been blocked by him.
That’s fine (more than a bit childish, though.)
Yet another hypocritical Tweet I found on his time-line (since Mr. Schwartz hasn’t really figured out how publicly expressing a position works, here or on Twitter) – this one excoriating Hillary for “scrolling though” when she should “show up” (now where have I heard that?)
To which the unprincipled Mr. Schwartz replied:
I imagine some future Tweet just might catch up with Mr. Schwartz:
“Reporting at The Intercept is the next best thing to actually showing up.”
Some actually think this is becoming too fashionable here for too many, of late.
He blocked you on Twitter? For your very polite challenge? My goodness, this must be what the alt-right is talking about when they refer to “sensitive snowflakes needing safe spaces.”
If you upset him that badly, rr and I may have to go into hiding to escape the CFR death squad. ;^)
“I’ve been blocked by him.
That’s fine (more than a bit childish, though.)”
And I didn’t bother reading his latest piece. It’s like a Bob piece; read the headline and head to comments.
Little Matty acts as if he is still a child. His internship at CFR tells us more than enough.
They are there to further the agenda of a nation other than America. That is what Kissinger does and little Matty is practicing the mechanics of such propaganda, apparently.
I pretty much got the gist of the piece from the headline alone. That a financial ‘caste’ system exists in their world is nothing new. It exists in the Dems world as well. None of this is surprising.
This article is just petty and not why I read TI (true,I didn’t read the whole thing; I doubt it turned meaningful some paragraphs down.) I hope TI is not sinking low for the sake of
more eyes.
What’s wrong with getting a peek of something you wouldn’t normally be privy ?
Yeah ,, getting a peek .
Lisa ,,, TI ,,since the election has sunk faster and lower than landfill dump !
I’m on the internet news articles way too much. I get suspicious about my posts that garner too many (way above average) negative comments (name calling).
My posts about Trump’s taxes (over many different venues) is eye raising.
Me thinks this an area for the Intercept to investigate.
WHY ?
Trump promised to release his tax returns as soon as the usual IRS audit was complete. Is it Complete? I don’t have anyway to know.
His campaign is saying, via news articles, that he won’t release his returns?
Is that true? I don’t have any way other than my mind to differentiate accurate reports from “Fake News”.
Perhaps, The Intercept or wikileaks, could enlighten us?
So you want to see Trump’s tax returns because he made you a promise ?
Is that right ?
Shhh! Quiet! Mr. Schwartz is typing up an article that explains all this.
Or deleting one, as the case may be.
His online offer to discuss the article and your response to it off the record should cause the muckraker his job . If it doesn’t it’s just another indication of how trashy TI has become !!
cause
s/b
cost
The difference if hillary had won is that there would be one ball, and no little people could attend. Honestly, the more we put Trump under a microscope the bigger the molehills. Twaddling tempest in a teacup. Out.
Are you referring to the Schwartz- Sillyputty tea time twaddle ?
BTW Stump , I stayed away from this “election” . I had decided two things :
1—–Voting in an election between the Lesser of Two Evils was going to result in an Evil outcome .
2—–Voting in AMERICA perpetuates the illusion that there is some sort of democratic process going on .
That said ,, I have no dog in the fight ,,,,,,, so to speak .
But this Establishment MEDIA BLITZ has me thinking that maybe , just maybe , the STATUS QUO has been ruptured !!
You clearly have a dog here….
Just trying to balance the convo, too much clever play with narrow camera angles, imo. As for the rupture, yeah, I think you’re right to think so… China woke.
@ Mr. Schwartz,
Thanks for the reply downthread. I did wait awhile, though, to make sure it, or this entire article, hadn’t been deleted before I replied.
I’m going to retrace some steps here so that (unlike your deleted Twitter reply to me or your non-reply here) I have a bit more context.
When I first began reading you at The Intercept (I’ve not read you elsewhere, uninformed soul that I am) I offered the following on one of your articles:
I reread that article and stand by what I wrote.
Now when I commented on the Tweet you deleted, you claimed I was confused; not unlikely, given the truncated nature of Twitter comments. However, when I asked for clarification, you mocked my asking, deleted the original Tweet and my questioning of your comment, only to re-comment the exact same thing on your timeline a bit later:
Your comment to Wikileaks:
So, my original questions remains: Why do you think Wikileaks are “hardcore Trumpists” and how do you arrive at this conclusion?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Postscript – Having since perused more of your writing at The New York Times and The New Yorker, I see that you can write well (this is not a discussion of those articles merits) but you have taken a decidedly sharp turn in the other direction here of late.
In short, you’re phoning shit in here and it shows. Pick it up – or pack it up.
You two will be late for tea if you continue to insist on twaddling .
Crumpets or Biscuits ?
Fuck off.
Apparently the “F” word is being held in moderation. You get the drift.
Oh , my dear ,,, you got all jacked up over tea time ?
Sorry .
Why don’t you give me a call to discuss? 267-288-7444.
Thanks for the offer, but phoning it in to me, alone, isn’t really the solution I’d like to see.
You are a writer – so write it out – or at the very least reference articles that support a position you are willing to stand by.
I’d like to see it (and perhaps others here would, too)… but it needs to be on the record.
“Why don’t you give me a call to discuss? 267-xxx-7444.”
As a self-described journalist, why would Mr Schwartz not put it in comments?
Apparently Mr Schwartz is unable to defend his work in writing …
Too busy writing, actually. The correct number is 267-288-7444. And, if you don’t mind a bit of advice, I’d suggest that you try signing your opinions with your real name sometime. You might find that people take you more seriously if you do.
“I’d suggest that you try signing your opinions with your real name sometime. ”
lol!
A rose by any other name smells as sweet.
nuf said has been on Glenn’s comments for eleven years. I’m as genuine in my commentary as any identifiable commenter.
You claim you are too busy writing, to write a comment, but you do have time to chat …
that is silly. Speak through the keyboard if you have the wit.
Here I’ll save you the trouble of waiting for Mr. Schwartz to answer your question with proof other than the fact Wikileaks had the temerity to release true documents about the Queen and not simultaneously release true documents about the King. That’s “partisan” and “unfair” to someone like Mattathias.
But the reason he’s been likely phoning it in is because he’s too busy to do real journalism and attend all the CFR cocktail weenie mixers and listen to the deep deep thoughts of hedge fund managers, Robert Rubin or the CEO of Kissinger Associates and/or whichever CFR “fellow” or other notable neoliberal guest speakers they line up to regale everyone with their deep deep “non-partisan” thoughts.
At the very least. all of this brings Mr. Schwartz’s original claim into hypocritical perspective:
Who in this world is an “arbiter of honest dealings”?
If not a reporter reporting on things, the arguing of which is verifiable and that they’re willing to really “stand behind” in public – then who?
(Then there’s the bizarre, if seemingly sincere, but likely patronizing offer from a reporter wanting to speak to a reader, someone that questions their public position on an important topic, off the record?)
Addendum – from the “not making this up” department:
My comment (and unknown to me at that time) about Mr. Schwartz “phoning it in”?
His Twitter bio shows of a picture of him literally doing just that.
_________________________________________________________________________
Much of Mr. Schwartzs’ writing elsewhere appears to be very good – I just would like to see him bring that here.
“(Then there’s the bizarre, if seemingly sincere, but likely patronizing offer from a reporter wanting to speak to a reader, someone that questions their public position on an important topic, off the record?)”
Schwartz is an arrogant, exceptional, asshole writing to further an agenda that many here disagree with.
His indignant response when queried about his Kissinger-worship speaks loudly.
Ouch!
Don’t know about how important a guest list is but the online offer to discuss things off the record should cost the muckraker his job !!!
We disagree often, but. . . although I, personally, would have fired him sometime ago, this move is so creepy that surely the TI editors must be, at least, wondering.
So, the really rich get “access” and the chumps get what the chumps have always gotten. Really! I did not know that it might go down like that. I wonder what that simp Perry is thinkin’ while he’s eye-ballin’ the hulking Jenner?
It will be interesting to the effect of this JERRY SPRINGER journalism .
Will people be angrier at people on the “other” side ,,,
or
Will the people unite in anger against this 24/7-MSM-MEDIA-SHIT-BLITZ ?
Tune in next week when Donald throws another raw piece of meat to the American Dogs !!
And I do apologize to the Canines for the connection .
Did the billionaires get better whoopee cushions than the millionaires ?
I can’t believe how quickly TI has sunk to the level of supermarket checkout line Gossip News Rags .
And I have stopped reading TI’s articles . What is of interest to me is the response of people that do .
i appreciate the intercept for some of their exposes but this article is a meaningless piece of crap, kinda sounds like mattathias is pushing a butthurt victim trump-hate narrative that some folks had to sit in nose bleed, BFD dood, meanwhile, Obama’s droning campaign continues under the new administration.
Hey Drone Bombing is fun . Just ask the video nerds at Foggy Bottom . It’s SMART-WACK-A-MOLEY !!!
I appreciate The Intercept for holding Trump’s feet to the fire, but I don’t think what donor sat where or got to dance at what ball is all that important.
I would like to know about Trump’s taxes. He repeatedly said he was under his usual IRS tax audit, and would release those returns when the audit was finished. Is it finished?
The only way you’re gonna see those taxes is when a good patriotic American at the IRS hands them over to Assange and Wikileaks. Here’s hoping.
If that is the case, then I am with you.
You do know what taxes are ,,RIGHT ?
You do know that everyone working for the IRS gets paid from the taxes they collect ,,RIGHT ?
Is your personal sense of GOOD enough to go jobless in America for as long as the Government saw fit ?
Trump will never again forget the Forgotten Billionaire Man or Women…
I think Trump may deserve to be commended for bringing so many billionaires and oligarchs together in such close quarters. Sooner or later, whether it’s the North Koreans, ISIS, or even cranky Americans … someone might do something we can all feel good about.
Was George Soros there?
Mr. Schwartz,
Can you please pen an article here outlining your stance on the comparison between Trump’s broken promise to release his tax returns and Assange’s promise to agree to US extradition if Obama granted Manning clemency?
After all, in a Tweet you hurriedly deleted within minutes after its creation yesterday, you claimed that Wikileaks, being the “arbiter of honest dealings” should somehow be as accountable to Americans as Trump is, and I’d sure like to hear more as to why you think these two things are even remotely the same.
Few of the pro-Assange persuasion are gullible enough to believe in a Manning clemency until we SEE it. We have no real idea whether Trump can find a way to declare damnatio memoriae even on Obama’s clemencies, and even if the clemency goes through, there is no way to know whether Manning will be rearrested in the jailhouse vestibule and charged with some other thing. It’s not like it’s hard for prosecutors to come up with more charges if they feel like it.
Obama did not pardon Chelsea , he commuted her sentence .
He would not dare go up against the CIA and forgive Chelsea for ratting them out .
People in this country now discuss the CIA as though it is just another agency of the US Government . That’s indicative of how low the American people have sunk !!
Oh, please. Deleting tweets is half the fun of tweeting them! But I do stand by what I wrote. Unless I’m mistaken, Assange did say that he would turn himself in should Manning’s sentence be commuted.
“But I do stand by what I deleted.”
Fixed it for you.
Lol! It’s not a tough one. “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”
A libation of your choice to you, sir. ;-)
Part of the deal would be Assange getting a “fair trial”.
Apparently no one in a position of authority could guarantee that.
could
s/b
would
For a change, I’m not going to read what others have posted before commenting, myself.
This pathetic, partisan, trivial sniping would embarrass any journalist who isn’t a shill for one or another Establishment faction. You, Mattathias, are a confirmed and convicted shill for the neoliberal interventionists, banksters, globalist bloodsuckers and all-around cretins at the Council on Foreign Relations.
You and Bob Mackey must be really proud of yourselves, taking on the really big issues facing us as the new administration takes over — crowd counting and close inspection of guest lists.
Given that Trump has, today, blown away the TPP, a special favorite of the CFR, it is amazing that you busy yourself with this petty nonsense.
Herbert Hoover would be ashamed of you.
So what do YOU do to combat Deep-State corruption? Since you fashion yourself an intellectual type of the “third party” and feel like taking swipes at my call to reflection below.
Other than snarky comments, what do you DO?
It’s really none of your business what I do. You haven’t earned the right to ask that question.
You’re a tool of the establishment and the only interest I have in you is pointing that out.
More insults. I’m sorry you feel so insecure.
Hopefully someday you can find some peace and joy. Good luck.
Not to worry:
Anti-Trump Marches And Rallies Planned For April 15
And of course this won’t be vague and meaningless milling about, like last time. Guess what this one will be about?
Is it:
1) Ending Obama’s wars?
2) Insisting on a national $15 minimum wage?
3) Demanding Single Payer Health Care?
4) Demanding the $673 billion defense budget be at least halved?
5) Calling for a cessation of unconstitutional surveillance?
6) Calling for massive investment in alternative energy production?
Or
7) Demanding that Trump release his tax returns?
If you guessed ‘7,’ give yourself a pat on the back.
I still say the priorities of all this ‘protesting’ (and the lack of any threat of civil disobedience) are pathetic, partisan and pretentious.
But, as I say, if you just hate Republicans (and Trump particularly) and don’t care to do anything about the Deep State’s bipartisan corruption endemic to government, then “not to worry, this march is for you.”
Maisie, I think you’d like this lady. She’s passionate and tells it like it is, a true progressive. Don’t know if you’re familiar with her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrnACRaiuOU
She’s denouncing the hypocrite, Michael Moore and corporate feminists. And globalist donors who are neutering the left and herding them into the pro-oligarchy pro-military-industrial Dem Party.
I enjoyed that very much, thanks. Very cathartic and to the point.
I like her too!
Her passion is well founded but seems to be directed no where. I’m sure playing armchair intellectual while complaining on a screen is very cathartic, but what does it do to help the cause?
This is the “awareness” trap people fall into. People fall into a false sense of security that they’re making others aware as if that alters behavior. It doesn’t. Each and every one of us is responsible for our own behavior. Me telling you this likely won’t change your behavior. In fact, evidence shows people double down in their views and behaviors when they’re challenged.
This is why all this blame-game crap gets us no where, and sitting in an ivory tower, or cloistered dungeon take your pick, is akin to protesting for some established elite group on the streets.
Dialogue, preaching, pontificating, whatever you want to call it, will get us nowhere if people don’t listen. And people need to stop arguing about the past. The past is just that, the past. If we don’t look at ourselves right now and look forward then we will always be stuck in the past. Let go of the past and move forward.
If that simple first step doesn’t happen then nothing will change until it hits rock bottom.
Thanks for that link–I loved it!
Thanks. Most righteous. Her point that the march was a democratic party herding event and that the speaker’s list didn’t include such anti-Trump voices as Chris Hedges. The list of original speakers did not match those published originally online. Kamala Harris spoke but was not listed. It hit me after Sane Progressive’s remarks that the Woman’s March was much like a Hilary Clinton campaign event. Plenty of celebrities. No focus on policy other than slogans–rather as SP pointed out, just hate toward a politician and not underlying systems of corruption and abuse. (Maybe why nobody from Code Pink also not invited to speak–the democrats are pro-war.)
It is probably me, but a lot of speakers said and did some serious spiteful shit against Bernie Sanders. Standing next to Kamala Harris was DWS (WTF). Gloria Steinem smeared young women for supporting Sanders. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards gave an extremely uncharacteristic a-historical endorsement of Clinton. American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President, Randi Weingarten basically lied about how her organization came to endorse Clinton during the primaries (not one union member could be found who voted for supporting Clinton). One poster on another forum said there were a lot of signs channeling DNC talking points about Trump and Putin. And Sane Progressive basically claimed that the march was organized by Soros money/organizations who was one of the the biggest contributors to Hillary’s primary and general campaign.
I like the message, but way too overwrought for me. I do find Jimmy Dore to deliver a similar message while doing so with a much more pleasant delivery. You might give him a try: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFcX0mZc1ao
Wow. She’s a keeper. That sister gets it…
What do you do to combat the Deep-state and its corruption? Other than childish demagoguery masquerading as biting satire in comments sections.
There are lots of commenter like you. The supposed “third party” types. A lot of you guys just feed some narrative focused on nihilism and complain about others fighting for their causes. Take a look in the mirror and see if you can direct some of that energy to something constructive. You are no different than those protestors you’re trying to mock.
Oh, look. Another outburst from a cheerleader for one of the intramural squads.
What do I do? Well for one thing I focus on the oligarchy that is actually responsible for the corruption, corporatism, militarism, imperialism and inequality of the current paradigm, rather than getting swept up in ineffective ‘protests’ that serve the establishment’s philosophy of divide-and-rule.
That you would take such a tone with me to my mind only confirms that I’ve exposed a hypocrisy within you that you’d prefer not to face.
Thanks for the suggestion to look in the mirror and do something constructive, though. My hair needed a good brushing, and now I look super-cute again.
Glad to hear you feel good about how you look and your attention to the oligarchy.
Enjoy your day.
You too!
I’m tired of the snarkiness and know that it’s divisive, and in being so, it drains away creative energy. You view your heroic role in “exposing” the hypocrisy in the establishment – it’s a bit of old dance tune that’s been in the air waves for as long as I’ve voted – 50+ years. My point is this. What creative idea do you have – that’s practical and do’able – that will serve toward cleaning out/up one of the aspects you describe of the current paradigm? I sense that you never experienced how – in seeing 2, 000 others on the street marching for what matters to you – the sight charges and affirms one in becoming even more invested in the cause. I gather if “a” protest” produces ‘AN” identifiable outcome then you deem it “effective.” Furthermore, you make an assumption that the protesters are but “swept up” in service of the establishment’s divide and conquer strategy. What? So, protesters are but blind ignoramuses unconsciously pushed along sheeplike in service of the “establishment”? Really?!
‘Blind ignoramuses’ seems a little strong, but yes the great majority of marchers were just pointlessly milling about and not demanding anything concrete nor threatening civil disobedience – which I find useless, and typical indeed of being swept up in something ultimately without potency – just as the establishment wishes. I think the protests simply entrenched the wedge-issue divisions between liberals and conservatives which do nothing to actually challenge the Deep State or bipartisan oligarchical establishment responsible for funneling money, opportunity and resources away from those who need it most in the USA.
And my ‘creative ideas’ would certainly include protesting for 1 thru 6 of my list above, and I would join and approve any march (threatening civil disobedience) that demanded those results.
And I don’t see my role as heroic, I’m simply pointing out what I think.
It’s an old story, not a tune (although songs have often told the story) and it’s an obviously true story, for those who have paid attention and not been fooled by the Kabuki plays staged by the One Party with two right wings.
And, yes, unfocused, vague protests of the sort we’ve just seen are, indeed, not only useless in achieving real goals, they are extremely useful to the various factions of the Owners, who use them in a divide-and-conquer strategy that has been successful for. . . decades? centuries?. . . a very, very long damned time.
Emphasis mine.
We live in an oligarchy. Both wings of America’s One Party serve the oligarchs. They pay no attention to protests that don’t directly threaten their wealth and power, except, when possible, to co-opt them for their own ends.
Actually, marching to demand Herr Drumpf’s tax returns is probably. . . for Herr Drumpf and his cronies more than anyone else. This silly, pointless and trivial partisanship plays right into their hands and it’s raw meat for his torch-and-pitchfork supporters.
It’s not only useless, it’s an “own goal.”
I skimmed the tweets in that Huffpo article just barely. I’d seen some of them before seeing this article, and I no reason to make any real or serious connection of any of it to the organizers the previous march that you so enjoyed dissing. There’s really noting in that article that warrants your final pithy declaration of: “you guessed ‘7,’ give yourself a pat on the back.” In fact there is nothing in that article that makes anything about any of that anything but rumor based on random tweeters. The article ends with this more than a disclaimer for everything that came before: “It’s not clear if anyone has begun the process of securing permits or if the organizers of the Women’s March will endorse the planned Tax Day events.”
What you’re doing with that comment post is the level of what MSM did for so long to Occupy: making up false narratives and, same as you, thinking they are being clever about it. I have no problem with how you look to see priorities addressed that really matter, and I’m in agreement with much of how you go about that. But you’re in real hairball territory with your approach to the women’s march in general and whatever it is you are trying to connect to it.
Strongly disagree, Kitt. It seems transparently obvious to me that the women’s march was a perfect example of the sort of vague, unfocused, feel-good demonstration that has been proven, for decades, to achieve no goals and to make no difference in policy.
What’s more, to the extent that various participants did have particular concerns, they were almost all matters of identity politics that have diverted Americans from the core issues of class and economic structure that must be addressed if our society and civilization are to have any hope of achieving sustainability, much less fairness, equality and social justice — as usual.
As long as progressive citizens are focused on these fragmented, narrow issues, the Owners will use them to divide and conquer — again, as usual — and continue to laugh all the way to the bank, and to the next military misadventure to conquer new markets or cripple old competitors.
It’s just a distraction.
That march proposal certainly seems perfectly typical of what the marchers would protest – something that doesn’t challenge the real oligarchy at all. And I’ll mock such things if I damn well please – even if they’re just suggestions at this juncture. Perhaps people mocking this nonsense will make them re-think their priorities.
I’m certain some few were protesting everywhere with earnest and unpretentious reasons, but it’s my impression they were drowned about by an unfocused, pretentious and impotent partisan hate. Check out this woman’s take on the Washington march. As a woman of color who expected some substantial solidarity and diversity, she was more than a little offended by what she saw:
An Unpopular Opinion About The Women’s March On Washington
And although you may be impressed by what you think of my views, rest assured I’m not so profoundly enamored, and I stand by what I’ve said.
That’s funny that you think people going to the trouble to bring people together, and then millions of people coming together to make statements of their own in various ways, and however they see fit, is reason for ridicule, but yet you like to think that your squeaking from the sidelines might cause them to scamper off and “rethink their priorities” based on your empty rants of superiority.
I didn’t say my words particularly would influence anyone, I simply said “Perhaps people mocking this nonsense will make them re-think their priorities,” as I’m far from convinced many people at all read these comment sections (but if my input inspires anyone to take heed or to do a far better job of mockery I’ll certainly be gratified!) I’m not alone in my scorn for this establishment-serving impotence, and I was speaking generally about the reason for my ridicule.
And again, I stand by what I said, despite your huffy tone. This reading miscomprehension you exhibit here is not typical of you, but your lame attempt at self-assertion is noted..
And then a suggest or recommend that you read the article by Natasha written just after the one from her I linked below or above this comment.
Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer Got Punched–You Can Thank the Black bloc
Well. whenever I feel an urge to impress those who approve of violence (as you evidently do) as well as impotent tribal demonstrations, I’ll be sure to look you up, Kitt.
But don’t hold your breath.
I didn’t ask you to look me up, and I never gave any indication that I’d be holding my breath, or any other silly pissing insult you might have considered, while I’m not waiting for you.
“impress those who approve of violence”
Pearl clutching for the windows! Save the widows!
What windows? What widows? I don’t speak ‘rambling nonsense,’ so I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. But it still sounds huffy – and now that I know you advocate violence, perhaps you’re trying to graduate into an all-out blithering idiot. If so, it’s time for you to lavish your attention elsewhere than on me.
Also, if you’re serious about putting some skin in the game, which I have seen nothing yet to convince me that you are, see if Natasha Lennard’s thoughts on protesting and protest actions appeal to you. Personally, I’ve been a very big fan of Natasha for the past several years. I wouldn’t know if you’ve even heard of her but, if not, now you have.
Anti-Fascists Will Fight Trump’s Fascism in the Streets
“To call Trumpism fascist is to suggest that it demands from us a unique response. We can deploy the “fascism” moniker to Trump’s ascendance by recognizing features like selective populism, nationalism, racism, traditionalism, the deployment of Newspeak and disregard for reasoned debate. The reason we should use the term is because, taken together, these aspects of Trumpism are not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason. It is constitutive of its fascism that it demands a different sort of opposition.
“Liberals cling to institutions: They begged to no avail for faithless electors, they see “evisceration” in a friendly late-night talk-show debate, they put faith in investigations and justice with regards to Russian interference and business conflicts of interest. They grasp at hypotheticals about who could have won, were things not as they in fact are. For political subjects so tied to the mythos of Reason, it is liberals who now seem deranged. Meanwhile, it is the radical left—so often tarred as irrational—who are calling upon both US and European histories of anti-fascist action to offer practical and serious responses in this political moment. For all the ink spilled about rising fascism, too little has been said about anti-fascism.
“Anti-fascist, or antifa, doesn’t only delineate that which opposes fascism. It is a set of tactics and practices that have developed since the early 20th century (and the rise of fascism in Italy) as a confrontational response to fascist groups, rooted in militant left-wing and anarchist politics. As organizers from anti-fascist research and news site Antifa NYC told The Nation: “Antifa combines radical left-wing and anarchist politics, revulsion at racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-Semites, and Islamophobes, with the international anti-fascist culture of taking the streets and physically confronting the brownshirts of white supremacy, whoever they may be.” As with fascisms, not all anti-fascisms are the same, but the essential feature is that anti-fascism does not tolerate fascism; it would give it no platform for debate.”
…
“The need for this sort of community and street resistance will not be contingent on Trump carrying out repressive policies—the emboldening of far right racists is a fait accompli. At the end of November, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report documenting nearly 900 separate incidents of bias and violence against immigrants, Latinos, African Americans, women, LGBT people, Muslims and Jews in the ten days that followed Trump’s win.
“Physical confrontation is just a small aspect of antifa direct action, but the history of anti-fascist, anti-racist action is not one of so-called allies standing in polite disapproval or donning safety pins. “Fascism is imbued with violence and secures itself politically through the use or threat of it, so it is inevitable that anti-fascists have to countenance some involvement in violence themselves,” wrote M.Testa, author of Militant Anti-Fascism: A Hundred Years of Resistance.” — Natasha Lennard
Jesus Christ, I hadn’t noticed this post of yours.
Yeah… No, that’s wrong. Civil disobedience ought not to be violent.
Evidently you and I have successfully disappointed each other! You think I’m an “empty ranter” and I think you’re a stupid fucking thug.
ought not to be, yes, but the cops often start it by beating people, or shooting them down. what then? it’s nowhere near what happened in the 60’s, yet; but we have a much more powerful and thin skinned state now.
What Kitt is promoting in the “punching” article and the quote I emphasized is pro-active violence. I can with some hesitancy see an argument for self-defense, but this is not what is being approved here.
He’s quoting Natasha Lennard, who acts pretty irresponsibly as a journalist. What to say, she is an ass. I don’t think he’s a thug though. Just too naive to realize that what all these youth groups and ‘firms’ members do is snitching to the police on each other; their leaders are professional provocateurs on a gov payroll.
Ehh, gotta re-read Dostoevsky’s ‘Demons’.
Personally, I have no problem with engaging in violence in self-defense or the defense of others under attack.
However, Maisie rather understates the case when she refers to “approval” for “pro-active violence.” What actually happened is that a chickenshit asshole ran up and sucker-punched a (thoroughly-disgusting and -despicable) individual who was being interviewed and had no chance to either defend himself or evade the assault.
And this is the lede from the Lennard piece to which Kitt linked:
Taking giddy delight in cowardly assault and battery — of anyone — is not only morally indefensible, it is also, in this case, along with the assault itself, a goad to the associates of that neo-Nazi, who are eager for excuses to behave the same way toward those they think deserve to be attacked.
Both wrong and dumb.
@Maisie–original thread started. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I totally flunked your quiz. Hellya I thought–single payer. I read the article before you gave the answer. And it hit me. The questions you listed are all positions Clinton was against. But dang the power and influence of Hillary Clinton that even after she was defeated and exiled to sightings more rare than Big Foot, the democratic party is afraid to be in favor of single payer, $15/min. wage, etc.
I was a little disappointed when the address on my tickets to the inaugural ball turned out to be an abandoned warehouse. However, Rosie O’Donnell turned out to be an excellent emcee and I had a nice chat with Chris Christie, who apparently is still waiting for his cabinet appointment as Secretary for Bridge Traffic Control. At the end of the evening, I had to admit that given my level of support for Mr. Trump, I couldn’t really complain, although the lack of heat and electricity at the venue meant I left a little earlier than planned.
Thanks again for another CFR inspired riveting investigation journalism. The kind we’ve all come to expect from Mr. Schwartz here at The Intercept.
In other breaking news “Some Dogs Don’t Like The Mail Carrier” & “Rich Donald Trump Donors, Lobbyists and Sycophants Don’t Like To HobNob With Hoi Polloi”.