Jake Porter’s Analysis & Investigations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
McArdle Cover-Up Continues
Below, I take apart the objections from LNC Member Andrew Chadderdon
Region 1 Representative, Andrew Chadderdon explains his vote against adopting the Special Investigatory Committee’s 94-page report detailing former Chair Angela McArdle’s misuse of funds for her own benefit.
In this article, I discuss his entire argument and show it for what it truly is. [Editor: Chadderdon’s statements have been indented.]
Non-Participation of Key Figures (Pages 2, 85): Angela McArdle, Austin Padgett, Luke Troxell, and Matthew Butts declined interviews, leaving gaps in understanding intent and context. The report notes their refusal is not an admission of wrongdoing but makes findings assuming malicious intent without their testimony or other evidence.
Troxell and Butts were never accused of doing anything wrong or being a part of this scandal and declining interviews doesn’t indicate malicious intent on their part.
McArdle and Padgett cannot be forced to cooperate with the internal investigation. Chadderdon’s claim that their refusal to cooperate is reason to not release the report would be no different than saying a prosecutor couldn’t prosecute someone for taking the fifth amendment and refusing to testify.
Unsubstantiated Metrics (Pages 2, 53–54): The report claims Freedom Calls raised $2,468.57, deemed “grossly inefficient” and “outside industry norms,” but provides no industry benchmarks or details on donation tracking….
I’m not going to get too much into the metrics argument; however, if you are being paid around $4,000 per month to raise money and you only manage to raise between $0-$2,368.57 in 12 months and part of those texts you sent were to benefit your own caucus and not the party, that is not within any “industry norms”.
The financials of the party show that this was in no way a success.
Inadequate Review and Discussion Process: The SIC Report’s adoption process was deeply flawed, undermining its legitimacy. Released to board members at 10 AM on Sunday, the 100-page report was scheduled for adoption at 8 PM on Monday, leaving insufficient time for review. Initially, 22 board members, plus SIC members and legal counsel, were allotted only 60 minutes for discussion, later expanded to 90 minutes, which was woefully inadequate. When concerns about the rushed timeline were raised, several board members boasted of completing their review in 1–2 hours, dismissing the need for thorough analysis. I was allotted slightly more than the typical 2-minute speaking time before being cut off, with minimal to no responses provided to substantive concerns, which represent only a fraction of those in this report, not having been given opportunity to even fully present section 1 claims, let alone anything approaching the full contents of this report. Please note that I also omit reference of many lesser concerns from this report to keep focus on the most substantive concerns.
Even after adoption and public release, discussion and debate were prohibited, including on proposed resolutions exceeding the report’s recommendations, further stifling feedback.
It has been 73 days since the report was released on June 9th. I find it hard to believe that LNC members haven’t been able to find the time to read the report but have time to write lengthy objections to the report. I read the report within a couple of hours.
Discussion has obviously not been prohibited considering Mr. Chadderdon just put his objections on the public list.
Finding 1e (Page 9): The report claims Freedom Calls’ inclusion in the 2025 budget indicates McArdle’s intent to continue transactions. This is unsubstantiated, as the ExComm prepares and adopts the budget proposal for LNC submission, and McArdle, a member of both the ExComm and LNC, abstained from the ExComm vote to adopt the 2025 budget proposal and the LNC vote to adopt the final 2025 budget. No evidence is presented in the report to demonstrate her intent.
McArdle was the one who hired Freedom Calls, removed Padgett from the conflict-of-interest report, and McArdle directly approved payment of some of the invoices to Freedom Calls. Her lack of involvement in the budget is irrelevant. The obvious intent was to continue payments to Freedom Calls.
The claim that incomplete W-9 forms provided by Freedom Calls represent an attempt to conceal ownership (Page 9) is unsupported….
This was one piece of evidence that doesn’t make the entire case but helps make the case for concealment of the company.
Finding 4f (Pages 10, 51): The claim that Freedom Calls used LNC resources for Mises Caucus recruitment via 361 calls for the LP California convention lacks substantiation. Recruiting for a state affiliate event is not inherently improper, and text message screenshots provided from November 13, 2024, show statements claiming that the calls were not related to the Mises Caucus (Page 51)
McArdle was directly coordinating the company to make calls in California to boost Mises Caucus attendees to the state convention. McArdle told California Chair Malagon she was making calls to “bring our people out” but didn’t mention to Malagon that party resources were being used to send the texts and make the calls.
Website Professionalism (Page 30): The report criticizes Freedom Calls’ website for lacking “elements of a professional website, including contact information and ownership,” implying unprofessionalism. This likely misinterprets the use of WHOIS privacy protection, a standard feature provided free by default by registrars like GoDaddy, which masks ownership details to prevent spam and identity theft. This criticism unreasonably portrays a common practice as a deficiency to bolster claims of inefficiency.
Businesses that want to make money from selling services don’t typically hide phone numbers, staff contacts, and information about the company which are completely unrelated to WHOIS privacy protection.
To Be Continued
Be First to Comment