Opinion by Jake Porter
Bombshell: Discussions were coordinated with Trump campaign as early as November 2023, leading to major questions.
“Someone adjacent to the campaign reached out to me six months ahead of time, just looking to sort of test the waters, see what my appetite might be to work together on a couple of things.” – Angela McArdle
Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Angela McArdle has been coordinating with Donald Trump since at least last November, unbeknownst to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) or the party delegates who re-elected her in May.
In July 2024, the Libertarian National Committee was finally made aware of a meeting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort when LNC Representative Jonathan McGee forwarded an e-mail to the LNC business list from LP Member Mike Shanner that said in part:
She found a way to meet with Donald Trump, she spent her own money to fly to Mar-a-Lago and somehow convinced Donald Trump to speak at our convention. (Emphasis added)
Angela McArdle’s domestic partner, Austin Padgett, who was hired by McArdle on behalf of the Libertarian Party around the same time, recently posted about a meeting with Donald Trump that states in part:
I spoke with President Trump over a long dinner about this opportunity and reminded him Javier Milei was the only person Tucker Carlson interviewed who got more views than Trump.
I told DonaldTrump last November…..
You would think someone would post about their meeting with a former President and likely Presidential nominee right after it happened. Why would someone wait 10 months?
Last month, McArdle gave an interview to the Washington Examiner in which she stated “Someone adjacent to the campaign reached out to me six months ahead of time, just looking to sort of test the waters, see what my appetite might be to work together on a couple of things….” (Emphasis added). This would seem to confirm Padgett’s statement that the Mar-A-Lago meeting took place in November 2023 and also Shanner’s statement that at the Mar-a-Lago meeting Trump agreed to speak at the national convention.
On April 26, 2024, Angela Tweeted stating she sent out invitations to Donald Trump (& President Joe Biden) to speak at the Libertarian National Convention in May 2024. The following month, she Tweeted that Trump asked to speak at the convention. Regardless of which version is correct, why would it have been necessary to extend an invitation or for Trump to ask to speak at the convention given that Trump had already agreed to speak in his meeting with McArdle at Mar-a-Lago as stated by Mike Shanner in the e-mail cited above?
We know that Libertarian National Committee Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos says she asked who paid for the trip to Mar-a-Lago and was told by McArdle “Not the party.”
So who actually paid for this trip? Who was the Trump operative that reached out and did they reach out to any of the Libertarian Presidential candidates to try and strike a deal? Why hasn’t Angela disclosed it to the board and party members? Who else was there? What was agreed to by both parties? Is this why they are trying to remove Secretary Harlos this weekend or trying to end public meetings?
Why isn’t the Libertarian National Committee asking to see the terms of Angela’s agreement with Donald Trump and why hasn’t Angela disclosed it?
This stuff McArdle has done is overtly corrupt. I myself tried to advance a resolution at the convention removing Trump and RFK, had 43 cosponsoring delegates, and the resolution was not heard, nor was the appeal of the corrupt rogue republican chair at the convention. It’s beyond civil actions at this point. It’s worthy of US Attorney involvement. Donald Trump and RFK purchased a political party in contravention of its bylaws and then usurped it, through its rogue republican chair, Angela McArdle, to engage in WIRE FRAUD, to fool its donors that its funds would go ONLY to advance LP candidates – and instead its resources advanced Trump and RFK…
Dear editor, I see your transparent transparency caucus brooks no dissent or skeptical questions regarding the article thesis here. It’s extremely unlikely you would allow a rebuttal article from an outside the party skeptic, but should you be willing, I’ll have one for you. If not, that’s a shame, but perhaps an alternative outlet might emerge or be found. I’d be perfectly content with a level playing field here if you’re willing to provide one.
Fact. She’s corrupt and needs to resign now. Instead she and her attack dog are going after Harlos.
“Why isn’t the Libertarian National Committee asking to see the terms of Angela’s agreement with Donald Trump and why hasn’t Angela disclosed it?”
Probably because every time someone asks her a question, she fails to respond and the questioner gets attacked by other LNC members.
Will McArdle resign if Oliver gets enough votes in the swing states to throw the election to Harris?
Are you presuming those votes would all have gone to Trump if Oliver hadn’t run? I’m not sure even a plurality would have gone to Trump. With Johnson, actual exit polls showed he had only 1/10 the swing of his vote totals, given 2nd preferences of his voters as told to exit pollsters. Oliver skews further left than Johnson, so it’s likely Harris will be the second choice of more of his voters than Trump will, so if anything, Harris would have benefited had he not won the libertarian nomination or failed at Ballot access etc.
People on the left are more likely to vote for Jill Stein than Chase Oliver.
Many votes aren’t nearly so precisely ideological and it all depends on what you call left. For instance, Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney plan to vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump . If they had to choose between Stein and Oliver, I would guess they would more likely pick Oliver than Stein. Many people may not be able to bring themselves to vote for Harris (or Stein) but would for a libertarian, maybe; many of those would vote for Harris (others Trump, not vote, etc). Some votes are on a single issue or group identifier – female, homosexual, white/black/etc, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and so on. Voting behavior is fairly complicated. I’ve read Richard Winger make plausible cases that Nader voters would have been more likely to vote for Bush than Gore, contrary to popular belief. Etc.
Chase may pick up a few votes from the left, but I do not believe it will be anything significant. People on the left who do not want to vote for Kamala Harris will have Jill Stein on the ballot in most states as a choice, and Claudia de Cruz and Cornel West will be on some ballots to draw some of those votes. Some may still vote for RFK Jr.
Why do you think he would throw the election to Harris as opposed to Trump?
If Harris wins, and Oliver covers the spread, you can be sure that he will be blamed, even if those voters had no intention of voting for Trump.
Wouldn’t the same hold true if Trump wins and Oliver covers? And either way, would that be new or unexpected? Good or bad? Regardless of who wins, if you cover the spread, you are likely to get a lot of grief from one direction and little corresponding relief from the other.
An interesting question. In 2012, Johnson flipped more states, with great margins, to Trump than Stein, but Stein got blamed for Clinton’s lose.
It’s almost as if it was impossible for the Democrats to utter the word “Libertarian”
Walter – Some left wing media did also blame Johnson in 2016. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/20210617033837/https://jezebel.com/fuck-gary-johnson-1788736643