Press "Enter" to skip to content

Angela McArdle on Negotiating with Trump

Last updated on May 14, 2025

The following is a transcript of a recent speech by Angela McArdle on how she negotiated about the Presidential Election with Donald Trump. The speech was scheduled to be given at the 2025 New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Concord, New Hampshire on Saturday, April 26 in the late afternoon.

My thanks to Jordan Willow Evans and Dan Fishman for handling technical aspects of the electronic and computing issues.  Your Editor did read the text against the spoken words, and believes that the following is reasonably exact as a capture of what McArdle said. There are some interesting quotes in here:

We present a Transcript of the Recent Speech by Former National Chair McArdle.

So in early November of 2023, I got a call from Rick Grinnell. I don’t know if you guys know who that is. Rick Grinnell is the former acting director of National Intelligence and he’s currently the, I believe it’s called the Special Envoy. He’s basically the diplomat to North Korea and a bunch of other problem countries — according to the United States, which is, you know, quite a thing.

So I should start by saying, you know, Rick Grinnell made a lot of what I’m going to talk about happen. He is a master diplomat and he should be doing a master class in diplomacy. It’s quite an experience to get a call from the former director of National Intelligence, or a text message first, early in the morning, so I had a cup of coffee before I responded, because it did freak me out a little bit. It turns out that we do have a few mutual acquaintances through like the Freedom Fest conservatarian movement so there’s that, you know,and Rick basically said he wanted to know what the libertarians thought of Donald Trump.

And I was very diplomatic in my response. I said that we liked some of the things he did. We appreciated that he didn’t start any new wars. We liked that he pushed back against corporate media and called it fake. We thought there was  perhaps some room for improvement in a few areas, like, you know, the Sulemani drone strikes assassination thing, COVID stimulus spending. And you know, here and there, there was room for improvement  And I, importantly, I said that we were sympathetic to him  regarding the weaponization of the justice system against him, and we thought that was terrible and hoped he would beat it. And I think that that was a very important thing that I said right there.

So anyway, Rick, who was living in LA at the time, he flew down to meet us in person a couple of weeks later in Austin, TX. He was not on the campaign. He was a friend of President Trump, as he would call him Rick, is soft spoken. You know, we had dinner at this small. It was really surreal. We had dinner at the small hole in the Wall restaurant, not far from my place. He held Arthur, Baby Arthur, who was like a little over a year old at that time while we talked some more. My husband Austin also shared his views on the 2016 Trump presidency and talked about what libertarians wanted to see in the next president, you know.

And then Donald Trump called me. So that was crazy. He just called. You know, Rick was like President Trump is calling right now and he’s calling to talk to you. So I just passed my baby to Austin and then to Rick Grinnell. So like Rick Grinnell is holding my baby while I’m talking to Donald Trump in this, like, fried chicken restaurant. And he asked me all sorts of questions about libertarians, which I’m sure some of you can, can, you know, guess on. What was really fascinating is he knew all about me. I said I liked how he made the worst people’s heads explode. And he was like, oh, you know, I say the same thing about you. I’ve been reading on the Internet. You make a lot of heads explode. You make a lot of libertarian heads explode, so that was really interesting, you know?

And he’s like, you know, what do we do to get the libertarian vote? You’re not going to win. You know, it’s like, well, I don’t really care about winning the presidency. You know, we care more about the local level and you know, other changes, you know, things that we can feel in our life. Not that we don’t, you know, think you can make changes for us, you know, trying to watch my words carefully. But I chatted with him for 45 minutes. He really did take time to talk to me. And he had done his homework. So, you know, after that Rick was like, we’re going to get you to Mar-a-Lago. So a couple of weeks later, we did get an invitation and I thought, how do I, you know, I’m still breastfeeding my baby, who’s just a little over a year old at that point. What do I … like how do I do this? And it’s Mar-a-Lago, you have to have, you know, Secret Service, background check and they’re we’ll get you a babysitter in Mar-a-Lago. So, you know, we roll up to to Mar–a-Lago. And this is funny.

You know, one of the things that I got, one of the allegations against me is that I took party money to do this, which is not true. You know, I paid for it out of my own pocket. I accidentally booked the worst motel in Palm Beach to stay at. Did not look like what I booked on hotels.com. So we roll up to this place where it looks like I don’t know, Popeye the sailor man got murdered or something like this is the most brutal. Hotel. So we’re getting ready and you know, in this, like, place where someone’s clearly tried to bust into the room. You know, we’re like, wow, we’re going to see the president. OK. Fascinating weekend I had.

So we get to Mar-a-Lago. I passed my baby off to this woman who is going to babysit for him, and we go to dinner with the President and his two senior advisors and Rick, and that’s it. And we chatted for over 2 hours. And President Trump was a little bit late because he was testifying in court, the same court at that time, who had prosecuted Ross Ulbricht. And so I had a really great chat with Susie Wiles and another person. You know, we talked about people we would like to see pardoned. You know, I hadn’t brought up Ross’s name yet. We talked a little bit about Julian Assange. I heard some opinions that I won’t share on Edward Snowden. So I was like, well, you know, that man’s already walking around outside. Maybe that’s not for this year. And then Donald Trump walked in and when he walked in the room, you know, and it’s like a small. It’s a small little space, right? That’s blocked off for him. If any of you have been to Mar-a-Lago, he’s got a little private dining room, and he just breezes in. And he’s got such a presence. And the first thing he does is he comes and you can tell he’s really paying attention. And I took a lot of notes. Like, this is a really good way to behave. And I’m working on it. Right.

And he goes and he shakes everybody’s hand and he gives me a hug. And he apologized for being late. He was like, but I was on the stand and I got a lot to say, which is just like. Such a nightmare scenario if you’re an attorney, you’re like, geez, no. So it was fascinating. You know, people wonder what was dinner like? Well, he was super friendly, and he hung on every word we said. And he asked my husband if he’d ever smoked cannabis and was just like, he was like, you could just, you know, tell me. And Austin, you know, kind of gently was like, well, you know also is like putting people to death for fentanyl. Like it might be like not a good idea. It was very. It was so receptive and and sweet and grandfatherly and warm and he was really kind to his wait staff and when my food came out, my steak came out, he told. He asked them to send it back because it was not cooked and Rick said, Oh no, President Trump, it’s OK she ordered it that way. And yeah, he was like, oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. You probably you’re probably healthier than me, so that’s fine.  And he did eat his his steak very well done and with ketchup. And he drank a Diet Coke. You know what a trip?

So here he’s like. I want to get the libertarian vote. So we’re talking economics. We’re talking the Federal Reserve. We are talking about. You know anything and everything, right? The drug war. Maybe we could move cannabis from Class 1 to Class 2. I’m trying to think about this from the perspective of, like, what could he deliver on? And, you know, before I went into this, you know, Rick advised me he’s like the President is a deal maker. He’s not a regular politician. You need to think about in your own terms like what are the libertarians want and you need to ask for it and make a big ask. You know, like don’t be shy, make an ask.

So I took that into consideration, you know, and I was really thinking about it. And I knew. What I might ask was going to be, but you know, you’re still kind of exploring it, right? You know, try not to put people to death over fentanyl. No, no death penalty for drug dealers. You know, decriminalize cannabis and like, can I only move beyond that? What’s something he can do? And so he wanted to come speak at our convention. And I said, you know, I think if you were to come to our convention and you were to go on stage and say that you’re going to free Ross Ulbricht or political prisoner people would lose their **** and everyone would vote for you. And it was crazy, like the first thing he said he was like. Who’s Ross Ulbricht? And then he said. I’ll do it all for you. I’ll just. Walk out and I’ll say Free Ross Ulbricht. Throw us over mic shot.

And I know its just kind of sounds crazy, but in that like 20 seconds that that happened, I just knew he was going to do it like he was kind of casual about it. But he just seems so serious. And then the next thing he said was, I love freeing people. He said I’ll do it. And I love freeing people. And it was in a span of like 30 seconds total that all this went down. And it was so surreal. You know, so why did I choose Ross? Why did I make it about Ross Ulbricht? You know, Donald Trump knows the art of the deal. I took a copy of that book, by the way, and had him sign it, which he loved because I was like, I want to give him Scott Horton’s book. I want, like, he’s not going to read that, you know, no offense to him, but what can I do that he would really enjoy? And it was autographing his own book. And he gave me the pen, which I gave to my mother-in-law, which she was very excited about. So, you know, it all worked out, right. And I have the book, so he knows the art of the deal. But what I know is like the heart of the deal, like this, it’s like this.

So let’s think about this. Put yourself in my position for a moment, back in 2023. It is a high stakes conversation I’m having. I’m chairing one of the most highly disagreeable organizations in the country. There are people in the organization actively trying to ruin my life. Let’s not be like, you know, white women making everything about me. But it is a thing. There are people who will absolutely sue me and try to remove me from my position for even making the trip. And that did happen 2 lawsuits twice. Very nice. It’s a very contentious election, you know. While I’m complaining about two measly lawsuits, Donald Trump had 91 felony counts by an entire judicial system apparatus that was weaponized against him.

Like he’s going to be choosing his moves very carefully. And he’s not just, it’s not like he’s running against Joe Biden at that point. He’s basically running against a regime that has so much contempt. You know, not just for him, but for us. That they’re willing to prop up brain dead Joe Biden a second time like they just have so much contempt and scorn for the American people. So there’s a lot at stake. I’m sitting in Mar-a-Lago, like having, you know, steak. But there’s a lot at stake. So I need to come out of this deal. I need to make a deal right and I need to come out with a prize that’s going to touch every heart in my organization too, you know, and touch his heart. So how do you do that. You have to choose something with maximum emotional impact. It has to have high emotional appeal, because think about how asymmetrical the bargaining power is right now. You have to choose something that people will emotionally invest themselves in. This is something very real at stake here.

We all know Ross’s story. Is there anyone who’s not familiar with Ross? Work OK, We’ve got one person, Ross Ulbrich, who is a lifelong libertarian. Are you being? Are you being sarcastic? No. OK, just making sure. Just making sure you know, it’s libertarian autism sometimes I can’t tell. So he was like one of the The Pioneers, the original guy of using Bitcoin for free market commerce, you know, outside of the control of the federal government, specifically the Federal Reserve. And he created this website called Silk Road where you can buy and trade anything. Now that happened to include things like illicit drugs. You know, people sell drugs and worse things on Facebook and Instagram all the time. The creators of those websites don’t go to prison for life, but Ross did. Ross did two life terms plus several years, and they did it to make an example out of him and say, do not try to use Bitcoin to circumvent the power of the Federal Reserve. We will find you, we will come for you and we will ruin your life. So he is like he is our martyr, right, libertarians and bitcoiners. He is our guy. We’ve met his mother, most of us. We see his social media status updates from his wife. You know, he’s a real, living, breathing person, the embodiment of our movement and our own relentless pursuit of freedom. And he bore the punishment, basically for all of us who were early adopters of Bitcoin and alternative markets.

When you see his mother show up at event after event, making every connection, every call, every plea, never giving up on her son after 11 years, when you see side-by-side photos of him the time before he was incarcerated. You know, over 10 years later in prison, like it is, it tugs at your heartstrings. You know, that’s heart of the deal stuff. So you have to you got to set, you got to set the tone, right? You want everybody buying in on the proposition you’re making. What else did I do?

I activated reciprocity. Politics is not a zero sum game. We think about elections as a zero sum game and that’s fine. You win or you lose. But politics in general as a whole, it’s not zero sum, so reciprocity is the practice of exchanging benefits where both parties, you know, give and receive something of value, mutual value maybe. And it fosters cooperation and hopefully appreciation. And I gave Donald Trump something that would activate two significant voting blocks for him. It’s not one. It’s not just the libertarian vote. It was two. Libertarians were one and the non-voting Bitcoin community was another, and that was something I pointed out. I said it’s not just going to be the libertarians that vote for you. All these people who don’t vote. Maybe they voted once or twice in their life and they have money. They are going to vote for you. And the data was there. The votes went to Trump and not to Chase Oliver. Down -ticket libertarian votes in Pennsylvania went to down ticket libertarian candidates. More than 60% of those same votes at the presidential level went to Donald Trump. That swung the election in Bucks County specifically, that’s how you make a deal.

I didn’t just turn out voters. I turned out donors. And when President Trump spoke at the Bitcoin Conference and promised to free Ross, the money flowed in. You know, he was very, very happy with that.

Attainability you have to choose an attainable goal. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate everybody’s heartfelt activism. But you need to choose an attainable goal. I gave Donald Trump something he could attain, something he could do without Congress. I gave him something that wouldn’t take much time. It’s like, you know, a signature. I gave him something that was simple. Not, you know, it’s not overly complex, right? He’s a. There’s reason I didn’t give him like Scott Horton’s books. Right? Like, like, let’s just make this easy. Don’t make things hard on yourself. You need to set yourself up for success.

You know, like, libertarians, we have room for improvement there. So what are the mechanics of that? You know, what does it look like? You’re not just giving someone else a goal in a negotiation. You’re setting a goal for yourself to reach, so you set yourself up with an attainable negotiation goal. You set a goal that’s within the realm of your capacity to negotiate. You know that means it needs to be within the realm of your competence, right? And to a certain extent, within the locus of your control, which is sort of I was sort of like flying on the edge of my control when I made this goal. But but I knew that libertarians were going to vote for Donald Trump over the LP candidate one if Trump promised to free Ross and two if we delivered a sub par candidate, and I will tell you that I am so proud of the Chase Oliver campaign and I thank him so much.

And I hope in 2028 we have good enough reason to do it again. So, you know, I knew I was confident that I could negotiate this with this whole situation going on, you know, and in the backdrop, that’s Dave Smith, as I already knew, had dropped out and I’m going to come back to that. And I knew that people like Rick Grinnell and Roger Stone and Charlie Kirk and David Bailey were all going to assist me. And they would intercede on Ross’s behalf. And those guys are really awesome. And so is Susie Wiles and Cash Patel. They all help to make this happen. I just like I can’t. I cannot say enough how much of a class act his entire campaign was working with me. They were so professional and sweet and friendly, and it is just night and day working with them versus the pack of wild thugs that I have to deal with in the LP. So. It’s just, you know. Ohh. She’s a nasty woman. Like he. He’s whatever, he’s so chill, he’s so chill.

Pick a goal that other people want to support. Pick something that other people are going to feel passionate about so they will lend you support. You just you gotta set yourself up for success and that’s the problem with some of the radicals in our movement. And I love radicalism. Which I distinguish from certain radicals, but they don’t. They don’t set themselves up for success. They set themselves up for failure. There’s no there’s no path. If there’s no pathway to success, you know, it’s like there’s only rejection of things they don’t like. And that’s a really interesting mindset. So here’s the implication for that. If you are determined to reject any and all attainable positive outcomes, you spend lots of time engaged in political activity, though, but you consistently reject every positive opportunity. Then then you have rejected all positive outcomes, not just of your political endeavors, you know, but for yourself, because it means you don’t really want a way out of this. You want to occupy an authoritarian state because it’s where you’re comfortable, right? You love complaining about the state. And that’s a horrible place to be to find out that you actually love authoritarianism and being its victim.

It’s just, yeah. So what does it feel like to bargain with someone’s life? Because that’s basically what I did. It feels it was very surreal. It still is, and it felt like, honestly, very inappropriate at times. I don’t know how to fully articulate it. It’s not something you should do casually, because when that person whose life is at stake hears about it, they’re going to be understandably like, very invested in the outcome. So when you do, when you do that level of bargaining like you’ve got to deliver results. It is life or death. When I got a note from Ross before he was released from prison, you know, talking about Donald Trump’s commitment to freeing him like **** got very real for me. The pressure like, really solidified. It’s the rest of the noise, right? ****** lawsuits, whining of sociopaths on Twitter, you know, like. Anxious or or angry party members that all just sort of fell away. It’s just like, you know, can you deliver on your promise to save this man’s life? Yes or no, you know, are the voters going to show up. Is Trump going to keep his word? You know, or  is it all gonna end in heartache? It’s a very high stakes game.

Very stressful and it’s like, you know, I was sort of wondering. So his staff was in, you know, very consistent communication with me for like like a year and a half, you know, but it got less and less as we got closer to the election because they’re very busy. You know, he wasn’t able to. I was on the phone with someone and his staff, when the assassination attempt happened. It was nuts. I’d actually stepped out of Chase Oliver’s talk at Freedom Fest to talk about, to beg and plead for help getting him on the ballot in a couple of states. Ironically, and I walked back in the room and it was like it happened right before I hung up the phone. He was supposed to speak at rescue the Republic too, but after the assassination attempt there was no way that we can configure the event that was going to work for security. So I almost had him at 2 events. I did get nervous though. You know, in the weeks leading up where I was hearing from them less, I’m like, Oh my gosh, am I going to be, like, BLM with Biden, where I just get ghosted, you know? And they’re, like, standing outside of the White House.

It was it was nerve wracking, but. It was like a week, less than a week before. The inauguration, one of his staffers, reached out to me and they were like, OK, so was that was it commutation or was it a full pardon? And I was like, I was like, it was like, Angela set the phone down. Don’t **** this up. Because we had mostly talked about commutation and so I like, composed myself and was like there’s literally no one in the room with you here giving you some weird look. Like you could do this. And it was like a full pardon would be so amazing. And we would be so grateful if there’s any way that that’s possible. We would love it. Thank you so much. And the response was just like, OK, we’ll do it, you know.

That’s amazing, right? Less than a week, it was like 5 days or something, right? And so then I’m, like, sweating it and sweating it. And like, you know, like the day of the inauguration, I fly out there, you know, supposed to be in the room. I have, like a seat. And then it rains. So no one’s in the room. Just like, oh, geez, you know, so I’m watching it. Like Jack Russell Books watch party at some Polish delegation hotel, you know, across. Whatever. And I’m waiting and I’m waiting and everybody’s blowing up my phone, you know, and obviously I’ve, you know, been in constant communication with his mother, who is also, you know, just been a true believer. And talking with the staff back and forth and they’re very responsive and they’re like, Yep, it’s coming, it’s coming, it’s coming. It’s going to be this evening, if not, you know, very early in the morning. There’s just things, things just kind of got pushed back by like a couple of hours here and there. So it’s not like we weren’t a high priority. It’s like. Literally just a schedule issue.

So finally, 36 hours in, you know, they message me, it’s done. Promises made, promises kept. And like I go to call Lynn and she’s on the phone with the president. Like when I’m calling her, he reached out and called her. And like they told me just as soon as it was signed, I just like. I mean I I just, I don’t even know what else to say. You know, it’s like. When you have this sort of opportunity, make a deal and you know and do it from your heart to the heart of someone else, because that’s the most. That’s the easiest, most solid, predictable way to get it done.

You need to build on your wins, because that’s what I’m going to do, right? And keep going and I am lobbying for the freedom of two other prominent Bitcoin libertarians as well right now. Doing it slightly differently, you know. It’s a thing in the hiring process is very slow moving, but I am working to get into the administration and I’m getting the administration staffed with libertarians. There were a bunch of others, you know, smaller commitments that they had made to us and they are pretty much delivering on everything.

Now, I was very grateful to the Chase Oliver campaign for doing what it did, and I still am, but I want to present a painful truth. A reality and then I. But I want to present you with a very optimistic problem, you know. Let’s let’s work on our framing, right? And here’s the reality. Everybody saw what Kennedy did, right? Everybody’s familiar. Kennedy ran. I have a good working relationship with him. Still. The other thing I did was I got the Libertarian Party signed on to his joint fundraising committee so that he could open up his Max Max donor amounts. Because when you run as an independent, you can only take like 3300 bucks. But thanks to the LP and our state affiliates, you can Max out at like, I don’t know 100K or something. So he ran and then basically dropped out in exchange for being on the transition team and getting a cabinet position.

Dave Smith should have been on the transition team. Imagine what that would have been like. So much I don’t say this in a critical way, but so much complaining aggrieved comments about Israel and Palestine. You should have been there. Filling the cabinet. That’s the missed opportunity here. So, for the next race, I am recruiting all of you. For the next presidential race in 2028. The Libertarian Party needs a presidential candidate who is actually running to be on the transition team, or to become a cabinet secretary. It needs to be a person of high quality, high caliber, someone who is going to take at least 10%. You must be a threat and you must be willing to have a mini ego death and drop out publicly of most races. You know, even if you stay in one or two states. And endorse whoever it is who gives you the best deal. So let’s let’s mow that over. Let’s start our recruitment. I don’t care whether or not you join the Libertarian Party, especially not right now, but you should all help me recruit our next presidential candidate, so that we can get more people out of prison who are there wrongfully, so that we can put an end to most foreign conflicts that the United States shouldn’t be meddling in, and so that we can preserve the future of this beautiful country for our children, so let’s start working on our next heart of the deal. Thank you guys.

 

 

33 Comments

  1. Robert Haltom Robert Haltom May 15, 2025

    Just another “wild thug” here. I didn’t join the LP to put cabinet members or transition teams into an authoritarian regime. However I am contemplating getting a “Wild Thug – per McArdel & Co.” T-shirt made now..

  2. D. Frank Robinson D. Frank Robinson May 14, 2025

    Thank you for this transcript. Thoughtful Libertarians will draw their own conclusions.
    My conclusion is the McArdle and the Mises Caucus set the LP back, but the identity of the LP remains intact in our Statement of Principles.
    For disclosure: I am a co-founder of the LP.

    • Anonymous Observer Anonymous Observer May 15, 2025

      …and someone the current leadership, especially the MC, should listen to.

  3. Damian Damian May 14, 2025

    Internal rules? How about basic honesty and universal discuss duties of nonprofit directors? How about not committing fraud upon donors? None of that has anything to do with the LP or whatever rules it has. It is basic nonprofit corporate governance and ethics. She admits it all.

  4. Michael Wilson Michael Wilson May 14, 2025

    This whole game with the Republican Party has seemed bad to me when I first heard about it in the early 1990’s. They seemed to be into the unitary executive idea then and they are still involved with that and want to ignore the judicial system when it fits their needs. The entire thing stinks to be polite about it.

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 15, 2025

      Judicial tyranny has been a major problem since at least the 1950s and 60s, though I would go back much farther – at least as far as Marbury v Madison. It’s a complex subject and somewhat tangential, but as a thought exercise, imagine you yourself, or the version of yourself you wish you were, somehow got elected President of these united States and got sworn into office, say on 20 January 2029.

      What could you actually do to rein in any aspect of federal government if you held that office? Even when both houses of congress are in the hands of the presidents party, like right now, congress is such a mess when it comes to passing a budget or much of anything else that all you’re likely to get are continuing resolutions and ritually repeated showdowns over raising a practically meaningless debt ceiling yet again for the nth time. The notion of actually in any detail overseeing how what is passed is spent is a nice fantasy. That may be the theoretical job of congress, but has nothing to do with the actual job responsibilities in today’s world.

      Meanwhile, courts would be striking down any executive action you’d try to take to exercise any authority over the actions of any executive branch agencies theoretically under your control. If forum shopping is still allowed, and that seems likely, there will be a judge somewhere to stymy any move you might try to make.

      The courts will tell you that you must spend every dime authorised by congress, because in theory congress is supposed to exercise oversight when they authorize it, even though in the real world they can’t and won’t.

      When you try to run a comprehensive audit of federal spending, you are likely to get smoke and obfuscation from all over your own federal bureaucracy.

      Presumably, you’ll want to make much more radical changes than anything President Trump is trying to do – good luck with that. You, “the most powerful human alive,” will have power over what exactly? Ceremonial matters? Appointments that don’t require congressional approval? Your travel and public speaking schedule? Where exactly to drop a few American bombs to show everyone that they work as advertised?

      I’m sorry, I’m going off on tangents all over the place, but what would you be able to get done if you somehow found yourself behind the resolute desk with all the powers of the president and no unitary executive authority? Would the federal government be substantially different – smaller, less expensive, less intrusive, less apt to get into foreign wars, less debt ridden, etc, etc – after your term in office as a result thereof? How would you accomplish that?

  5. Anonymous Observer Anonymous Observer May 14, 2025

    The delusion of the alleged embezzler is amazing. She needs professional help, and I feel sorry for her kid, growing up in that toxicity.

    “the pack of wild thugs that I have to deal with in the LP.”

    Yet she wants to run for Chair again in 2026 to lead those alleged thugs over the cliff. The problem is her, not the LP.

    She set up an arguably illegal campaign fund laundering scam with Kennedy, and also enriched her own household off the LNC funds. When part of it was blocked, she tried to shoot the messenger and failed.

    The reality is that she was a terrible leader and administrator, taking credit for something (Ulbricht) that she really had a minimal role in, those supposed Bitcoin donors have never materialized, she made the LP broke, and then plays victim and overblows her own importance when questioned. Trump played her like a used violin, and she was unable to see though the con. How many promises to libertarians has he kept? So far, only one.

    If the LP is to survive, it needs to move beyond the toxicity and deliberate destructors that are McArdle, Heise, Malagon, and their ilk, including the Mises Caucus and their corrupt players in Colorado and New Hampshire, who have done more damage to the LP brand and reputation since Reno than other factions combined did since 1980.

    Nekhalia is doing his damndest to keep it going. Let’s hope he succeeds.

    • Damian Damian May 14, 2025

      You have it all wrong. Those who exposed her are the thugs not her. She can do no wrong. I have never seen someone that excels at delusion. Olympic quality.

  6. Adamson Scott Adamson Scott May 14, 2025

    She’s willing to sacrifice the entire Libertarian Party and its ballot access across the country just so she can swing a deal and get someone appointed as a deputy assistant vice chief of interim affairs in a department that real Libertarians would want to abolish.

    We now have our marching orders for 2028 – to eradicate this sort of thought so that we run the strongest candidate possible for President who will stay the course the entire way to the finish line, and not withdraw and endorse another candidate for a few shillings.

  7. Eobert K. Eobert K. May 14, 2025

    Here’s the thing – if Trump really wanted to learn about the LP why talk to AM? There are much better people who understand the libertarian movement including some really rich folks who can also better relate to Trump.

    AM doesn’t understand classical liberal / libertarian principles. She literally disagrees with the most important ones & her minions had some of the most important platform planks removed.

    Thus, one assumes Trump wanted to destroy the party & found the best parasite to help him do that. He never wanted to understand what libertarians really wanted nor was interested in appeasing them. Using them – yes, of course. To his own benefit.

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 15, 2025

      She was party chairwoman, the head of the organization – that’s who heads of other organizations typically like to talk to. Why would or should he have presumed someone else would be who he should have talked to instead? The only other logical person would be the presidential nominee – there was none at that point. Perhaps the executive director, but that usually either is or answers to the national chair.

  8. Fred Fred May 14, 2025

    As a former MCers, I don’t disagree per se with McArdle’s conclusions about how to achieve influence, as politics relies on coalition-building and negotiation. If the LP can play a coalition-like role to achieve policy victories over time while slowly growing into a major player in its own right and moving the Overton Window, that’s a win.

    The actual problem with McArdle, Heise, and their lieutenants is their repeated, unrepentant bad behavior. Even in this transcript McArdle is gaslighting heavily. Something I’ve learned over the years in this movement is that there’s a lot of people with some good ideas and strategies, but who are untrustworthy people. And there’s others who mean well, but don’t understand nuance or how to play the political game at all. Success depends on having leadership that can do both.

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 14, 2025

      Without knowing or wanting to know enough about any particular individual to say definitely whether I agree, I agree with all your overall points. I’ve encountered all these types of people in different organizations over the years. Sadly, I’ve also encountered many who are neither trustworthy nor effective.

  9. Steve Steve May 14, 2025

    Angela did the right thing. I applaud her advancing liberty.

  10. Jim Jim May 14, 2025

    I wonder why the suggestion of getting comedian Dave Smith a cabinet position instead of someone remotely qualified at anything, like, say, Bob Murphy.

    Also, good to have it openly admitted that the strategy she/the MC wants to push is to have the Libertarian candidate drop out and endorse the Republican. That’s something donors and delegates should keep in mind.

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 14, 2025

      I’m afraid I don’t recall having ever heard of either one, and their names are too generic for a quick internet search to be of much help. Would you or anyone else care to tell me and anyone else reading who is unfamiliar with either gentleman’s work why you think they would or would not make good cabinet members? Or any others you might suggest in that vein?

      • Jim Jim May 14, 2025

        Dave Smith is a comedian and part of the Ron Paul ideological sphere. Not particularly well known, but likes to pretend that he is. Tied in with the Mises Caucus. He was their first choice to run for president in 2024, but he backed out, leaving them with former communist turned bigoted Trump supporter Michael Rectenwald as their back-up choice. Googling “Dave Smith Part Of The Problem” should take you to one of his youtube channels. Sometimes he interviews racist people, which triggers other people.

        Bob Murphy has a PhD in economics from New York University. He is tied in with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, so presumably equally on friendly terms with the Mises Caucus. He has a podcast that he does with Tom Woods called Contra Krugman, where they criticize Paul Krugman. He has also written some economics books.

        So, both are in the Mises Camp, both are equally comfortable with public speaking, but Bob Murphy has some accomplishments while Dave Smith tells jokes. I just find it odd that McArdle and the Mises Caucus only want to push the comedian to the front while they have plenty of alternatives.

        I do have to correct myself, though. McArdle said she wanted Dave Smith on the transition team, not as a cabinet member. She said the next LP Presidential candidate might drop out for a cabinet or transition team position.

        • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 14, 2025

          Thank you. My audiovisuals have more pressing uses, so unless his jokes are available in text I’m unlikely to see them, and even then I couldn’t judge the delivery. Most younger comedians nowadays are far too explicit/filthy/woke for my tastes. Do you and or others here think he’s funny?

          I do like Ron Paul, and have supported him throughout his political career. I know that some people in Dr. Paul’s orbit are friendlier towards the Libertarian Party than others. Some are more willing to put themselves out there as political candidates or political appointees than others, etc .

          Icymi, I finished a round of replies on our other discussion. No hurry, and understandable if you’re done with it, but I’ll be interested in what you come up with if and when you do find the time .

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 15, 2025

      “Also, good to have it openly admitted that the strategy she/the MC wants to push is to have the Libertarian candidate drop out and endorse the Republican.”

      Probably, but not necessarily. She says whichever major candidate offers the best deal. Of course that presumes either honesty on the part of the major campaigns or after the fact leverage on the part of the Libertarians, neither of which strike me as safe bets. But she doesn’t actually say the Republican – the way she framed it, it could be the Democrat, or another plausible winner if there were to be one.

      For other reasons, not explicitly spelled out anywhere here that I saw, we can fairly safely deduce it’s not likely to be the Democrat, but if she actually said the Republican, please quote what I missed.

  11. Stewart Flood Stewart Flood May 14, 2025

    She should write a book. The title could be autobiography of a traitor.

    Or maybe people should just stop inviting her to speak at events. Yes, it is interesting to hear how it happened. But we could’ve all already guessed exactly how she was wined and dined. That’s what Trump does.

    But I certainly agree that in some ways, it was important to post this. Her quite prolific use of the word “like” reminds me of the stereotype they call “valley girls“.

    But people need to just get past this scam artist. Either prosecute her or forget her. If the libertarian party isn’t going to go after her, they should just forget her and move on.

  12. George Whitfield George Whitfield May 14, 2025

    It seems that Donald Trump made a great deal.

  13. ATBAFT ATBAFT May 13, 2025

    I wonder if this isn’t yet another call for formation of a Libertarian Caucus within the Republican Party? A guy named Eric Rittberg argued for such (“Libertarian Republicans”) about 40 years ago (as did Clifford Thies, if I remember correctly) but not enough Libertarians took the opportunity. It’s been widely believed that only a minority of committed libertarians ever joined the LP, so perhaps a Lib Caucus within the GOP, with a sympathetic Trump, could do far more for liberty than a wounded LP can?

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 14, 2025

      Mr. Rittberg, aka Mr. Dondero, and Mr. Thies, among others, did more than merely argue for it – they went ahead and did it. That group is known as the Republican Liberty Caucus (rlc.org).

      There are also other Republican cauci which are arguably libertarian, depending on how broadly you define libertarian – Republican Freedom Caucus, for example. I don’t care to argue over how broadly libertarian should be defined – been there, done that, found it to be a bottomless pit and endless sinkhole of time and energy.

      There are also many organizations which, while not technically partisan, tend to lean both Republican when it comes to party and libertarian(ish) when it comes to policy – Campaign for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty, Mises Institute (not Caucus), the entire Koch policy network with its myriad of organizations (“Kochtopus”), Citizens Against Government Waste, and many others. In this speech, Mrs. Padgett (nee McArdle) refers to all of these collectively as the Freedom Fest conservatarian movement, which seems to me to be at least approximately accurate, to whatever extent I either have or wish to express an opinion about such things.

      I did not see Mrs. Padgett call for the dissolution of the libertarian party per se, much less express the notion that if it did so it would greatly expand the size and effectiveness of a formally organized caucus within one other specific party.

      Rather, she called for it to run continue to run candidates of its own, who would then suspend their campaigns, or withdraw from the ballot when and where allowed to, and endorse the major party candidate who promises them the best deal, regardless of whether that’s the Republican, Democrat, or perhaps some independent or other party candidate perceived to have a real chance to win.

      There’s arguments for and against such a strategy. To me, the most obvious argument against is that, even if Mr. Trump did in fact keep all his promises to her, politicians are famous for making and breaking promises in general. There are other arguments both for and against such a position. Regardless of which ones you wish to make or find plausible, I think it’s useful to understand what her argument in fact is, and it’s not to dissolve the LP and issue an unenforceable diktat herding big L supporters into the RLC.

      We can now circle back around to Mr. Dondero-Rittberg, who has in fact made such arguments himself subsequent to parting ways with Dr. Ron Paul after serving as his congressional travel aide for a number of years. After this, Mr. Rittberg-Dondero intermittently returned to the Libertarian Party, primarily but not exclusively as a for profit ballot access contractor but also in other ways, such as convincing 2008 libertarian VP nominee Wayne Root to temporarily switch to the Libertarians, etc.

      If I recall correctly, Mr. Dondero’s argument at the time was that the Libertarian Party should be sort of like a national version of the Conservative Party of New York (or, I suppose, the right wing mirror image of the Working Families Party, which is somewhat of a national party now). It’s been a number of years since I’ve heard or seen Mr. Rittberg, so I don’t know if he still advances those same arguments.

      The main (or most obvious to me) weakness of this strategy is that it works most effectively in fusion States , which are few in number.

      Another example used by Mr. Dondero and Mr. Root, among others, is the TEA Party (movement of the late 2000s decade and early 2010s), which I think it’s fair to say has been absorbed into the MAGA Movement today. However, despite the name, the TEA Party (movement) was/is a movement, not a balloted political party per se. The arguments advanced back then by Mr. Rittberg, Mr. Root and others, that the Libertarian Party had the opportunity to fill the niche which the TEA Party (movement) ended up filling, ignores this difference.

      • Damian Damian May 14, 2025

        Pat, you are completely missing the point. She apparently hid this from the LNC and breached every duty of a nonprofit officer in that action. Logically that leads to committing fraud against every state affiliate that sent delegates to NatCon as well as the delegates that went in addition to her embezzlement and who knows what else. The narcissism in her speech is staggering. This isn’t a study in strategy. It is a study in corruption.

        • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 14, 2025

          I don’t see how I missed ATBAFT’s point. If you meant to respond to my other comments, it would have been less confusing if you responded to those, but assuming that’s what you meant, I think there are a lot of interesting things that can be taken away from this rendition. Which ones you take away and find interesting and which ones you don’t depend on what’s important and or interesting to you personally as well as what type of person you are.

          The libertarian party’s internal faction fights and minutia aren’t my personal focus, except wherein they illustrate larger points. I’m not either a party member or a self described libertarian currently. I was in 1987-9 on behalf of Ron Paul and his then allies in the LP, and in 2008 on behalf of Bob Barr – both gentlemen I’ve also supported before and after those times when they ran in a different party. Both times, the Libertarian divisiveness encouraged, or more than encouraged me to leave and not return.

          But, it’s not just the Libertarians. Alas, I’ve seen all those same patterns repeated in other minor parties I’ve tried to make a go of – the American (Independent) Party in the late 1960s and early to mid 1970s, the Reform Party in the mid 1990s thru Y2K, the US Taxpayers/Constitution Party in various ways from its inception to perhaps the mid 2010s, although I only ended up voting for their Presidential candidate once (2012).

          I’ve seen the same cycles of self destruction and building play out within major parties, in other political organizations I’ve been involved in over the past 60+ years that are not political parties, and in various organizations I’ve been involved with outside of politics.

          So, analyzing those patterns, including leveraging organizational opportunities for maximum gain, is personally more interesting to me. I don’t begrudge what interests you more – it may even be that you’re right, and that ideal adherence to internal rules should always be the highest goal.

      • Thomas Leonard Knapp Thomas Leonard Knapp May 15, 2025

        I always got a laugh out of the Republican Liberty Caucus’s annual “scorecard” for Congress. One year, they rated John McCain the most Libertarian member of the Senate. Another year it was Rick Santorum.

    • Stewart Flood Stewart Flood May 14, 2025

      There has been one for decades. It doesn’t do much other than try to interfere with local libertarian parties and help destroy them for the GOP.

      • Michael Wilson Michael Wilson May 14, 2025

        I have seen the destruction in both Oregon and Washington States.

  14. Pat Jones Pat Jones May 13, 2025

    Like Mr. Winger, I found the transcript interesting. I’ll probably share additional thoughts later. On his site Ballot Access News, where he linked back to it in a post, someone asked if the audio or video file from which the transcript was created can also be posted. I won’t be watching or listening to it myself, but others here might find that interesting if it can be.

    • Pat Jones Pat Jones May 14, 2025

      Indeed, additional thoughts have occurred. I’ll try not to submit too many at once and give others more chance to weigh in.

      For now:

      It occurs to me that Mrs. Padgett ought to have read the Art of the Deal more closely. She should have asked for bigger ticket items, like bringing all troops home from around the world, getting the US out of the UN and other international organizations, reestablishing States Rights vis a vis the federal government, ending or as a backup plan auditing the federal reserve – she didn’t feel up to making the big asks.

      Her dream list of big asks may have been different from mine, but you get the idea – big ticket items, not just pardoning one man she believed to be wrongly imprisoned, getting her friends administration jobs (allegedly), and whatever else she says she got out of it. The initial ask(s) needs to be big, and you can always negotiate it down and see what you can get.

      If Trump said yes so easily to her list of demands, what else could she have gotten for her liberty agenda had she only had the nerve to ask?

      Finally for now, in addition to the x.com version Dr. Phillies linked, the video is also alleged to be available on YouTube – at
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1RmFRlWZMU

      I still won’t watch, but the rest of you have at least two platforms to do it on, should you feel thus inclined.

  15. Richard Winger Richard Winger May 13, 2025

    George, this is the most interesting and valuable blog post of yours that I have ever seen. Thank you very much for capturing it and letting us all read it.

    • Damian Damian May 14, 2025

      What was interesting about it? How she broke every duty of her office and concealed this from everyone only now to brag about it and call everyone else names for not recognizing her greatness in her own mind?

Comments are closed.