At left site Crooks & Liars, Karoli Kuns reports on Chuck Todd’s exclusive interview with Gary Johnson & Bill Weld on MTP Daily:
For the most part, the interview covered the usual topics you’d expect from Libertarians. Privatize the VA, voucherize everything, get rid of the ACA and implement Health Savings Accounts instead, and more.
But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump’s talking points about Hillary Clinton’s email.
Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, “I’m speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There’s no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there’s no indictment.“
Source: Crooks & Liars (reporting on current politics) http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans
George has provided the facts others want ignored or buried. While his efforts have been been enough to achieve course correction he is trying. The LP is not an adjunct to the NeoCon lies propagated by the GOP. It was always intended to represent all issues where individual rights, accountability, and justice were issues.
We hear the conservative ox being gored. The conservatives are so stupid that they are banking their plans on the frail hope that Clinton actually did something that was seriously illegal rather than de minimis. of course, they also have to hope that the voters will care, and that the voters will — hypothetically, but the more likely indictment — not be more dismayed by an indictment of Trump over Trump University.
Claims that I spen dmy time shilling for Democrats are also stupid but par for the course.
Weld should be comfortable in the Massachusetts LP, where Chair Phillies expends at least 40% of his efforts shilling for criminal democrats.
Weld is the Libertarian VP candidate. He had an opportunity to stomp on some Republicans, and he took it. The Republicans are here running on “this time. the mirage is a castle” by whipping up voter hatred, and dampening that line as a third party weakens the Republicans. Running a Presidential campaign on the hypothesis that the Democratic candidate will have some legal difficulties that have not yet arisen is unusually stupid, even for the Republican party of stupid, but that’s is where some Republicans are at the moment.
It is of course possible there will be an indictment, for example arising from facts that are not widely known, but that’s at least as true of the Republican candidate.
Closet Republicans who cannot understand that Libertarians are equally here to make the Republicans and Democrats one with the Whigs and the contemporaneous American Party are not going to understand what happened here.
Weld is a scumbag, covering for the Clintons in this way.
Trump has the more libertarian position here, that government criminals belong in prison.
L, I had nothing to do with NewsletterGate1 or 2.
You allude to “ties,” but I know of none.
Robert Capozzi ‘s June 2, 2016 at 04:41 analysis of the “A/B/X/Y” is spot on.
You may not like it, but you can be tarred unfairly with a damaged reputation by associating yourself with certain unpopular persons or ideas, even when they don’t really match your own views. It is best to avoid such situations by exercising a wise selection of your associates and the viewpoints that you express.
It depends.
Yes, in your case, I would say it depends almost entirely on the identity of Person A. If Person A is a principled, hardcore libertarian, you and your fellow milquetoasters will go to great lengths to remind people of things that happened over 20 years ago, of snippets taken out of context, of the most tangential connections to obscure groups and individuals that have long since been forgotten.
On the other hand, if Person A is one of the milquetoast moderates of which you are so fond, then it’s a different story. In that case, even much more recent ties to a more well-known man — an infamous warmonger and a vicious Islamophobe, who espouses some of the most bizarre “conspiracy theories” ever concocted — well, that’s no big deal to you. You’re more than happy to sweep that under the rug.
The extent of your hypocrisy is matched only by the brazenness of it.
L: Are you saying that Person A is or is not “associated” with Person B? And, are you saying that Person A is or is not “associated” with Position Y?
Me: It depends. Say Position X is “murder should be illegal.” A and B both support X. They are not associated by inference, since that view is universal and non-controversial.
If X is Civil War revisionism, then that starts to associate by inference A and B. If A is a L and B holds Position Y, racism, then there could be association by inference there.
If A buys the revisionist argument but s/he recognizes that the issue is toxic, since it’s widely associated with racism since many racists subscribe to X and Y, A may downplay X. Person A may simply sincerely buy that the Constitution allows for states to secede at any time for any reason. But A could be wise enough to recognize that at this stage, X is a lost cause. Person A may also see the Civil War led to much death and destruction, but also led to end of slavery.
Being attuned, Person A might say that technically speaking s/he believes the CSA was empowered to secede, BUT Person A may keep his or her own counsel on the matter, knowing that Racist B also believes in that controversial position. By not promoting X, Person A avoids the association by inference.
Now, if Person A and B serve on the same organization’s board and A is a L but B is a racist, it is harder for A to not be associated with B. If they co-author articles, or if their writings appear in the same journal, again the association becomes stronger. If they once shared a meal together, there is not much association there.
In short, Langa, you seem to be seeking codification of these matters in a deeply subjective world. Simplistic syllogisms usually don’t work here, and they don’t work in your A/B/X/Y setup, at least not for me.
Sorry, RC, your hand waving isn’t going to cut it this time. On the same thread I linked to above, I specifically summarized your position as follows:
Your stance — that one should avoid taking any position, simply to avoid “being associated with” other people who take that position — is ludicrous.
Your response was:
L, ludicrous…for you. I respect that. Objectively ludicrous? No such thing, I submit. Ludicrous for most? I see no evidence of that. I see much evidence to the contrary.
You did not deny that this was an accurate summary of your position. Rather, you defended the idea, and implied that most people would agree with it, or at least find it reasonable.
Perhaps you misunderstood. So, I will put the question as simply as I can, as follows:
Suppose that Person A and Person B both support Position X. Person B also supports Position Y, but Person A does not. Are you saying that Person A is or is not “associated” with Person B? And, are you saying that Person A is or is not “associated” with Position Y?
L, oh, that’s easy. Happy to clarify.
One can be associated with a notorious person OR one can be associated by inference with a notorious issue.
The standard for being associated with a notorious person is whether they have a working or other direct connection. BHO was associated with Rev. Wright, as he went to Wright’s church for years. DJT is associated with Corey Lewandowski.
Associations by inference are less direct. Talk of Civil War revisionism associates for many as racist code, since many racists buy into some form of revisionism.
Free market capitalism has similar problems. For some, it sounds like apologism for Enron and Bernie Madoff and the growing wealth gap. Associations by inference are very often highly unfair. However, if one is not aware of these widely held associations by inference, one will likely do poorly in politics.
This, for example, is probably why someone came up with the term “crony capitalism,” as a way to distance the advocacy for markets from corporatism.
Randians and Rothbardians very often have tin ears on such matters. If they subscribe to Civil War revisionism, when they are warned of the associations by inference with haters, they respond that individualism is the ultimate shield against the charge of racism. Which, on one level, is true, but I don’t think the immunization works very well.
I suspect that Randians and Rothbardians relish matters that can provoke those who don’t know the nuances of their positions by taking wildly unpopular views like Civil War revisionism. They stake out a controversial position as an opening salvo to make a deontological case for their interpretation of history. This generally loses most people pretty quickly.
L, you know, when I use the word “associate,” I mean a close working relationship.
Do you really? That’s funny, because just the other day, you claimed that merely taking the same position that someone else takes on a given issue, even if you have no direct relationship with those people at all, nevertheless “associates” you with them. You used that exact word. Here, in case you’ve forgotten so soon:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/05/william-weld-wins-libertarian-party-vice-presidential-nomination/#comment-1374642
You said:
L, taking the Spooner position on the Confederate Elite Insurrection does NOT “constitute” bigotry. It does, however, “associate” with bigots, since there is a great overlap between Civil War revisionists and bigotry.
Politics — versus the study of history or the meaning of the Constitution — is a game of optics. The optics of Ls who rationalize the CSA’s secession are poor, since it associates Ls with bigots, even if the Ls who do so are not bigots themselves.
Remember now? So, why does taking the same position as bigots on the Civil War cause one to be “associated” with such bigots, while taking the same position as Gaffney on the Patriot Act (even going so far as to sign a letter he wrote on the subject) not cause one to be “associated” with Gaffney and his loony ideas?
L, you know, when I use the word “associate,” I mean a close working relationship. My quick scan of your links don’t show such associations, though maybe I missed it. Saying things similar to FG is not the same as being associated with FG.
RP1 is associated with GN, iirc, as GN worked for RP1 back in the day. Whether they are associated now is hard for me to say. HHH…ditto. All 3 seem somewhat associated through LvMI. I don’t recall suggesting the associations with RP1 were especially damaging, others have. RP1 created his own hot mess with his Newletters.
I missed where GJ or WW are associated with FG. Are they?
Johnson: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/03/thomas-l-knapp-the-ted-cruz-gary-johnson-connection-and-it-aint-pretty/
Weld: http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/william-weld-signed-letter-supporting-patriot-act/
FG is a pretty obscure figure regardless, so any association doesn’t play positively or negatively.
Gaffney is much more famous than Gary North, or even Hans Hoppe, and I have heard you and others claim that Ron Paul was tarnished by his association with them. I would also guarantee that the average voter is much more likely to have heard of Gaffney than to have heard of the League of the South, which supposedly tarnished Tom Woods. These are just a few examples. “Libertarians” like you are constantly criticizing other (actual) libertarians for being tangentially connected with obscure groups or individuals.
“I missed where GJ or WW are associated with FG. Are they?”
Well, considering that Johnson referred Libertarians to Gaffney when questioned on his shariaphobia, it would seem to be obvious.
How about we listen to what an actual judge has to say about the matter rather than some run-of-the-mill career politician?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53cK_6PLsM
JW, you’re missing the part where Gov. Weld was speaking as a lawyer regarding what is likely to happen. Unfortunately, he’s correct. Hillary is likely not to be charged, with no indictment sought, and the reason will be given that there was no criminal intent. It was just a mistake.
Do not confuse a probably correct view of what is or what will come with what should happen.
It’s not in the interest of our LP candidates to hang the raison d’etre for their campaign on Hillary being indicted. It’s likely the Obama admin. will make sure she isn’t, and then we’d need another reason to vote against Hillary. There are many better reasons to oppose Hillary, so we don’t need an email indictment, but if it comes, all the better.
Pete Blome is absolutely right, “Hillary must go to jail if for no other reason than to show the big live by the same laws the small do. As we also say in the military, it does morale good to see a general shot by the enemy every now and then.” When I served in the Navy, I knew a few people who had been punished/reprimanded just for emailing a relative where the next port of call was. You can’t share classified/sensitive, it doesn’t matter if you intended to do so or not. Weld is a F***ing idiot.
I missed where GJ or WW are associated with FG. Are they?
FG is a pretty obscure figure regardless, so any association doesn’t play positively or negatively.
And speaking of Mr. Gaffney, where on Earth have Andy Craig and his buddies at the Libertarian Skeptics Caucus disappeared to? They should be positively outraged that the LP has soiled its good name by nominating a ticket with ties to a known conspiracy theorist!
How does his association with Frank Gaffney play? Does that lead to enhanced credibility? And speaking of Gaffney, I notice you never answered when I asked you if his various pet conspiracy theories are or are not the sort of “fringey” and “extremist” ideas you are always warning us against? If you’ve forgotten, here’s what I’m talking about:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/05/william-weld-wins-libertarian-party-vice-presidential-nomination/#comment-1375532
L, it plays well that WW knows the R and D presumptives. It establishes that he’s a playa. That leads to enhanced credibility.
He is, of course, running AGAINST these acquaintances of his, so it says nothing about his approach to politics, which is obviously different.
So, Weld is going around bragging that he’s friends with Hillary and Mitt. Unbelievable. In an election year characterized by the public rejection of a plethora of Establishment Insiders, the LP seems to have gone out of its way to recruit the Ultimate Establishment Insider. The only question is whether they did so because of poor judgment or intentional self-sabotage.
Reading this while Weld being interviewed on MSNBC and there’s a siren going off in background. Maybe some disgruntled leftest pushed fire alarm to disrupt his comments? Missed first minute or two. Were economically conservative and socially liberal. bleeh.. Back without the alarm… We’re in the polls and getting 10% – though presidential commissions 15% debatable. (MSNBC also noting with Green Candidate in polls, Johnson gets smaller numbers.) MIllenials like us because about freedom and don’t care about economics as much, so that’s why they like Bernie.
“Aren’t you a friend of Hillary’s? You said you’d give her a character reference.” Known her a long time and think she’s good person but want libertarians to win. As libertarian for two weeks glad don’t have to carry all the Republican social conservatism baggage. Not discussing this with my good buddy Mitt Romney.
“LP attracts characters. Guy took off clothes. Gary Johnson was booed when he said he’d have voted for civil rights act 1964.” Weld – they were “Outliers”. Talks about non-interventionism.
Anyway, his being buddies with all these big shots DOES make him more interesting to media. But someone start following him around and teach him libertarianism, IF he doesn’t have any real libertarians close to him…
In my not very humble opinion: Definitely premature to say “no criminal intent” on Hillary, no matter what good buddies he is with her. He BETTER be bringing in the BUCKS is all I can say. First get this campaign going with 5 or 10 million, then we can talk about the two million to pay off Gary’s debt from 2012… Like we have much of a say.
Weld answered as an attorney. He was explicit on that. He did not comment, and should have, on the convictions for similar offenses by lower level employees with ‘no criminal intent.’ None of this gains the LP traction, however.
What Hilary did would have been inexcusable for anyone else. To me that’s part of the problem. Wikileaks has released a cache of documents that contain some of her e-mails in which she, allegedly, requests classified documents to be sent unsecured if hard copies could not be given to her quickly. Could make for fun reading.
At the very least this should be used as a clearcut case of government incompetence but Weld takes time to defend her. Another example of Weld being a poor veep choice.
Pro gun control. Pro Bush wars. Pro eminent domain. Pro Patriot Act. Pro Clinton.
Thankfully this stooge isn’t on the top of the ticket.
The cat walked on my computer again so I did not complete my comment. He thinks it was provided as a kitty warming station and is not open to persuasion.
Any way, there are many ways to change the paradigm.
Bill Weld just spoke what is an obvious truth – well, obvious to anyone not drinking Trump-Ade. That is, that there was no crime committed. Could the whole thing have been handled a lot better? Yes! But, she is likely the next POTUS – and I make no comment on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I did not vote for her in the NY primary.
Others with no criminal intent have been indicted and served time. But the system for justice is broken, we all know that. But if Hillary knows they will not indict her then focusing on the emails is just misdirection. She needs that since she will do nothing to change the corporate domination around the world and is committed to continuing the wars planned by the NeoCons.
However, a campaign comprised of, “I am not him or her.” will not make Libertarianism more than a NONE OF THE ABOVE vote. This is our opportunity to return Libertarian thinking to its intended focus, equally Red and Blue.
And using the State to force businesses to bake wedding cakes they find offensive is not pro-liberty, even if it makes left-oriented people smile.
We are going to show you, by demonstration, what needs to happen and how we reawaken the power of the people Presidential campaigns will be kept informed.
Johnson-Weld need to focus on actions which
Sure hope he’s wrong. When I was in the military, I am sure there were a lotta folks who got letters of reprimand, administrative punishment, UCMJ punishment, and finally JAIL because they mishandled classified stuff, intent or not. There is a Navy short striper who got two months in jail for simply sending a picture of a classified sonar scope in the background of a selfie he sent his girlfriend from a submarine. I am no lawyer, but I thought the classified handling laws were statutory no intent laws. Hillary must go to jail if for no other reason than to show the big live by the same laws the small do. As we also say in the military, it does morale good to see a general shot by the enemy every now and then.
We will know that Gary Johnson’s campaign is having an effect when Hilary Clinton blasts big government Republicans for criticizing her “privatized” e-mail system.
Really, why do conservatives think that the federal government is better at computer security than a private tech company. As Ludwig von Mises would note “they are all socialists!”