Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle announced on Thursday that she is resubmitting a FOIA request originally filed earlier this year. McArdle had previously sought information from the Central Intelligence Agency about “any operations or activity within the [Libertarian Party].”
In a recent statement on X, McArdle expressed her belief that the Libertarian Party has been “a victim of COINTEL PRO tactics for many years, if not decades,” and confirmed that she would resubmit her previous request later this week on Friday, October 11. She also said she would begin releasing sections of a redacted report, which she claims “spawned the latest round of lawfare we are currently being subjected to.”
Earlier this year, McArdle submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for information on any activities within the Libertarian Party or the Libertarian National Committee. She received a response on July 29 stating that the agency could “neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records” related to her request.
The response, known as a “Glomar response”—a reference to a 1970s operation involving the Hughes Glomar Explorer and efforts to prevent journalists from obtaining more information—is commonly used to protect sensitive information, where even acknowledging the existence or nonexistence of records could reveal classified details.
“It’s difficult to tell if the operatives who are smearing and harassing us are genuinely fed-compromised individuals or they are the product of a late stage operation that was designed to draw in malcontents and mentally unstable types. I suspect it’s a mix of both,” McArdle added.
As part of her ongoing suspicions, McArdle further called attention to the Libertarian Party’s relationship with Robert’s Rules of Order, describing it as a “perverse reverence” that has resulted in “gnashing of teeth.” She added that the country and the party’s candidates deserve better, and that “feds deserve to be cast out.”
Well, I suppose I’ll now never know what it was that Stewart Flood saw and not just heard of, which I mistook him for saying was pigs flying.
SF1
“I’m much more likely to vote for either Trump or Harris, and that’s only going to happen when pigs fly, and I’ve seen it personally not just heard about it!”
SF2
“Nope. Have not seen pigs fly. ”
That’s equally likely to yield fruitful feedback from a CIA FOIA request as Miss McArdle’s demand letters.
Theoretically, I would agree that a classical liberal would agree with what you would expect from a caucus based on Mises. But they are Mises in name only. Their actions show them to be something else.
But they took over the party after I left, so my knowledge of what they have done is limited to things I have heard from a few people I still communicate with, and what I read here and elsewhere.
I also observed the CSPAN Coverage of the 2024 convention. In my opinion, what I saw was incompetence and a loyalty not to political beliefs of the party, but to Trump. It sickened me to see them invite him to speak. The leadership is clearly corrupt through and through. They are not anything other than trump spies. They are disgusting. Their actions in not supporting the selected candidate and instead openly violating the bylaws by supporting other candidates outside the party should be unforgivable.
But enough of this. I believe the topic of the LNC chair’s CIA related antics has been discussed to death and this thread is no longer focused on the original article. Continue if you wish, but I am finished reading this thread. Have a pleasant evening.
I look forward to more reporting by the staff of IPR.
“Mises saving the party? Nope. They destroyed it. The evidence is clear, so saying they are what keeps it alive shows you are clearly a Mises muppet”
Please, please, flattery will get you nowhere.
But in all seriousness, no. I’m a libertarian (paleo-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist), which means I wouldn’t touch the “Libertarian” Party with a ten foot pole. I just take a passing interest and more that little “schadenfreude”, like how other people follow and enjoy sports.
So I’ve kept up well-enough to know that the Mises Caucus is currently the least unlibertarian faction in the LINO Party – as a self-declared classical liberal you should logically love them – and to see that they are the only thing that is keeping the party from disintegrating even further.
Their opponents are libertines and neo-liberals who would like to see the LP become just another off-brand Democratic Party, similar to the Greens and the myriad socialist, communist and marijuana legalization parties all fishing in the same pond for votes.
McArdle may not be a Paul or even a Bergland, but at least she isn’t a Sarwark, a Bishop-Henchman or a Bilyeu.
I was perhaps confused by “that’s only going to happen when pigs fly, and I’ve seen it personally not just heard about it!” If it wasn’t seeing pigs fly, I misunderstood what you saw.
But, it matters not, as I agree with your conclusion. It’s not that I have no plan to vote, it’s that I plan to not vote. That’s despite having a relative preference. I don’t trust the count and nothing on my ballot is even remotely mysterious as to outcome. I can express my views without wasting time and gas, validating an invalid process, or aiding privacy violations by registering to vote.
Nope. Have not seen pigs fly. I said I would vote for the D or R candidate when I’ve seen pigs fly. I do not consider a tornado as flying. That would be a pig sucked up into a swirling wind. Of course that is much like what comes out of the mouths of the D and R candidates when they start pontificating.
Geez…I wish this stupid campaign were over. It is boring, scary, and a complete waste of everyone’s time. No matter who wins, the likelyhood of the other side accepting the results is slim. And the fears people have for voting for someone other than the lesser of two evils (pick one) are far greater than in recent years.
Fair enough and I’ve also seen pigs fly – I’m not referring to police officers. It had to do with tornadic activity. I was quite fortunate to have myself avoided mechanically unaided flight. I hope you were similarly fortunate when you saw pigs fly, and if not – congratulations for living to tell the tale.
Responses to several comments, not in any particular order:
When I refer to Ms Wackadoodle, I am talking about the LNC chair. The (is it now former?) secretary is usually referred to by the color of her hair. Therefore, a reference to pink haired wackadoodle could reference her. That is assuming her hair is still pink.
Mises saving the party? Nope. They destroyed it. The evidence is clear, so saying they are what keeps it alive shows you are clearly a Mises muppet.
Do I care about the LP? In some respects, yes. I have friends who are still involved and I don’t really like seeing them hurt and their time wasted by McArdle (AKA Wackadoodle) and her cabal.
I’m also a bit bored. When you spend thirty plus years active in politics, it takes a lot longer than four years to “recover”. As a self-described classical liberal (minarchist in LP-speak), I certainly still agree with most of what the LP used to stand for. Leaving a party does not necessarily mean you no longer agree with their position on issues.
But would I ever go back? I’m much more likely to vote for either Trump or Harris, and that’s only going to happen when pigs fly, and I’ve seen it personally not just heard about it!
I would love to see a real classical liberal party in my state. Unfortunately, I can’t create one by myself. So until once appears (anyone in South Carolina interested in building one please volunteer at liberalpartyusa.org), I will sit here and watch the antics of the other parties. I’d comment on the Constitution Party or the Greens, but I rarely see stuff written about their internal scandals.
It seems that Ms Wackadoodle is insufficiently clear, given how they now have more women in leadership positions than the tokenism of decades past. To avoid confusion, may I kindly suggest adding first names?
This is unimportant, given how none of it is important, but if it’s good for rubbernecking at trainwrecks, humorous purposes, or anything else, you might as well preclude unnecessary confusion. Or not , as such might yield further entertainment of who’s on first type.
“But the CIA? Well…remember that it was former CIA operatives that pulled off Watergate — a year after COINTELPRO was uncovered.”
As you said, the creepy bungling burglars were former employees. If you have any indications of actual agency involvement in any plot to bug, infiltrate, investigate, or disrupt any political party national office or campaign in the Watergate or anywhere else for that matter, you can post that – again, if you feel like it’s worth your time.
I’m not in any way implying that it ought to be.
I was actually responding to Jim and Unimportant, because your comment hadn’t been placed yet at the time. So it was never my intention to imply any agreement with your remarks about McArdle and the Mises Caucus.
“Yes, but the CIA/LaRouche controverty was many years ago at this point.”
It’s after LBJ and Nixon, which is what Jim asked.
“I think we can all agree that it is unlikely that the CIA would even care about the libertarian party.”
Not at all, no. If McArdle says that Ms. Wackadoodle and her goons are trying to destroy the LP on instructions from the CIA rather than out of their own evil and stupidity, then I’m certain she has her reasons to think so and I’ll hear her out and see what evidence she has.
The Mises Caucus is the only thing keeping the last shreds of the LP together. Rip that band-aid off and there won’t be even a trace of libertarianism left, which is exactly what three-letter agencies would want.
Mr. Flood, while I too find it unlikely that they would find your former party interesting enough to infiltrate, I’m not assuming anything, as it’s not obvious in all cases from the outside just what could trigger an investigation into international terrorism connections, foreign money laundering and Intel ops in the US, and many other reasons they could have potentially popped up on the radar.
Of course, it’s assured that no real investigations could be unveiled through FOIA. Even in the likely event that such hypothetical investigations would have been perfunctory and closed, it could reveal sources and methods and connections of some sort to ongoing or potential investigations or ones that actually did bear fruit etc.
I’ve noticed that you write at times as if you are still in that party, although you made clear you are not. You certainly seem to care about its present and future well-being. I don’t. I think you haven’t made a sufficiently clean exit as of yet. Am I wrong? If not, why do you care so much about their endless internal squabbles, mismanagement, oddball clashing personality struggles, corruption, ineptitude, financial mismanagement etc?
It strikes me that those should no longer be our concern as FORMER members. If you disagree please explain why, if you feel like addressing it might be worth your time.
Yes, but the CIA/LaRouche controverty was many years ago at this point. Ms. Wakadoodle is looking for evidence of involvement in LP conventions during the past decade up to the present. I think we can all agree that it is unlikely that the CIA would even care about the libertarian party.
Indeed. While there is evidence of the FBI’s war against LaRouche (to the point that they apparently tried to have the CPUSA assassinate him), when it comes to the CIA things are a lot less forthcoming.
As Jim says, LaRouche supposedly sought contact with the CIA and other government agencies to exchange intelligence for protection. But outside of that, we have mostly his own ravings and those of his subordinates (including in particular Chris White, whose “testimony” may have been extracted under torture) to go on, since the CIA is never willing to “confirm or deny” whether they spied on political organizations, as McArdle found out.
But mad though LaRouche may well have been – and certainly ethically and morally unsavory – given the FBI, IRS and other agencies’ illegal actions against him and his followers, and given the CIA’s modus operandi, I’m inclined to give him and his wife and associates the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their belief that the CIA had/has infiltrated their organizations.
I am pretty sure that Ms Wakadoodle’s obsession with the CIA is, as pointed out by others, simply a stunt to hide her real activities. The payment to her newly formed PAC, the hiring of her domestic partner, her visibile instability running the convention…
All signs of someone who is trying to avoid detection. Pointing a finger at the CIA will probably work for some of the people who are fringe Mises and not really aware of the true intent of the organization. The intent is obvious to those on the outside: steal as much as possible as they destroy the LP.
Those of us who were around in the 60s and 70s probably remember the FBI’s antics more than most. I vaguely remember when the story was simply in the local newspaper, then on local TV, then quickly a national crisis. (Media is about 5 miles from where I grew up in Swarthmore).
It is well documented that Nolan and the other founders of the LP intentionally stressed non-violence. This was right after COINTELPRO was uncovered, and they did not want to draw the interest of the FBI. I did not know Nolan very well, but I talked to him at several conventions and of course when we both served on the LNC. I recall several times hearing him describe the political climate that the LP was born in. The FBI was a very real concern.
But the CIA? Well…remember that it was former CIA operatives that pulled off Watergate — a year after COINTELPRO was uncovered. But are they involved in the infiltration of political organizations these days? Unlikely. The FBI probably doesn’t need or want their help. And yes, I believe the FBI is still “doing their thing”, but just more carefully to avoid being caught again. Do I have evidence? Of course not. Just a personal belief. Am I losing sleep over it? Again, of course not.
Jim makes a good point there.
I see that LaRouche met with the CIA several times. Apparently he was bringing them information on his own initiative. After an admittedly very quick search I see no evidence that the CIA infiltrated the LaRouche movement, outside of the ravings of a madman.
LaRouche groups were heavily involved in international intrigue, making them a logical target for CIA. My impression is that libertarians are much more domestic in nature, but perhaps there’s some major international components I missed during my previous involvement with them (1987-9, 2008)
LaRouche groups were heavily involved in international intrigue, making them a logical target for CIA. My impression is that libertarians are much more domestic in nature, but perhaps there’s some major international components I missed during my previous involvement with them (1987-9, 2008)
Ciuntelpro was FBI. What’s the evidence about CIA to start with?
Lyndon LaRouche’s various organizations (Schiller Institute, LaRouche PAC, National Caucus of Labor Committees, Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement) were infiltrated by the CIA, as well as other agencies, throughout the 70s and 80s, and possibly ever since then.
Is there any evidence of the CIA infiltrating political parties after the LBJ and Nixon years?
FBI and CIA are two separate agencies.
Go lookup COINTELPRO.
“But there is a documented history of the FBI infiltrating political organizations in the United States. From their perspective, they are looking for “troublemakers“ who may commit acts of violence.”
Produce the receipts. Produce the names. As in now.
I agree with the comment regarding this possibly being a “delusion of grandeur“ . But there is a documented history of the FBI infiltrating political organizations in the United States. From their perspective, they are looking for “troublemakers“ who may commit acts of violence.
It is well documented that one of the reasons why the founders of the libertarian party stressed non-aggression was to counter that exact potential problem. But since the libertarian party is clearly no longer a party of non-aggression, no longer a party of ethics orprinciples, and run by infiltrators supporting other candidates, who knows what is going on behind the scenes.
The first thing the criminal does when they are caught is point the finger at someone else. That is exactly what the chair of the LNC is trying to do with this BS about the CIA.
“It’s difficult to tell if the operatives who are smearing and harassing us are genuinely fed-compromised individuals or they are the product of a late stage operation that was designed to draw in malcontents and mentally unstable types. ”
McArdle could clear that up by simply telling us which of those descriptions she resembles. My guess is both.
Former member here. Angela McCardle blames others, but her incompetence is the reason LP is failing by any metric used.
You could do the same exercise and get the exact same non-response demanding to know what they have on literally any person or organization. It means nothing. You might as well ask what they have on the Audubon Society or the Royal Shakespeare Company or the Des Moines Book of the Month Club.
In reality, the LP is not even remotely relevant enough for any government agency to give a rat’s ass about. Pure delusions of grandeur. Functionally no different than a homeless schizophrenic muttering all the usual delusions.
It’s kind of ironic for the Mises Caucus to be complaining about other’s obsession with Roberts Rules after they spent so much time weaponizing Roberts and the bylaws.
Why the CIA? Infiltration of an organization like the libertarian party would be the purview of the FBI.
That is exactly the response one would expect from the CIA. Remember, they are not legally allowed to conduct operations on US soil. And they are certainly not allowed to conduct operations against US citizens on US soil. The FBI, however, does conduct operations on US soil and most assuredly against US citizens. And they have a documented past history of infiltrating, other political organizations.
Asking the CIA is not only stupid, but it is brilliant in it’s stupidity. If they are not involved in anything, they are not going to be able to produce any documents, and therefore not be able to confirm the existence of anything. All it does is feed the conspiracy that is twisting within her warped little mind. Meanwhile, the FBI, which is who she should’ve submitted the request to, probably does have operatives in every political party in the country.
Various factions of the allegedly libertarian party have accused each other of being moles since the original meetings in Colorado 1971 and other states soon thereafter, and there’s probably at least some truth to all of it.
Any potentially antiestablishment movement or org always gets riddled with moles, just like establishment orgs have control agents. The idea that this sort of infiltration is limited by self defined party factions or any recognizable pattern of any kind is not in touch with mole operating SOP.
To be effective, moles have to be dispersed throughout organizations in various ways across factions, regions , duties / responsibilities, social cliques, patterns of behavior etc
FOIA a bunch of deceased Libertarians. I heard one can only FOIA another living person if one has their conscent in writing but that no conscent is needed to FIOA a person who is deceased.
I suspect Walter Ziobro is spot on.
“Tomorrow, I am re-submitting my FOIA request,”
An exercise in futility, albeit one with good optics: all form and no function. The CIA will never release any relevant records. Not now. Not in 25 years. Not in 50 years. Not in 75 years. They will be destroyed at the first sign of any risk that they might get declassified under new management.
“and I will begin to release sections a redacted report that spawned the latest round of lawfare we are currently being subjected to.”
This, however, could still prove an interesting read, even if it doesn’t have any real consequences.
“It’s difficult to tell if the operatives who are smearing and harassing us are genuinely fed-compromised individuals or they are the product of a late stage operation that was designed to draw in malcontents and mentally unstable types. I suspect it’s a mix of both. ”
Harlos is almost certainly the latter – i.e. the Crooks and Routh variety – whereas ter Maat is likely the former. The jury is still out regarding Oliver, Thompson, Nanna, Darr, Weir, Redpath, Rutherford and Nekhaila.
“No other organization has such a perverse reverence for Robert’s Rules of Order. They go so far as to lovingly call it ‘The Cult of RONR’. The tongue in cheek RONR worship has turned to gnashing of teeth.”
Ironically, the “newly revised editions” of Robert’s Rules (from 1970 onward) seem to have less and less to do with brigadier Robert’s original guide for smooth procedure, and are increasingly frequently diametrically opposed to it in spirit. The poor brigadier is likely turning in his grave to know what his name is being (ab)used for nowadays.
“Of course, there are ‘very fine people’ in the Libertarian Party, and that’s why I’ve stuck around to fight the feds, freaks and weirdos.”
Any libertarians still associating with the LP at this point, are either new arrivals who didn’t do even the most perfunctory homework but will learn better soon enough, or hardcore fighters who are deliberately in the belly of the beast, like Ron Paul, Michael Heise and – I am starting to think – Spike Cohen.
“Serious candidates deserve better. The country deserves better. The feds deserve to be cast out.”
That shouldn’t just mean better than Oliver-ter Maat, but also better than Trump-Vance, better than Kennedy-Shanahan, and better than any of the candidates who ran for LP nomination this year.
Angela McArdle is a Pro Trump and supports MAGA Republicans, she is close to the Schiller Inst. and the LaRouche Movement and supports Russian fascist Alexander Dugin and Putin…
Paranoid much?
I have been involved off and on with the Libertarian Party a quite a long time. Over that time, I have observed a number of curious people become engaged in the party, and then disappear. I suspect that most of them are just interested in seeing what the party is all about, and then move on. But, I do believe that some of them represent investigators from a number of sources. I think that most of them go away and report to whomever that the party is mostly a bunch of harmless kooks.
If the CIA or other federal agencies produce any materials in response to McArdle’s request regarding operatives within the LP they will surely redact her name in those documents.