i have a point to bring forth that the origins of memorial day are rooted in foundational black americans activities after being freed from slavery. there is a story where david blight asserted the holiday is rooted in a moving ceremony held by freed slaves on may 1, 1865 at a tattered remnant of the confederate camp at charleston's washington racecourse and jockey club, today known as hampton park. the ceremony is believed to have included a parade of as many as 10,000 former slaves, including 3000 black schoolchildren

singing the union marching song "john brown's body," while carrying armfuls of flowers. most of our foundational black american history is obscured, but it is -- >> are you guys having fun at the convention? i heard you were all assaulting each other at the business meeting. for the record, that is frowned upon. try to not do that. let me say something sappy and nice as we wait. i will say, i know there's always tensions and hostilities at this thing and i know -- i am sure there is somebody you don't

like and you're right and you have a good reason not to like them, but try to keep in mind that in the moment we live in under this damn near close to totalitarian state that you are around a bunch of people who really hate that and believe in freedom. try to keep that in mind. we should all love each other. it is so unbelievably stupid that any of us fight when we are also close politically -- we are all so close politically. i love left-wingers that are good on like one issue, you know? i am happy. tanks for joining us. that's it. i am totally going to tank this thing for you. let's get this going. i want to turn my timer on because i am told i am supposed to keep this to an hour. what we are going to do is we are going to start with an opening statement, let's say five minutes. i won't hold you to that exactly, but tried not to go too dramatically over that. i don't know which one of you

guys to start with. clint, you want to go? clint russell, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> i prepared nothing for this, just like i do with my podcasts. my name is clint russell, i was born in san diego, california. i absolutely loved it there. i was forced out due to covid tierney, which radicalized me. simultaneously while i was being radicalized by gavin newsom, i was listening to this podcast called "part of the problem." it really shed light on the problems i was facing in that moment. so i started "liberty lockdown" and decided to scream into the ether because i was going mad. or the world was and i was the only one staying sane. i found out that it was the world that had gone mad. there were a handful of sane people out there who was looking for an attempt to hang onto our

most hard-fought liberties. in the land of the free, we were being told whether or not we could leave our houses, whether or not we could play beach volleyball, whether or not we could open our businesses. it was unbelievable to me. i still can't believe it. i feel like i lived through a nightmare that lasted a few years, and when i woke up, everyone had forgotten we all shared that same nightmare. [applause] a weird thing to clap to, but i appreciate it. and really, what activated me, what got me more politically motivated was that the run in 2020, while i have tons of respect for them, i felt there was a very big missed opportunity to speak up for bodily autonomy and speak against lockdowns and mandates that was missed. [applause] and i'll be damned if we miss this opportunity this go-round

because the same dangers we faced then we face similar if not graver dangers when it comes to world war iii. and i don't feel as if there's any politician in america that are actually giving at the level of concern that they ought to. because of that, the american people seem to be sleepwalking through their way past these politicians into absolutely disaster. to me that is the gravest threat we face, contrary to what the college kids might tell you when it comes to climate change. the climate change we should be concerned with is nuclear winter. it genuinely concerns me. i grew up in the 1980's and maybe it is a relic of the cold war, even though i was six years old or whatever when the cold war ended. but i remember my parents and my grandparents would talk about it, how they were so deeply concerned about the potential for nuclear war with the ussr the time. and how waging a proxy war between two nuclear powers was

unthinkable and so dangerous. now we are waging multiple proxy wars between multiple nuclear powers simultaneously. there is no antiwar movement to speak of in this country. that has to change and i think we can do that. [applause] >> very good. by the way, i know moderators are not supposed to not along, but i can't help it. i love both of these guys. i learned this from jean epstein. if you see his old moderating days, he would make a face of disgust. someone would be arguing for socialism and he is moderating and he is like -- [laughter] it is just the greatest thing ever. larry, why don't you take your opening statement now? [applause] >> my libertarian brothers and sisters, who remembers the first time i said that? 2016. that was my first time getting in front of a crowd.

i use that statement to open up and it made people think, wow, maybe i am part of the family. because we are. and i spent my time these last eight years trying to build out and support so many people within this party. think about 2016, who were there when i first came on the scene. how many people who were there running for office, either bp or president -- vp or president, are still with us? only may. that is it. everyone else has come and gone, and they often do that. they come and they go. very few of us sit here together and don't just become some sort of celebritarian, but go out and get signatures, still go to court and sue, who still show up and give trainings, who still go out and give advice by actual libertarians running, who show up to local events and raise

money, who still support people who are still trying to run at the local level. very few of us do that. one guy has. you're looking at him. [applause] with that in mind, why would i be doing this vp thing again? back in 2016, one of the reasons i came on board was i was worried. i was worried that gary johnson would come -- by the way, i love gary johnson. i came in 2012. i love the man. i was worried he would leave, and he did. he picked his vp. [booing] >> all of you booed, but only one of you did something about it, and that was me. [laughter] all of you booed. but i spent my own time and money and ran a campaign to stop him. and i almost won.

i lost by 31 votes, not that i'm counting. [laughter] nobody is counting. i lost by 30 one votes. why? why would some guy nobody had heard of have any chance of beating the former governor of massachusetts? because i built a coalition. because i set my libertarian brothers of sisters, and i built a coalition and almost won that, but we didn't. my worry is that everyone would go away. i tried to convince gary johnson at the time to run a campaign that would focus only on one or two areas, areas that i thought were going to work. didn't work, didn't go as well as i plans, but i said, i'm going to do it. when i ran for governor in 2015, i thought someone has to pick up this torch. i thought, i will do it. i was in opposition when i could. i did not work for a year and a half, and i ran for governor of new york and i did this exact plan. what did i do?

i went to small areas that nobody even knew about, where the press could do one of two things, covering the cow escaping or covering larry sharp. in the cow escaping won every time. but before you know it, it became a statewide campaign because we got mainstream press. it became a mainstream campaign. that is what i i am getting on the ballot. that is where you will see what i did, that campaign. that worked. i multiplied the last guy who ran, i multiplied his vote totals by six. [applause] first time ever. and the next year, you know what i did? i didn't go away. i actually crossed the state again. i crossed new york state, every single co., six years in a row. six years in a row.

i call it the full sharp. [laughter] and i did it in 2019. in 2019, new york had 107 local libertarian victories. that's what we talk about all the time, right? the top of the ticket, gets the press, to support the bottom of the ticket, which gets the wins. we have 107 libertarians. by the way, one was in new york city, staten island. we had one. then in 2020, my governor, his majesty king cuomo ii -- he deserves that boo -- he decided he was going to trash everything, and he said it was the working families party. that was a lie. the working families party still supports him, has always supported democrats. it hasn't changed at all. that was the story he told to crush us. we had 15 local affiliates when

i started, 30 when i was done, and we have 107 local victories, all destroyed in 2020. devastated. but my plan worked. 2022, i tried it again, but i couldn't make it happen. i got sued off the ballot, raced half $1 million, and went to court eight times. the supreme court would not see our case, and i lost. i thought, i cannot run again. too much of it tears up my family. in my first campaign, i was over $100,000 in debt. my second, almost $40,000 in debt. i just paid off recently, as soon as last month. i did anyway. i was not going to run. i changed my mind. i changed my mind because he was the guy who understood my plan. he's the guy who know house to move forward. he was the guy who came to me to

ask for help. they was the guy who could make an impact and multiply the last success, and set us up for the next four years. that's what i want todo. that's why i'm running. thank you. [applause] moderator: very good job, both of you guys. i think i probably do speak for the vast majority of this room when i say, i think we'd be great to have either of these two guys as vice-presidential candidate. [applause] let me ask you a question, clint and i was glad you kind of touched on what i was going to ask toward the end of his opening comments. i want to ask number one is there somebody who you think is your preferred candidate out of the people running for president? and then number two, which is kind of a similar question, what is this -- what do you think the goal of this should be?

running for president and vice president? having a libertarian campaign for the presidency? what do you think we should be looking to get out of that? clint: well, i think that depending on the election cycle there are different goals and potentialities, if you will. so i think if not for r.f.k. being in this race, and i don't say this with any anger toward him, i think he's going to consume a lot of the dissident third party voting energy. and i expect our turnout to be lower than it probably would have been otherwise, probable multiteuldz smaller. i think we could have done four or five percent if it was just trump vs. biden. with r.f.k., i think we'll be lucky to do one or two percent. that'll disappoint a lot of people but if you've been paying attention you won't be surprised. as for a candidate i want to run

with -- i've gone out of my way not to put my thumb on the scale, but there are really just two gentlemen that i have grown fond of over the past year. that's michael reckton wolf and joshua smith. those are my guys. i would be honored to run with either of them and i'll leave the endorsement at that. moderator: that's fair enough. larry, i want to ask you, you did touch on this a little bit but maybe you can expound on why lars and you is the best ticket, you said getting the votes, setting us up for the next few years if you can flesh that out a little bit. i know every sinle year we have libertarian candidates run, every single year they say when i'm in the white house i'm gong to do this. we all know the odds of that are not great. but wait -- but ok, but if

that's the reality i think we don't want to be delusional so what should we look for? larry: most of the time what do people this? what i'm going to do this, i'm bold this, bold that, bold the other thing. nobody will hear you. you can go to state affiliates, talking to libertarians who are already going to vote for you, going, i'm bold, bold, bold. nobody cares. you have to other people. r.f.k. will suck a bunch of money and a bunch of votes from us. that's true. if we don't counteract that we're not going to get a percent, we're going to get a half a percent. when we get a half a percent we lose ballot access in 2030 or 2036. jill stein is funded. the green party is funded. joe biden is so bad that democrats are now funding jill stein. i'm not joking. i know because they have paid

petitioners in my state. that is insane. those of you who know how bad it is in my state, jil stein has paid petitioners in my state because they're funded. we're going to come in fifth. not third, not fourth, but fifth. if you think the fighting we have now is bad, wait until there's only scraps left. this will be a bloodbath, to quote trump. this will be a bloodbath, right here, to quote trump. i don't want that. our goal is to raise enough money and to raise enough awareness to pull two, three, four percent, to retain ballot access across the country. the person to do that is the guy who has already been 15 poll, 15 polls, fox news. "wall street journal." you can -- "new york times." yes there's not a libertarian ailey, not even me and i've been in a lot of polls, not even i can touch 15. lars has been in 15 mainstream

polls and he's not even nominated yet. no one can touch. that none of you can. he's already polling in some of them, 2%, 3%. already. so he'll raise the money. he'll raise the team. he'll get national coverage. and we will retain ballot access. what should our goal be? ballot access, ballot access, ballot access. that's our goal. we need that more than anything. if we -- and i know it i -- i know my personal issues. in 2018 i was on the ballot. i was everybody's friend. that's when everybody love me. that's when i was on joe rogan, i was on glen beck, i was on fox news. irv everybody -- i was everybody's friend. the second i kicked off the ballot in 202, larry who? larry who? nobody knew me. when you're not on the ballot, whether you like it or not, you are invalid. and that sucks. and we can't have that. we need people on the ballot. that's the key.

why does this idea that lars has come up with to focus first on electoral votes, matter so much? it gets press kverage. we're going to actually try to get on the map? holy cow. he was on a cnn show already. he's not nominated yet. i couldn't get that. he's got that already. they're talking about it right now. and they talk about it now, it will begin to explode. imagine if we get 2% 3-rbg%, 4%, and imagine if we get gold on a masm if we get gold on a map that sets everybody up for the next four years. the next four years, everybody go, you can't win. yes we can. you guys can't -- yes, we can. more importantly if those of you who know large donors, and you know i know large donors, they

don't want to give money to, i'm bold. they want to know what's your goal. stop 270. get an electoral vote. i like that idea. now donors come to us. we make more money. people pay attention to us. here's the best part. how many of you have seen me on some form of media mention other candidates? how many have seen me do that? a lot of you. so when i'm the v.p., and we get that, i will be mentioning you. you have seen me do it for eight years. thank you. [applause] moderator: clint, i want to ask you, i think there might be some contrast here. what do you think of the idea that the main goal of a libertarian presidential run should be ballot access and thao any of what larry just said

here. do you agree with that? my feeling would be that you would have a different opinion? clint: obviously, yeah, i don't fully agree. i think it is an important -- it's an important outcome. it would be a nice result. it's in the my focus, it's in the the reason i want to do this. we have a rare opportunity to speak to really, i mean, entirely manmade catastrophes that face humanity. if we can do so in a compelling fashion we can create a movement. now far be it from me to think i could possibly reignite theron paul revolution but i think if we expect to actually maintain our position as the third party and try and make inroads on the due only, we're going to have to create a movement. and you know, while i respect what lars has done, getting onto different polls, and conventional tv, i really think you're fighting the old fight. i think that the future is now.

and now is the internet, the podcasts, the youtube. i think that's really where the majority of young people are getting their news. they're getting their commentary. and i think that that's able to reach farmer people. if you just look at audience sizes, it pales in comparison. tim cast irl will do double or triple a cnn show. i've been on there, i reach millions of people, not per week but per month, on the show i do with luke. i reach millions with liberty lockdown. these are tangible results. there's a fanfare after doing this show for less than four years. hundreds of people know my name. all through a podcast. it's crazy. now that doesn't mean that there's electoral success at the end of that rainbow. we have to do farmer. but if you can't reach the people and inspire them to

actually convince ancon vert more people into becoming libertarians, then this is all for naught. i am not interested in getting two or three or four percent if those people all abeen don ship the second the election is over. i want to actually convert people heart, soul, mind, body. i think i can do that. [applause] moderator: go ahead. larry: i think you're right that you reach people but is it the right people? in 2018 i was on two different shows, two different times. i was on david rubin's podcast and joe roe ban's podcast. joe rogan, farmer popular. farmer popular. i got farmer views. farmer views. i got farmer -- far bigger bump on my social media. all of it. didn't raise much money.

went on dave rubin, raised money. lots oift. put everyone else to shame. why? who was i talking to? different audience. the audience does matter. it is important that youngsters do listen to it of course. youngsters don't vote. the people who vote are the people who read the newspaper. they vote. i agree with you, some of them we will absolutely lose. give me 4% and walk away. i'll take it from there. i did that in new york state, i got the votes i needed and then what did i do? i gave 107 local libertarians and they'll do what you just said my job isn't to convert all of you. my job is to make sure local people show up, they win, they'll convert, they'll change. that's ground up. that's what i'm trying to achieve. thank you. mod raitdor: do you want to respond to that? i want to talk about a few policy issues. so i -- just very briefly, some

of you probably know, i was in the ron paul movement. i joined the libertarian party in 2018. and i'm a member of the mesus caucus. i've been learning in the years since then about different factions within the libertarian party, different views that people have. there's obviously a few issues that libertarians have typically had debates about. i'm thinking immigration, abortion, things where there are kind of libertarian luminaries who have made libertarian arguments that take you to different sides, starting from libertarian principles and take you there. one faction, i don't exactly know how big it is in the libertarian party has over the last couple of years, this is really shock -- this has really shocked me, supported the policy of funding ukraine and are now currently supporting the spoil of funding and arming israel.

i do not understand how you can get from a libertarian starting point to justifying robbing one group of people to fund another nation's conscripted army. just because i've been so baffled by the fact that there are some self-identified libertarians who support this, i want to ask both of you what your opinion is and what your campaign opinion would be on this. i'll start with you, larry. larry: i just went. moderator: ok, i'll start with you, clint. clint: no, no, what's wrong with you, larry? [laughter] larry: do you want me to go again? i'll go again. i don't mind. i'll go again. you're right. the starting point, if it was libertarian, you're right. but the starting point isn't

libertarian. it's american empire. that's where we are right now. no libertarian in this room if you call yourself libertarian, wants to have american empire. nobody does. how do we make the step away from that. it's not funding these wars. but we signed terrible contracts. we have to wean ourselves off of this. those of you who know how this actually work, the military industrial complex is a massive jobs program. i see it in my own state. almost all the new jobs in new york state, military industrial jobs in upstate new york. can we just say no and stop it? we should. you're right. we can't realistically. americans wouldn't accept it. they're paying the bills off of it. they're eating off of it. they're surviving off of it. this has to be weaned. they appropriate way of doing this is being honest about yourselves. this is what lars talks about all the time. he's said more than once, we have to fund peace not war. you go, i don't want to fund

anything. the neither -- me neither, but we are by the literal billions. if we're going to start fund, fund to tear everything down. fund to bring it all back. bring everything back to the best ability you possibly can. somebody said the first thing i do is shut down all the bases tomorrow and bring all troops home and discharge them. so you want to take two million men and women and make them unemployed overnight. what a terrible idea. no. all of them have actual contracts. let their contract end. that's the smart way. allow their contract to end. then they don't re-enlist you don't screw over two million american families overnight. it all sounds good and logically i agree, but we have to be smart. fund peace. bring our troops home slowly, let them discharge as they normally would. that's how you bring it all back. moderator: just a quick followup. leaving aside the issue of

disbanding the entire military, specifically there are two proxy wars that america is funding. what's the poftion your campaign? larry: we should not be funding any of them. it's war. we should not fund any wars. we should fund no wars. the sad part is what we've done with empire, what we should be doing is brokering peace but we can't anymore because we made ourselveses so one-sided. so we have to find someone else, azest them to broker peace. if we have to take the $100 billion to ukraine, whatever number we're giving to ukraine or to israel, imagine if we gave that to, i'm making this up, maybe jordan or egypt to have a peace deal. better spending of the money we're going to spend anyway. fund peace, don't fund wars. [applause] moderator: ok. clint, same question what would your message be about the proxy wars in ukraine and israel? clint: larry talked about logic when it came to analysis on

this. i really approach this from a morality vantage point. that it is deeply immoral to be funding these wars. there's been hundreds of thousands, almost every able bodied ukrainian man is dead or disabled. it's a fucking nightmare. we're being robbed to fund that. i don't want some sunset clause. i don't want to see the contracts run out. i want our taxes to stop being sent to death and destruction. [cheers and applause] now the same principle applies to israel and gaza and unfortunately there's -- [applause] it's ok, you can clap. they're not here. we think. i mean, it's absolutely heartbreaking. and once you really dive into these you realize it's our state department that foments so much of this. so it's insult on top of injury.

self-inflicted wounds. our own government creates these traps and then steps into them and looks at us and says, give us more money. give us more of your young men to go risk their lives for nothing. it's sick. on a moral level, it is absolutely reprehensible. on a financial level it's completely unsustainable. and i think that because of my background in finance that is something i can speak to. we are $35 trillion in debt. at the end of the cold war in 1991, it was $3.5 trillion. that's a 10x of our national debt since the fall of the u.s.s.r. since the fall of our number one foe, the only legitimate contender to global hegemon. they go away and instead of recognizing the incredible opportunity presented to us and working toward peace and prosperity on the global scale, instead we went off and started countless wars over the following 30 years. none of it had to happen.

i can't think -- if there's anybody in the audience who thinks any of the wars we have participated in since 1991 was moral or just let me know, because i can't see it. [applause] larry: i'd go back to 45. moderator: the last one was the american revolution. clint: i'm not interested in pragmatism. i'm not concern about the boeing employees who lose their contracts. you go and you get a real job, not producing weapons of war. that's my answer. [cheers and applause] moderator: very good. i think we got some good contrast there. i'm intentionally kind of asking about the things that are divisive issues to libertarians because i know you guys all agree on taxes and money and guns. so it's -- i see this a lot. in libertarian debates, the

question is taxes. everyone has a turn going, i hate taxes. it's fun to you guys. we don't need to make that point. is c-span watching? c-span, we hate taxes. [cheers and applause] ok. [audience chanting] moderator: c-span, we don't care much for central banks either. i want to turn to a topic that is a controversial topic amongst libertarians. it's one that i have -- i've jumped into this bee's nest many times and understand how much is over it. the topic of immigration. i think particularly at the moment right now, immigration is in almost every poll the number two issue todd economy and in

some polls it was the number one issue that the american voters care about. now there are many libertarians who subscribe to the -- subscribe to open borders. personally, i've been arguing, i think this is a totally untenable thing to run a campaign on. these days. larry, what do you think is the proper way to understand the immigration issue and then more importantly maybe for this debate. larry: i thought we were swapping, what happened? moderator: we'll swap when i want to swap. how do you think a presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate should talk to the american people about the immigration crisis. larry: the issue is tough, you're correct. in a perfect world you'd like to have open borders. but that's not where we are now. we can't do it. i wish we were like the u.k. and we could cross wales to scotland and whatever, that would be amazing. i would hope that would happen. today we're not there.

the but shutting the border down won't happen. large companies in america and smaller ones too want these workers. they just do. and they're going to get them. legally or illegally, they're going to get them. i live in new york city. in new york city, the hospitality industry. farmers in upstate new york. all over the place they want them. we in new york city, we have to give them new york city i.d.'s we give them an i.d. i'm not joking. here's an i.d. gives you an i.d., we make you legal. that's how we work. it is a terrible idea. it's not the right answer. however there is, it's a good answer. there are lots of large companies that move literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants across borders all day long in their work. and they're all being used by recruiting companies. why do you have recruiting companies on the border, or in the bronx, putting recruiting companies there, and it's the

new ellis island they build very large, huge hotels, they don't do that? yes, they do. it's called medical tourism. being done all over east asia they build massive hotels, keep people there two week, three week, give them three simple visas, maybe four simple visas. this is what lars says if you make the visa system easy and simple people won't cheat. we can track them and let them go wherever. this system can work. it does work already. we don't have to shut our border down. but what about the bad guys and the fentanyl guys and traffickers? they're real. i see it in my own city. 99% of them are good. but new york city has 200,000 of them come. that's 2,000 bad guys. that's a lot of bad guys. that's one of the reasons why new york city is suffering. one of many reasons. what if we said if you're a bad

guy you'll get caught at ellis island. what would they do in they'll tray to cross the border they normally use. but we use the same exact people we have already who are border patrol can chase down bad guys. i want my law enforcement not being baby-sitters to families. i want them getting bad case. and they'd go get bad guys. [applause] but there's something more important to that. once you create this model, every company who wants to create as much as they want to. two, three, four, 10 of them they have market can come up with an answer. now we have about 15 million or so, give or take, undocumented workers now. migrants here in america. we can't, i know trump says i'mgoing to start mass migration. no you're not. you're not. you're just not. he's lying. not going to happen at awful he won't have some massive deportation we don't have the body, time or money to go door-to-door and get 15 million people out of the country. cannot be done. you know what can be done? voluntarily give them the option to make themselves legal.

by using the ellis island visa plan that lars is talking about. use -- they'll just go. you can be in texas and walk through, or be in the bronx, wherever. go there get legal. once you get legal here's what also happens. there are the bad guys. i want to get bad pablo right now, i can't. he's in an enclave, everyone wants to protect him because they're scared they'll get arrested. once they're legal they'll tell law enforcement where bad pablo is and law enforcement is out getting bad guy, not throwing out families or putting kids in cages. that's how we speak about it. that's how it matters. we can have vibrant immigration but still control the borders. thank you. [applause] moderator: all right. for the record, pablo was framed. clint, same question to you. how should libertarian vice-presidential or presidential candidates talk about immigration?

clint: i think the key is to tell the truth. i approach this with a very, i guess, kind of a clean slate. i didn't really know what i was getting myself into when i started to do the research. i grew up in san diego. legal immigration was a way of life. everybody i knew was an immigrant. i didn't think it was that much of a stark difference until i actually did the research. i did the research about a year ago. the numbers may have changed slightly. but the estimates from, say, like, george bush era, the averages were 200,000 to 50,000, usually around 350,000 illegal crossings annually. we're now talking about 10x that, just as i said earlier about the national debt. these are dangerous numbers. and then i dug deeper. i realized, how could this possibly be happening? to have a 10xing of illegal immigration in a matter of years. it can't strictly be an economic phenomenon.

then i realized the united nations was funding, based off billions of u.s. taxpayer dollars goes to the united nations, they've put hundreds of millions of those dollars into n.g.o.'s and nonprofits that assist the migrants on the trek up to america. they do the same in europe if you're paying attention you've seen the hardline anti-immigration politicians are becoming more and more popular in europe. it's a direct consequence of the immigration crisis. and you'll see the same thing in america. i think to a large extent you already have. that's why donald trump exists. so i think that i am actually quite pro-immigrant. however, i think that it needs to be a doubling of legal immigration. when we have, at this junction, i think there's only about a million legal immigrants allowed in annually. that's far too low. i think we need more people. but we need it to come through in a somewhat controlled fashion. i know that's an unpopular thing for libertarians to say, but i'm

being honest if you go the other direction you'll end up with basically zero immigration and full nativistic racist rhetoric that propagates very aggressively. that's what's coming. so that's my answer. increase legal immigration, cut down on illegal immigration as best we can. [applause] moderator: very good. i want to -- let's switch it up one more time. we'll go clint and then larry on this. i want another issue that's been controversial, amongst libertarians, has been this convention, unlike previous libertarian party national conventions, we have just a few minutes ago, bobby kennedy jr. spoke. i have vek ram swaw mi -- ram swamy -- ramaswamy will be up here with one of you two and of

course the orange elephant in the room is donald trump. clint: we say that with love. moderator: of course. be cool, guys. he's not here yet. obviously this is a very -- this is a historic moment for the libertarian party and the libertarian movement. we've never had anything like a former sitting president and frontrunner to be the next president if he's not arrested/assassinated, a lot of libertarians have been upset. larry: he's joking. f.b.i., he's joking. moderator: i'm not threatening the dude. i'm thinking somebody would do it. clint: he thinks the f.b.i. keeps presidents safe. moderator: i'm not going to assassinate him to be clear. this has been somewhat troacial

among libbertarians. i'm curious about your thoughts on. this clint, you first. then larry. clint: i was thrilled. i have felt as if this party has languished in on security. i say that with all love. no animosity whatsoever. i want there to be more attention, more eyeballs, more interest, more think pieces, more opinion pieces. i want all of that. i want more attention on our ideas primarily because i think we are fucking right. i think we are absolutely right. so for those that are lamenting the fact that the orange elephant will be here in a couple of day, i don't get it. i'm going to be totally honest. i dent understand how it tarnishes us. he comes in, says a bunch of unlibertarian crap, we boo him, he leave, the articles get written, who cares. it's all great. r.f.k. was here earlier today, i

hear all these free ross chants, free assange chants yosm uno how he responds? instead of arresting these people we should be building monuments to them in d.c. we have a legitimate presidential contender saying it, it'll be broadcast across -- if you have a populist movement there's a decent chance it gets adopted by whoever wins. these things matter. it matters a lot. i'm optimistic, i'm very appreciative of angela, she's created a lot of division, the party has been divided or whatever. i think it's been a huge boon to the conversation or the popularity, the eyeball, the interest, the dialogue. i think we have the right ideas. let's test them in the fire of the media state. let's do it. [applause] larry: i was not thrild. i was not. i was worried. i was concerned.

i thought that we have an opportunity ta might -- we might wreck it. things might go poorly. the media might destroy us. i was very worried. i was. but i also thought we had an opportunity is dan reel in the audience? dan? dan made fox news about an hour ago. he did. he made the brett bayer show saying how donald trump shouldn't be here, we don't want him. trump picked that up. he was on brett baier. some of you might have seen that. i'm now ok with it. i was worried. i was concerned. i was worried that we might screw it up. might go poorly. fox news did not show it as they love trump. did not. they showed dan, out of connecticut, yelling how much he shouldn't be here, we don't want him here. that's what they picked. that's not bad at all. i'm ok with that. if we can keep doing that, if we can keep having people show

people exactly who we are, if we can keep doing that, it was a good idea. if not, we screwed up. so far, i'm ok. [laughter] [applause] moderator: i was told an hour. >> we've got to do the -- moderator: angela is that right? is she a real person? it's a joke, people. i took a lot of acid before this. i was just checking if that was a real person or i was imagining it. we're all libertarians here. if that is the case then let's move to closing statements and we'll keep them brief. angela? closing statements and then you have the open -- you had the opening solarry you can open with the kilo closing.

larry: how many people in this room have received a phone call from me? hands in the air. how many people -- yeah. how many people in this room have seen me raise money for a candidate or party? [applause] i've got paid nothing to raise money for those people. but it was right. it was the right answer. to fix, to help, to support. did you notice when i was talking today, i brought up other people and not me constantly? i talked about dan rio, how proud i was of him. talked about lars, how happy i am to be with him. the job of the v.p. is not to be supercool guy. that's not the job. that's the president's job. >> i'm out. larry: you are out. [cheers and applause] >> it's a joke. larry: no, it's not. it's not. the job of the v.p. is support staff. the job of the v.p. is

motivator, coach and trainer. the job of the v. spmplet to make sure our presidential candidate looks good when they're out there. our the job of the v.p. is to support the presidential candidate. i was garry johnson's surrogate in the media several times. i was sometimes better than him. [laughter] but that's the job of the v.p. that's the job. support, helping, and being here in the future when people need us. because very often our candidates pack up and go. they do sometimes. but i'm still here. it's important. yes. thank you. it's important that you pick a v.p. who is going to support the president. who is going to support them so they can achieve their goals and we can all grow. getting ballot access, growing at the local level. i'm asking for you, tomorrow, is it tomorrow? whenever it is. i'm asking two things from you.

one, i'm asking every one of you to support the presidential candidate i want you to support. i want you all to vote for lars, first round. every one. i want you to vote for lars in the first round. he's the guy who'll get wrus we need to go. he'll set us up for the future. everything else gets us half a percent and loss of ballot access. lars gets us more. i run when i can make impact. i could run all the time i could run every two years if i want to. i don't. i run to make impact. this year is impact. i'm asking for your vote tomorrow for lars, round one, please do that. i'm supporting him. please support him too. and please support me. thank you. [applause] moderator: all right. clinton, your closing statement? clint: i think in terms of

politicking, larry is your guy. i am not, at all, a politician. so much so, i very much did not want to do this at all. but i think that there's an incredible opportunity and i felt a calling. i felt compelled. that i'm interested in having a family soon and settling down. i'm really concerned about the condition of the world. both economically when it comes to the domestic condition and militarily when it comes to the foreign concerns. and i would just not be table look myself in the mirror if i didn't go out and tell the truth about what i see happening. so that's what i bring to the table here. is that i promise you, i will not be politicking. and i will not be kowtowing to the presidential candidate either. i will be telling the truth even if it conflicts with them because i'm not a politician. i'm here 100% to tell the truth about what i see happening in the world and i'm not going to be, you know, undercutting them or trying to be vicious or

anything like that, but i am just here to tell the truth. i think that that is what the american people are looking for, yet many of them are looking to be lied to of course, they always are. however, i think there's never been a more right market for just sincerity, honesty, truth telling, courage now. right now. they have been lied to. in an unbelievable way. so many people have just realized they put poison in their bodies and they were told that was the only way the economy could ever turn back on. what a sick joke that is. those people are shaken to their core. they are looking for answers. right now they're finding those answers in r.f.k. jr. that's the truth. they think that he's their -- he's their savior. unfortunately, he prescribes a lot of socialism along with his truth telling about covid and the f.d.a. we need somebody who tells the truth about everything.

[applause] it is the honor of my life to be involved with this party, the party of ron paul and murray and all my heroes. [applause] i'm trying to think about what angle i go with this. do i just tell you guys i love you? i do. i love you guys. you guys inspire me. you fire me up. you give me a reason to get out of bed. and i think that we need someone with that fire inside them. and i have that. i'm ready to go. moderator: whatever happens here, two of the best guys in this movement.

larry and clint, give them a round of applause. thank you guys so much. larry: vote for me for vivek. vote for me. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> hello, do we have sound back? we're going to put a q.r. code up on the screen, and you can vote, it's just one question. staff is back there switching out the slide. once we get the q.r. code on -- there it is. i'm going to also get the url. the url. from staff. all right, hang tight.

>> we've got sound. for anyone who struggled with the q.r. code.

tynyurl.com/bp2024/lnc. tinyurl.com/vp2024lnc. you've got 15 minutes to answer one question. i believe in you. and i will make sure we share the results so just stick around.

>> madam chair. madam chair. sorry for the volume. >> we are coming back to order. we are trying to work through some bylaws issues. >> madam chair, i call for thed ors of the day. >> ed orers of the day at 2:00 p.m we are gaveled back. the next item on the agenda is adoption of agenda. >> madam chair. pennsylvania would like to make a motion to add three alternate delegates onto the convention floor. p by 7/8's vote. three alternate delegates.

>> point of order, madam chair. that is not related to the agenda. >> ok so we're on adoption of the agenda, we would have to move to amend the agenda first which is going to take 2/3. >> so moved, madam chair. >> is there a second? >> second. >> theodore costen of pennsylvania. all right. it's been moved and seconded to amend the agenda to entertain a motion to add three -- alternates or delegates? >> three alternate delegates. i believe there are several others. >> three alternates and several others? >> several other states that need to add delegates. >> three alternates. to pennsylvania. and potentially other credential motions are forthcoming.

>> point of order. ohio delegation. cassandra friman, ohio delegation. i would like to add a delegate to the ohio seating. it's a clerical error on my part entirely and he should be credentialed and seated. it is my mistake entirely and i need to rectify that. >> i will address that right after pennsylvania. >> point of personal privilege. >> are there any objections to agd three alternates in pennsylvania?

>> madam chair, point of information. we're at the notion amend. >> guys when the parliamentarian is talking to me, please wait just a moment. now i don't know what he said. yes. ok. we are -- there was an objection to amending the agenda it takes 2/3 to amen the -- to amend the agenda so we can consider the

pennsylvania alternates. at that point it takes 7/8's. >> can i amend my motion to suspend the rules and add the delegates? we have not voted on the agenda yet. >> ok, you're correct. >> we need an update from credentials to know what 7/8's. ok. this will be fun. it requires 7/8's of the convention to approve adding these three individuals. and we need to know their names. what are their names? >> i move to amend the credentials report to add ely

platt, dustin tepor and jared mini to pennsylvania's alternate delegates. >> thank you. >> you want me to run them up to you? >> ok is there any further discussion on -- ok, great. all in favor of adding them please stand up. well i said we have to suspend the rules and got two different opinions on that. >> point of parliamentarian procedure he made a single motion to both suspend the rules and do the thing which would then mean that all would need a 7/8's, the special rules need 2/3s, the other motion is a higher threshold. >> all in favor of adding three alternates to pennsylvania,

stand up. thank you. ok. it required 7/8's, are we all comfortable with that? thank you. sit down. all those opposed? all right, the ayes have it. three individuals added. [applause] >> madam chair, microphone two, i have a point of personal privilege. >> we're back to cassandra friman in ohio. >> if i could make a motion to add derek russman to the ohio delegation proper per his credentials and my clerical

error. >> is there a second? >> second! >> is there any objection? there's no objection. i just want to say i'm proud of this. >> no objection. derek is added. >> madam chair. >> microphone three. >> tricia butler of missouri. i'd like to make a motion to add ariel shack who is currently a new jersey alternate to missouri as a delegate, please. >> a motion to add ariel shack to the missouri delegation and she is from new jersey.

did i get that right? i think so ok. moved and seconded. >> second! >> do we have any objection? we have a question but we don't have an objection yet. is it a point of parliamentary inquiry? >> yes are. we voting to remove her as an alternate from new jersey and add her as a delegate from -- >> thank you. we are voting to remove her as an alternate from new jersey and to add her as a delegate in missouri. is that correct? >> yes, please. >> ok. there we go. there's your information. is there any objection. hearing no objection, she is added.

[applause] >> microphone two, point of personal privilege. >> microphone two. please state your name. >> alicia bursell, delegate from california. i'm going to say first of all i'm not a member of any caucus faction. in here. >> boo. >> go ahead, have at it. but i've spent my time over lunch wringing my hands over what to do with what happened this morning. it matters if we follow our rules. this is our presidential convention. we don't want lawsuits against whoever is nominated coming out of this. [applause] and i had trouble, i'm a parliamentarian. i had trouble knowing how to

vote on the questions this morning. part of it was lack of information. part of it was there are rules in the state that i don't have in front of me to decide whether the people being added are in violation of their bylaws and if it's in violation of the state bylaws it's in violation of our bylaws because article 10 -- >> point of order, madam chair. mike four. mike four. the speaker is engaging in giving opinions and debate, not making a motion. we need a motion. we do not need opinions and debate. [applause] >> and i'm going to tell you i'm intentionally not going to make a point of order because i don't want this convention to devolve into chaos. but it needs -- it needs to be said, guys. if we just vote emotionally we can hamstring the party. i think we need to realize that

it's important that we get information before we just emotionally make these decisions on who is choosing our candidates. so do with it what you wish. it has to be said. and there you go. >> did you make a particular point of order? every one is talking over you, it's difficult to understand what your concern is. >> i get it. i think -- some of the things we did earlier, not all of them, and i'm not going to delineate every one, i think some of the things we did earlier were probably violations of our bylaws but the delegates in this room don't have enough information to connect the dots. so i'm not making a point of order. i just want to remind us how important it is if we don't follow our rules, we don't want to be tied up in litigation forever. let's be meticulous about it.

>> ok, thank you. [applause] next at the mike. >> gail, california. can you hear me? >> yes. >> i think we should trust our states to give us proper information. [applause] i don't think the bylaws spell out that the credentials committee is supposed to check on the states' bylaws and we should trust them to give us proper ones. >> that is not a point of order. i appreciate it but let's keep moving. >> madam chair. microphone four. >> microphone four. >> kentucky delegate. i call forked orers of the day. >> thank you. [cheers and applause] >> we're on the agenda.

>> madam chair. microphone one. >> microphone one. >> t.y. from california. speaking of orders of the day and agendas, there are a number of questions out here about the vice-presidential tokens and when they are deusm >> the vice-presidential tokens are due at 5:00 p.m. please place them in the box, past the tellers, past the far side of the screen. >> thank you very much. >> ok. ed or oars the day. adoption of agenda. is there anyone making a motion -- regarding the agenda. >> i would like to move to make the presidential debate part of convention business, and to include mike turmot as a sixth participant in that debate. [cheers and applause] >> i second that.

>> to be specific i would say tomorrow morning for presidential debate. if you need a time on the motion, madam chair. >> let me workshop this with you to make sure i have it down in a precise manner. what you want is tomorrow morning, the presidential debate, to be the first order of business? >> yes, ma'am. >> followed by nominations. >> correct. and to include mike turmot as a sixth participant and followed by nominations and voting. [applause] followed by orders of the day. debate tomorrow morning including turmot, followed bid

orers of the day. >> so we are not moving up vice-presidential elections. we are not changing -- we're just bumping everything else backwards behind -- >> that would be my motion. >> got it. >> request for information, madam chair, mic two. chair,, l. request for information, mic 2. chair mcardle: yes. >> is the intention of the mover to place a time limit on the presidential debates? chair mcardle: is that the intention of the mover to please a time limit on the debate? if i could weigh and, i would recommend no more than one hour.