Press "Enter" to skip to content

LNC Investigates Duque

The LNC ExComm met this evening. Everyone other than Mr. Hyman was present. There were an extremely large number of other attendees, close to two dozen.

Mr. Nekhaila moved to take the Executive Committee into executive session, with the LNC’s attorney invited to attend as a participant. Furthermore, all LNC members were invited to attend, except Regional Representative Miguel Duque was to be excluded. (I later heard the LNC’s parliamentarian confirm that was allowable.) The topics of discussion in the executive session were staff and legal matters, and Ms. Harlos’s motion:

The appointment of an investigatory committee regarding preferral of charges for allegations of violations of confidentiality by an LNC member to meet immediately prior to the Saturday portion of the LNC Meeting in DC and report back to the LNC as the first item of business.

Mr. Duque attempted to raise as a point of order that Ms. McArdle is implicated in whatever it is, and therefore should not chair the Executive Committee meeting. Ms. Harlos raised a consequent point of order, namely that only ExComm members were entitled to raise points of order during ExComm meetings. The Chair sustained Ms. Harlos’s objection.

With unanimous consent, they then went into Executive Session. I then asked Mr. Duque if he had been told that he would be excluded. He indicated that he preferred not to answer questions about the exclusion at this time.

On emerging from Executive Session, they passed two motions with a vote of 6-0, the Chair not voting. The motions were

Motion One was to form an investigatory committee to consider preferring charges against Regional Representative Miguel Duque for breach of confidentiality, to meet at the in-person LNC meeting this weekend, before the LNC meeting, and bring motions as the first order of business at the meeting.

Motion Two was to restore Mr. Duque’s access to the LNC email list.

[Edit: As there has been some confusion, the above are descriptions of the substance of the two motions, not the exact texts. I am looking for a copyable version of the text. The Committee is Mr. Watkins and the Regional Directors other than Mr. Duque.]


Questions were rapidly raised as to what the breach of confidentiality had been, when Mr. Duque had been blocked from ‘the LNC email list’, and which email list was meant.

Regional Representative Marcos Tuniewicz published a partial explanation:

Mr. Duque sent the LNC individually a link to several files. He marked the subject line confidential, legal, staff, investigation, etc. The files included a summary document created by him, two other files containing screenshots of Signal chats primarily involving LNC members, and a lengthy archive of discord server messages between some but not all LNC members to which senior mises pac/caucus officials had access….. I think the activity was taking place on their discord server. He unfortunately also included a PDF file of a confidential document that the chair had sent to the full LNC some time ago. The circulation of that one individual document, outside of the LNC, is certainly censure worthy. Apparently the executive committee last night authorized the creation of an investigatory committee which will bring its conclusions to the full LNC on Saturday. I think it’s reasonable to assume some sort of action is contemplated towards Mr Duque beyond center [censure?] since we could do that without such a committee being established.


We are not clear how sending LNC members a document that had previously been sent to the entire committee could be a breach of confidentiality.

Tuniewicz also communicated on the LNC Yahoo group with the National Chair, writing:

Madam Chair,

Can you please confirm whether or not the materials released by Mr Duque have been made publicly available, whether on Facebook, other social media or websites? I don’t need to have a link to it or anything I just need to know whether or not it has been made public.

A comment of yours to him suggested it had been, so I just wanted to confirm one way or the other.

Many thanks,
Mark Tuniewicz


Donavan Pantke responded: Mr. Tuniewicz, Let’s allow the investigative committee do the fact finding, we can summarize it.


Tuniewicz responded:


I’m sorry. I can’t wait for the committee’s report.

I have plenty of people asking me questions about the information that Mr Duque has released. Whether or not that information has been made public has a direct bearing on what I can talk about, and what I can’t.

Since I’ve seen one email from the chair strongly suggesting it was made public I’m going to go with that, unless she otherwise corrects me at this time. That’s why I asked.

Mark Tuniewicz


The above is a start. It may not be entirely up to date.


  1. Starchild Starchild August 20, 2023

    I believe one of the documents or text message screenshots shared by Miguel Duque (I cannot now recall which one, and don’t feel like poring over them again right now) included a statement from someone stating her(?) knowledge that at least five members of the Libertarian National Committee had disclosed confidential information.

    Personally I believe that virtually all LNC matters and documents should be made public, including Angela’s memo (whose contents don’t appear to meet the threshold mandated by the party bylaws for discussion during a secret meeting).

    But if members of the LNC or its Executive Committee are seeking to punish Miguel for violating confidentiality, fairness dictates that they cannot ignore known breaches of same by other members of the committee.

  2. George Phillies George Phillies Post author | August 16, 2023

    Third Party Watch has received information indication that at least some members of the LNC or Executive Committee believe that by following the investigative committee path they can by invoking Roberts’ impose penalties more severe than those permitted by the bylaws.

    We are unable to name penalties that fit the ‘more severe’ description other than ‘expulsion from the LNC’ or ‘expulsion from the National Party’.

Comments are closed.