We gather that the event will be live on the LP YouTube channel. We anticipate covering it.
Amici continue to arrive.
First section: LPNH Attorney presents.
They start at 8:07 PM, slightly late due to technical issues.
Moellman reads the rules. He then reads the disaffiliation resolution, which the LNC passed 15-2-1.
Ian Huyett presents for LPNH. He asks for time for four witness, notably Kauffman, McArdle, Weir, and (I think) Nick Hubbard. He asks for 30 minutes for each side rather than 15. Dixon and Goldstein oppose extension. Moellman: This is the first full disaffiliation in the history of teh party. There have been constructive disaffliations. Vote is 4-3 to extend.
Ian Huyett speaks first: He objects to JC rejecting amicus briefs from affiliates. He advances the claim that the JC did not have a quorum to fill its vacancies. He notes that the accusation against LPNH based on social media statements lacked specificity. He explains this point (with which your Editor agrees) in extended detail. He turns to the Trump endorsement. He argues that because the bylaws refer to the JC and appellants that there should have been a trial process before the LNC. We hear references to the Dixon JC hearing.
Angela McArdle appears as a witness.They start by discussing LPNM in 2022. LNC had discussed a disaffiliation hearing. Some members wanted a straight vote. Then LPNM disaffiliated themselves. LNC agreed to give them their wish.
Nick Hubbard appears as a witness. He opposed the Trump endorsement. He claims that Jeremy Kauffman was not controlling LPNH. He says the LNC did not ask LPNH to rescind its Trump endorsement.
Ben Weir is the next witness. He was on the LNC and the LPNH board. He discusses an agreement between LNC and LPNH on how the LPNH did social media. Weir says that LPNH agreed not to attack other Liberarians or use right coded language. The informal agreement eventually faded.
Jeremy Kauffman lists the LPNH offices he held. He says LP should support Libertarian candidates. He agrees with Moellman that this is an important issue. He believes disaffiliation will tear the party apart. He reports that Andrew Allgod has been suspended from LPNH pending an investigation.
There is a break.
Meeting resumes. Jonathan McGee presents for the LPNH. There is a new amicus by Miss McArdle. McGee agrees that McArdle’s statement is correct. He recounts interactions between the LNC and LPNH prior to the disaffiliation vote. McGee is apparently using a cell phone rather than a telephone or other hard-wired communicator that actually works in the real world.. He switches over to a telephone. He emphasizes that the process given by New Mexico is not relevant, because the facts of the issue — LPNH endorsed Trump — are not in doubt.
We advance to JC questioning people. Dixon discusses whether or not the JC could fill its vacancies.
Huyett claims that the LPNH Executive Committee did not have the authority to endorse Trump.
Gingell asks if Kaufman was at the ExComm Meeting that endorsed Trump. He says he was there but did not vote. There were LPNH officer elections in early 2026; the elected people did not participate in the vote on Trump.
O’Brien asks about LPNH changing its mind on Trump. This happened after the LNC disaffiliation vote. O’Brien asks if LPNH retracted its endorsements prior to the disaffiliation vote/ Kauffman says LPNH posted critical tweets. OBrien asks if the LPNH ever voted to renounce its endorsement. Kauffman notes the LPNH ExComm was replaced. Kauffman agrees that he personally endorsed Trump.
Moulton: Asks about distinction between personal and official endorsement. LPNH and attorney are arguing that LPNH should have been warned before they were disaffiliated. Huyett claims that ‘for cause’ requires notice. There is an extended debate as to what ’cause’ means.
Gingell asks what LPNH ExComm thought of Kauffman’s posts to X.com.
Huyett asks the reasonable question, namely there is a need to specify which tweets were incompatible with LNC bylaws. The basic issue is that the original McMahon motion was poorly prepared and did not give details as to what LPNH did that was wrong.
Kauffman complains that the new LNC disaffiliated LPNH so soon as they took office.
Moulton asks about cause. The disaffiliation motion lists two causes. He says the attacks on the two causes are collateral attacks that do not speak to the actual charge.
Huyett keeps claiming cause requires an investigation.
Dixon asks about compound motions. No one has thought about the answer.
We take another break.
We now have Q&A with the LNC’s representative, Jonathan McGee.
Moulton: Is there a time limit on disaffiliation for endorsing a Republican? McGee: No.
Moulton:Why didn’t the LNC Cite specific tweets on their disaffiliation motion?
Dixon: Is this a defacto motion to rescind? McGee agrees that the 2/3 vore requirement is not relevant.
Neale asks why there was no disaffiliate motion in the prior term. There are claims there were not enough votes.Then it was too close to the convention for a vote.
Proposal to introduce McMahon as a witness. Denied; he was not on the witness list.
O’Brien asks if Nekhaila had heard discussions of disaffiliation motions. Nekhaila: There apparently had been in 2024. McArdle according to him was seen as disavowing our candidate and endorsing Trump. There is discussion of the informal agreement.
There is agreement that the meeting notice announcing a disaffiliation motion reached LNC members before the LNC meeting. Neale notes that the agenda for the May Meeting was approved by the LNC at the start of the meeting.
McGee: Some LNC candidates made clear in their campaign statements that they would support disaffiliation. Moulton asks a series of technical legal questions.
We have another break.
Closing statements are next.
We have another break.
LNC Closing Statement: McGee: There is no dispute that LPNH ExComm endorsed Trump. 8 months before disaffilation LPNH was warned.The LNC did the right things. Please affirm the LNC’s decision.
Huyett: Discusses meaning of ‘for cause’. Claims ‘for cause’ requires an investigation.
Moellman: JC has ten days for a preliminary decision and 30 days to publish its decision.
Moulton moves that the JC deliberate in open session. A 2/3 vote is required. Committee will discuss this off-line.
That was an unstructured brutal mess of a train wreck of a hearing.
Almost all of it had nothing to do with the facts of the case or the vote.
Huyett shows why you don’t bring a lawyer to a Bylaws and Rules fight. He was woefully uninformed on RONR and parliamentary law, repeatedly getting the citations wrong.
The JC needs to set an advance agenda for these hearings, like we did last term, and stick to it.
This case, as I pointed out in my amicus, was straightforward: LPNH violated the Bylaws and they admitted they did. They FA’ed and got the FO. Case closed.
I am getting more and more relieved daily that I didn’t get re-elected to the JC.
The LNC wins on the written evidence. The MH attorney was very good and better prepared. The LNC should have had parliamentary expert – I would love to have been a member witness (never asked) but would have declined parliamentary advisor (also to be clear, not asked). It is crazy that Evan was not on LNC witness list.
Giving NH more time was right call.