The motion comes to order. 14 members are present.
Ford moves to end the meeting after nominations and then go to approval voting. Ford is told that his motion will be in order after the agenda is adopted. They are arguing about the details of voting. Darr moves to adopt the agenda. Passes without objection.
The agenda as adopted it to have two separate elections. After nominations there would be Q&A,, then two votes. Ford moves for voting via approval voting with seven days to vote. Ford: These are important elections. This is a rush to judgement. We should spend a week to consider our votes and then announce results. McMahon: Seven days means they miss being seated the next meeting. Chadderdon: Close the voting sooner. There is a tedious discussion of alternatives on the voting schedule. There is a question as to how winners are chosen, with approval voting. It appears that the two people with the most votes win, even if they do not have a majority. There is a question as to whether or not the LNC owns OPAvote. They are arguing about using OPAvote or a simpler voting process. They are now voting on using OPAvote and approval voting. Vote is 8-2-4. Motion passes.
We advance to nominations and then speeches of 3 minutes.
Ben Weir: I have served at many levels. I am now the LPNH Chair. Morale is low. I have plans for training. My plans are unique. Other candidates are here as part of factions.
Greg Deal: LPPA Chair. Hope to bring professionalism to the LNC. Good that things are turning around.We will have 30 candidates on the ballot.
Austin Martin: We presented public testimony on close to 100 bills. We succeeded 70+% of the time. Candidate recruitment is an objective with candidate support. We need ethical leadership.
Thomas Eddlem: Classical liberal. Has Scott Horton’s endorsement. Has MA State Committee endorsement. In MA, we’ve never been better funded (Editor: Well, no.) Talks about national politics. Bring working people into the party.
Doug Knebel: From South Carolina. Claims not loyal to any person or group of people. Financial background. 25 years in corporate finances.
Samuel Bohler: Louisiana Chair. Wants to make ballot access cheaper and easier to keep. I supported Rectenwald. When Oliver won, I supported him and got him onto the ballot.
Jacob Bradley: Says he created the affiliate support handbook. Has been active in Texas and National Party. Strong support of affiliates. Wants to end infighting. Wants to make the LNC just a little bit better.
Sarwark: I was LNC chair for 6 years. We had a fully-financed HQ, record fundraising, and record presidential votes. Under my leadership LNC focused on results. Since 2022 a different strategy. HQ crashed, party sold out to Trump and Kennedy, members feel they cannot trust the party to protect money from crooks.
Now reach questions: Watkins for Sarwark. Have you faked an injury or assault: Sarwark NO. Ford: Wich committees would you like to join: Weir: Committee to do regional training. Deal: Affiliate and candidate support. Martin: Any committee, affiliate or candidate support.He goes on forever. Eddlem: Affiliate Support. Knebel. On Audit. Join financial services or convention oversight. Bohler: IS and Historical Preservation. Bradley: Chair of Affiliate Support. Wants to stay there. Sarwark: Ask Chairs of subcommittees and see where I could be most useful
Dassing asks if Sarwark is associated with the Keystone or Liberal Party. Sarwark: No.
Q on Joint Fundraising Committee: We should learn from our experience of teh past year. It’s delicate.
Q For each: Do you support the motions from the IC. Asks for Yes/No answer.: Weir – I was on the IC. Martin- Goes on forever. IC report was a smear. SIC did us a disservice. Background noise–rooster crowing. Keeps going on forever. Finally says No. Eddlem: Support, not sure legal steps would be fruitful. McCardle has not denied what was said in the report. The scandal was the hidden issues. Bohler: Supports report, opposes suing. Bradley: Have had surgery have not finished report. Suing would not be fruitful. Sarwark: Donations dried up because donors do not trust party. That has not changed. Report good except giving cover to let McCardle walk. Knebel: I stand by the IC report; I agree with Sarwark.
McMahon: What role will you have on the LNC as an At-Large? Weir Should do something productive beyond board meetings. e.g. Do regional training. Deal: Be transparent with members. Martin: I try to talk to everyone. Want to bring people together and raise millions of dollars. Eddlem: I am the fill-in guy, not the leader. Knebel: Financial background. Our donors do not trust us. I would focus on re-establishing trust. Bohler: We have tools. They need a better index. We have many problems that won’t respond to simple solutions. Bradley: At-Larges must reach out to every state. Sarwark: The LNC has been much less transparent with the donors. LP members do not know what is happening. I can be heard because I am not part of what got us hear.
Have you worked for the CIA or FBI: Martin claims there were FBI and other infiltrators. Apparently not one of these people is prior service in any branch of the military. they all say ‘no’.
Darr asks for a number: How much will you each raisef for the LNC Weir 25K, Deal 24K, Martin 50K; goal is 2.5 million; Eddlem: Not my specialty. Knebel Not my strong suit but $15K. Bohler $25K. Bradley: $15k/month. Sarwark: Need to increase fundraising by $50K/month $10-50K/month is good.
Chadderdon: asked about opinion to JC written 20 years ago.
Next step is to adjourn to an OPAvote. McMahon offers $5K match on new donations from any party member before midnight EST tonight.
Meeting Adjourns.
Is Samuel Bohler being honest when he says he doesn’t work for the federal government when his employer The Weather Company has a sizeable software development contract with the US military? Bohler is a “Senior System Engineer – DevOps at The Weather Company”. A Google search reveals a connection between him and this type of programming.
Is there anyone else running that is performs military contract work?
Providing for the common defense is listed in the Constitution as a legitimate function of
the federal government. I would have a far bigger issue with someone working for or taking money from an agency or bureau that’s not called for in the Constitution.
Another desperate smear attempt.
Just because the company one works for has a federal contract, that does not make the company employees working that contract GS federal employees. Nor does it make any of the company employees GS federal employees. Some of them are unlikely to be on a federal contract at all. Federal employees are employed by the federal government, not contractors.
To claim otherwise is to argue that the janitors at Lockheed are the same as the ATF, or the Kiewitt crew building the county courthouse are the same as the Clerk and Recorder. It’s ludicrous on its face.
The question was worded narrowly about a list of a few of our government’s spy agencies. We are now at around 17 or so of them. Folks who are employed by, say, the cartographic agency under that interpretation could answer ‘no’. If the question was interpreted broadly, it would be interesting to note that not one LNC member is Prior Service, Army (or Navy or Air Force or…)
I believe the question arises from the mises scoundrels claim that Nick is a CIA plant.
1) I doubt a CIA operative would provide an honest answer to the question.
2) I don’t believe that Nick is a CIA operative any more than I think George Phillies is secretly the Easter Bunny.
Yes, absolutely, and thanks for the box of carrots.
As I recall we once had a Navy Admiral on the LNC.
You refer to Michael Colley .
Bingo,
The link that I copied was removed. It was to the Wikipedia article about Admiral Colley.
Link was not visible here.
FYI: LNC Vice Chair Paul Darr has previously served in the Army. I learned this when he and I had a friendly conversation about LNC matters a couple of months ago.
A lot of linguists worked for contractors without realizing we were used as spies. JPRS sent us low-clearance grunts news clippings to translate, mostly financial journal articles. No cyanide capsules, no gorgeous agents wheedling secrets, it was kind of a bore. Nowadays? Nick is the one person in there I do not suspect of being a DEA plant. He is also the one who understands the importance of GETTING VOTES!
Andrew Watkins is pathetic and unprofessional for asking Nick Sarwark that question. Sophomoric.
How does that ignorant question help the party move forward and/or get the train back on the tracks, so to speak.
It doesn’t.
Watkins is one of the problems on this board.
Special meetings are supposed to have a defined agenda.
Removing the elections from the meeting agenda is out of order.