FW: Do we even have principles?
380 views
Skip to first unread message
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 2:41:39 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 6:41:32 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Do we even have principles?
Dear colleagues,
I want to know how many of the "leaders" on this board agree with this statement:
“While Article 3 clearly states the purpose of the Statement of Principles, how it can be
amended, and its relationship with the party platform, shockingly it does not actually state that
LNC actions are bound by the Statement of Principles”
-
Jonathan McGee, speaking on behalf of the whole LNC to the Judicial Committee
That's the argument in the JC right now for why our principles against "misrepresentation" should not apply to their misconduct.
In short, it was completely accurate to say, "this is straight up fraud".
I personally see no difference between that kind of political thuggery and the corrupt establishment we fight against. It's a lot like the government "finding" a "loophole" (through creative interpretation) and then using it to shred the constitution.
The enemy within our gates wants us to pearl-clutch about political speech on social media, while they commit open violence against everything the LP has ever stood for. I cannot think of a more destructive enemy to the LP's cause than those in our own gates, who would cover up and ratify their own misconduct, and then, in their defense, claim our statement of principles doesn't apply to them.
Is this how LP leaders should behave?
Austin Martin
R1
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 3:05:59 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 7:03:28 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Mr. Martin,
I will try to hear what you are saying and respond.
You are disturbed that the Party would create a Statement of Principles, which it holds in the highest regard, hence the difficulty in ever amending them. And it would apply it to our affiliates, but not consider it binding on ourselves, the national party.
Is that a fair restatement?
On that part, I agree with you. It troubles me too. I don't think Mr. McGee was wrong with the facts of its applicability, and so I would personally be in support of a bylaw amendment that eliminates that "loophole."
You said "why our principles against "misrepresentation" should not apply to their misconduct."
You are framing it as misconduct, so I would leave out "to their misconduct" to have it read "why our principles against 'misrepresentation' should not apply."
Again, I agree with your sentiment here.
Mr. McGee's response from the LNC was not limited to this one argument. He offered many reasons why the appeal is incorrect in regards to misrepresentation itself. I believe he was merely trying to be comprehensive in all the factual arguments that counter the points made in the appeal, whether he personally likes those arguments or not. I believe his extrapolations that any error, intentional or otherwise and including typos, would technically be misrepresentation as the appeal makes it out to be, is one of the most compelling counterarguments. This would be ludicrous, and so it has to mean intentional misrepresentation, essentially with the intent to commit fraud.
I understand you might believe that SIC report is a fraud, based on the tweet cited against you previously and your framing of misconduct. That being said, I don't believe it is responsible to assume as much without very good evidence. You could assert that they maybe didn't do as much due diligence as you would have liked, that there are errors or other issues you see with it, and that you weren't given adequate time to review it before having to vote on adopting it. But to assign intent to deceive, that allegation needs to be backed with evidence, and I personally have not seen anything that would convince me they did.
Respectfully,
I will try to hear what you are saying and respond.
You are disturbed that the Party would create a Statement of Principles, which it holds in the highest regard, hence the difficulty in ever amending them. And it would apply it to our affiliates, but not consider it binding on ourselves, the national party.
Is that a fair restatement?
On that part, I agree with you. It troubles me too. I don't think Mr. McGee was wrong with the facts of its applicability, and so I would personally be in support of a bylaw amendment that eliminates that "loophole."
You said "why our principles against "misrepresentation" should not apply to their misconduct."
You are framing it as misconduct, so I would leave out "to their misconduct" to have it read "why our principles against 'misrepresentation' should not apply."
Again, I agree with your sentiment here.
Mr. McGee's response from the LNC was not limited to this one argument. He offered many reasons why the appeal is incorrect in regards to misrepresentation itself. I believe he was merely trying to be comprehensive in all the factual arguments that counter the points made in the appeal, whether he personally likes those arguments or not. I believe his extrapolations that any error, intentional or otherwise and including typos, would technically be misrepresentation as the appeal makes it out to be, is one of the most compelling counterarguments. This would be ludicrous, and so it has to mean intentional misrepresentation, essentially with the intent to commit fraud.
I understand you might believe that SIC report is a fraud, based on the tweet cited against you previously and your framing of misconduct. That being said, I don't believe it is responsible to assume as much without very good evidence. You could assert that they maybe didn't do as much due diligence as you would have liked, that there are errors or other issues you see with it, and that you weren't given adequate time to review it before having to vote on adopting it. But to assign intent to deceive, that allegation needs to be backed with evidence, and I personally have not seen anything that would convince me they did.
Respectfully,
|
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 1:41 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 1:41 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 3:41:03 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 7:40:54 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
As a Libertarian, I highly value our Statement of Principles – it is the main reason I joined this Party when seeking a political home.
However, it would seem we may differ in how we interpret the Statement of Principles.
I do not believe re-adopting the resolutions related to the SIC report violates our principles.
On the contrary, I believe the allegations the resolutions seek to address are what truly violate our principles.
On the contrary, I believe the allegations the resolutions seek to address are what truly violate our principles.
The JC complaint seems to assert that we cannot pass resolutions against an individual because we have no authority to ban them from office, as that would strip delegates of their right to elect them. However, that is not the case.
The resolutions explicitly propose bylaw reforms to address the issues raised, and they state that the LNC believes an individual to be unfit. This is effectively a censure, not a prohibition. The resolutions strip no delegate of their right to vote however
they wish, even if we, as a body, believe such a choice would be harmful to the Party and our core values.
What does violate the Statement of Principles, in my view, includes:
- Fundraising for our direct political opponents.
-
Secretly hiring one’s domestic partner again in open defiance of the Policy Manual.
- Working against our own Presidential ticket in the middle of an election.
- Affiliates promoting irrational collectivist hate, such as blatant antisemitism or calls to strip transgender people of certain rights.
-
Advocacy of political violence, the death penalty, and other positions directly contrary to our platform.
-
The outright endorsement of our direct political opponents.
These are the behaviors I believe undermine our principles and addressing them need not be a distraction from anything.
Calling such issues out is not a violation of the SoP any more than disassociating from bigotry is not a violation of free speech.
Calling such issues out is not a violation of the SoP any more than disassociating from bigotry is not a violation of free speech.
There may well be an “enemy within our gates,” but that enemy is the tendency to excuse or normalize betrayals of our platform, to fundraise for and with the failed old parties, and to undermine our own candidates.
Addressing those issues directly is not a cover-up; it is long overdue accountability.
In Liberty,
Keith Thompson
Region 3 Southern Rep
Region 3 Southern Rep
From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 2:03 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 2:03 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 4:49:02 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 8:48:53 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Aloha, Mr. Bohler,
Respectfully, there is no “loophole”.
There is only profound moral failure.
The claim of a "loophole" is a disingenuous lie by malicious misconstruction. The bylaws explicitly affirm that the LNC is absolutely bound by our principles. This is not even in dispute.
Article 3, Section 1, and the preamble of Article 2 both make this explicit. However, for the benefit of those inclined to defend fraudulent misrepresentation by sophistry, I will disambiguate
the problem, beginning with Article 7, Section 1.
Article 7: National Committee Section 1
"1. The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these bylaws. The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 2."
The phrase "consistent with these bylaws" also incorporates the statement of principles — but to make it extra, extra clear for political fraudsters who undermine these principles, it says: "The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 2."
Article 2 clarifies that "The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles".
Article 3 elaborates even further:
"The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail."
The party isn't merely "inspired" by these principles — it is "sustained" by them.
Pretending otherwise is "straight up fraud".
I support the swift removal of anyone who tries to subvert our principles, along with any who support their open attacks against the soul of our party. They should be driven out and punished with extreme prejudice.
They are simply not libertarian.
Mr. McGee, the SIC members, and their like-minded cohorts know that what they are doing is fraudulent, or else there would have been no need to hang their hats on the argument that the statement of principles (specifically against fraud) doesn't apply to them.
There are no other coherent arguments which even begin to address the issues with the corrupt SIC and their rigged report.
Not even one.
Jonathan McGee merely recycles the damage control spin-job from Jake Porter and further argues our Party rules don’t apply to his corrupt DNC sympathizers. They never even verified his "research". This body is moving on unverified rumors and is clearly negligent
in the duty of care / loyalty. The corrupted cadre of covert radical leftists openly break the rules whenever it suits them — Mr. Bohler, why are you helping them cover it up? Is this abhorrent willingness to trash our party principles the reason why the corrupted
majority agreed (behind the scenes, in advance) to appoint you and Mr. Knebel to this board? Was it to cover up this kind of brazen misconduct?
I notice these are the exact same patterns of malpractice we see in courtroom misconduct by corrupt attorneys — the precision is stunning. How interesting that so many lawyers around the LNC are openly engaging in that exact, brazen pattern of malfeasance...
yet they too, refuse to back down when caught. If Angela McArdle violated the statement of principles, I cannot understand why that would justify this board to trash our bylaws. How can we condemn McArdle if we are guilty of WORSE violations? If the case against
her is so clean cut, why on earth would we need to commit fraud to pull it off? Can’t we just have an investigation and find a reasonable conclusion without fraudulent, misrepresentation and rampant misconduct from the self-serving members of this board?
Investigating your political opponents is one of the oldest tricks in the book. False accusations are the bread-and-butter of corrupt establishment politics. The accuser can make a compelling case against any innocent person, misconstruing
it as serious criminal violations. The credo of corrupt federal prosecutors applies here: "Show me the person, I'll show you the crime". It is highly noteworthy that this
whole "case" against Angela is being moved by a group of corrupt political lawyers who appear to be engaged in collusion and malfeasance.
This historically proven dynamic of corrupt political accusations is literally the reason why we have
rights for the accused in the first place. In fact, most of the Bill or Rights and our party principles are aimed at stopping exactly these kinds of abuses. Yet here, all the safeguards and principles were ignored in the rush to "burn the witch".
No real libertarian should need this explained to them. I cannot accept that you are all completely dumb and insensate to the danger of political prosecutions — stupidity doesn't adequately explain the situation. Malice does. This is the exact same playbook
that we have seen plaguing our national political scene — it’s also straight out of the Marxist’s playbook for subversion. Alinsky details these tactics well in “Rules for Radicals”.
Our principles are the only thing standing between Liberty and total chaos.
If Angela McArdle is guilty of misconduct, I'm pretty sure we can address the issues like adults, without ceremonially burning our Statement of Principles.
"Getting the bad guys" is NEVER more important than upholding our principles. This is what
real libertarians tell the regime's cops and prosecutors. How sad that our leadership acts more like corrupt cops than they act like real libertarians on the ground, whom they supposedly represent.
My goals are now clear. I was elected to fight the evil on this board — and the states who elected me have since been under attack by the subversive criminal network holding our party hostage, targeting their leadership using similar vile tactics. I fight for
them. The infiltrators are roving the country, splitting state affiliates, and waging unrestricted political warfare against actual libertarians. I was elected to fight for my people, not to make buddies with a bunch of corrupt cops and their dirty lawyers.
Make no mistake, this is a spiritual battle for the existence and soul of the LP; it's a battle of good versus evil…
… and you’re on the wrong side, Sam.
Austin Martin
R1
From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:03:28 AM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:03:28 AM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 4:58:46 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 8:58:37 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Mr. Martin,
The only side I'm on is the side of freedom and liberty. You decry false accusations as the bread-and-butter of corrupt establishment politics, while in the same email making numerous accusations, including against me, which are false. Please heed your own advice.
Sincerely,
The only side I'm on is the side of freedom and liberty. You decry false accusations as the bread-and-butter of corrupt establishment politics, while in the same email making numerous accusations, including against me, which are false. Please heed your own advice.
Sincerely,
|
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 3:48 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 3:48 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 5:19:52 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:19:42 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Mr. Bohler,
Your actions harshly contradict your smooth words, sir.
You claim McGee is right that “we are not bound by our principles.” I call that collusion and fraudulent misrepresentation. I’m experienced at dealing with corrupt politicians, and I know the unvarnished truth tends to drive them bonkers. That is a feature
of my services, not a bug.
Again, it’s why I was elected. It's also why real libertarians rejected the last leftist presidential campaign by a factor of 2:1. The leftist infiltrators and saboteurs are neither popular nor liked. Real Libertarians justifiably HATE political games like
this, which is the main reason why most of our base doesn't even vote. It's because of spinelessness and soullessness.
You cannot convince me your defense of that creature McGee and the corrupt SIC members can sit well with your conscience. Gaslighting and reversing the victim and offender will not help you against someone like me.
It only shows your true colors.
You cannot credibly claim to stand for liberty if you argue the Statement of Principles doesn't apply to the party leadership. It's like Bush saying he's anti-war. It's utter horse-shit.
That position alone makes you my adversary.
I am not ashamed, and I'm not sorry.
Anyone who says "principle don't apply to leadership" is the enemy of the LP.
You all have tried to remove and punish me for speaking the truth against your propaganda —and I'm aware you were the only one bright enough to realize that their authoritarian reaction was helping me expose the corruption.
You haven't helped fix the problem — you have helped them cover up crimes against the party.
You didn't help me when Steven was blackmailing me with my email privileges — you didn't confront him or stand up for what was right. You LEGITIMIZED his unlawful conduct and then helped him blackmail me for a promise to stop speaking the truth.
I don't mistake shrewdness for friendship or alignment.
If you agree with McGee, you should not be in this party at all.
Full stop.
Austin Martin
R1
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:58:37 AM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:58:37 AM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 5:21:37 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:21:28 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Unsubscribe.
-Ben
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:19:42 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:19:42 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 5:22:01 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:21:56 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Release the SIC minutes.
From: Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 11:21:28 AM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 11:21:28 AM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 5:24:39 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:24:32 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>; Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Free Roger Ver.
Sincerely,
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, LNC
From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:21:56 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:21:56 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 5:44:32 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Sam Bohler <samuel...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:44:23 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>; Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>; Ben Weir <ben....@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Mr. Martin,
This will be my last reply on this subject.
This will be my last reply on this subject.
|
You claim McGee is right that “we are not bound by our principles.”
That is not what I said. Maybe that is what you heard, but that is itself a misrepresentation, ergo by your logic a violation of our Principles.
I said "I don't think Mr. McGee was wrong with the facts of its applicability, and so I would personally be in support of a bylaw amendment that eliminates that 'loophole.'"
I said "I don't think Mr. McGee was wrong with the facts of its applicability, and so I would personally be in support of a bylaw amendment that eliminates that 'loophole.'"
To be clear on what I said:
The bylaws appear to have a defect, one that I don't like. But much like I didn't appreciate you and others having very little time before a meeting to read a 94 page report, whether we like it or not, it was procedurally sound.
I implore the members of this board to live up to our Statement of Principles and the spirit of our rules instead of relying upon technicalities. Because even if a flaw in our bylaws doesn't make us technically bound, we should be.
Mr. Martin, you are not exposing coverups, corruption, and blackmail. You are spewing accusations with reckless disregard. If you consider me your adversary, I believe you have truly lost the plot.
The bylaws appear to have a defect, one that I don't like. But much like I didn't appreciate you and others having very little time before a meeting to read a 94 page report, whether we like it or not, it was procedurally sound.
I implore the members of this board to live up to our Statement of Principles and the spirit of our rules instead of relying upon technicalities. Because even if a flaw in our bylaws doesn't make us technically bound, we should be.
Mr. Martin, you are not exposing coverups, corruption, and blackmail. You are spewing accusations with reckless disregard. If you consider me your adversary, I believe you have truly lost the plot.
From: Steven Nekhaila <steven....@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 4:24 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 4:24 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 6:09:54 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:09:43 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Referring to Mr. McGee as “that creature” is particularly wrong because I’ve met Mr. McGee and I know for a fact that he is not the Federal Reserve.
Further, it makes Mr. McGee sound like a badass, and that's probably not your intent.
Keith Thompson
Region 3 South Rep
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 4:44 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 17, 2025, 6:33:57 PM (10 days ago) Sep 17
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:33:47 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Mr Bohler,
When you cut away all the distractions from your "clarification" in your last reply, your exact words are
"I don't think Mr. McGee was wrong with the facts of its applicability, [...] it was procedurally sound."
You are referring to the directly quoted statement:
“While Article 3 clearly states the purpose of the Statement of Principles, how it can be amended, and its relationship with the party platform, shockingly it does not actually state that LNC actions are bound by the Statement of Principles”
-
Jonathan McGee, speaking on behalf of the whole LNC to the Judicial Committee
From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 6:09:43 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 6:09:43 PM
lnc-public_forward
Sep 18, 2025, 3:39:13 PM (9 days ago) Sep 18
to lnc-p...@googlegroups.com
From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 7:39:03 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: LNC Board <lncb...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Do we even have principles?
Good afternoon,
I have the pleasure of having Mr. Porter in my region, where he continues to serve as a valuable and long-time volunteer and member.
As he has been disparaged in this thread by an LNC member, he wishes for me to pass on his response to this direct attack:
--
It has come to my attention that Mr. Martin has made libelous accusations against me on the public LNC discussion list. I request that my regional rep allow me to respond to the list so members can see through Mr. Martin’s obfuscation.
Mr. Martin states: “Jonathan McGee merely recycles the damage control spin-job from Jake Porter and further argues our Party rules don’t apply to his corrupt DNC sympathizers. They never even verified his "research".”
I remind the board that targeting long-standing members such as myself who have been around for twenty years is probably not a good idea for obvious reasons. My record in this party speaks for itself.
The only “damage control” I did was halting Angela McArdle’s misuse of party funds to pay her hidden and undisclosed domestic partner’s company with LNC money. My “research” as Mr. Martin sarcastically calls it was compiled from public records and government
filings and easily verifiable from the article I publicly released. Furthermore, McArdle admits the company belonged to the domestic partner and that she didn’t disclose it in the Hector Roos appeal in the section titled “Angela PR Fact Sheet” pages 297-302.
This along with the comments McArdle made at the time debunks any claims that Martin has about research not being verified.
The only “spin-job” that has occurred here comes from McArdle’s loyalists on this board who continue to violate their fiduciary duty by covering up theft of party assets.
Mr. Martin, who are my DNC sympathizers? Name names. If you are going to make a bold claim, you need to start to back it up. Just like I backed up all my claims in my Substack articles which caused the former Chair to resign rather than her facing accountability.
Instead of presenting facts, you rely on baseless conspiracy theories that you have created in your own head. Your feelings and blind loyalty to McArdle are not evidence. Stop presenting them as such.
Jake Porter
“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
--
I hope that future disagreements, as they occur, pertain to the substance of issues rather than baseless and conspiratorial accusations.
In Liberty,
Keith Thompson
Region 3 South Rep
From: Andrew Chadderdon <andrew.c...@lp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:33 PM
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 5:33 PM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages