stories of active duty, military, and veterans. c-span's washington journal. c-span now online at c-span.org. >> on monday, president biden with ceremony and remarks. starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> are you thinking this is just a community center? no, it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create wifi enabled list so students from low-income families can get the tools they

need to be rea for anything. >> support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> the libertarian party is holding its national convention. they voted on procedures and nominating ahead of the presidential candidate on may 26. some members of the party voiced opposition to donald trump's speech which was scheduled for may 25 as well as opposition to libertarian chair, angela.

[inaudible conversations] >> madame chair, microphone two. we're coming back to order. we're trying to work through some bylaws issues. >> i call for the orders of the day. >> we are orders of the day at 2:00 p.m. we are gaveled back. the next item on the agenda is adoption of the agenda. >> mic one. pennsylvania would like to make a motion to add three alternate delegates on to the convention floor. by 7/8 vote. >> by 7/8 vote.

>> three alternate delegates. >> point of order, madame chair. >> point of order. that's not related to the agenda. >> okay. 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. >> is there a second? >> second. >> pennsylvania. >> all right. it's been moved and seconded to amend the agenda. to entertain a motion to add three -- i'm sorry, was it alternates or delegates -- >> three alternate delegates. i believe there's several others. >> three alternates and several others. >> several other states. they've had delegates. >> got it. three alternates to pennsylvania and potentially other preden

issues and motions are forthcoming. >> point of order. ohio delegation. >> microphone one. >> yes. okay. i would like to add a delegate to the ohio seating. it is a clerical error on my part entirely. he should be credentialed and seated. it is my mistake entirely. i need to rectify that. >> i will address that right after pennsylvania. please hang tight.

>> are there any objections? okay. >> point of information. we're at a motion to amend; correct? >> guys, when the parliamentarian is talking to me, please wait just a moment. now i don't know what he said. >> yes. o'. we are. there was an objection to

amending the agenda. it takes 2/3 to amend the agenda to consider the pennsylvania alternates. at that point in takes seven days. >> can i amend my request to add the delegates. we have not voted on the agenda yet. >> okay. you are correct. okay. we need an update to know what 7/8 is. okay. this will be fun. it requires 7/8s of the convention to approve adding the three individuals. and we need to know their names. mr. cosign, what are their

names? >> my former motion is i move to amend the credential report to add eli flat, justin, and jared to pennsylvania's alternate delegates. >> thank you. >> do you want me to run them up to you? >> okay. all in favor. please stand up. well, i've said we have to suspend the rules. we got two differing opinions on that. point of order -- >> point of parliamentarian procedure. he made a single motion to suspend the rules and -- which then means that all would need 7/8. the special rules need the 2/3.

okay. it requires 7/8s. are we comfortable with that? okay. thank you. all of those opposed. i swear i will -- all right. the ayes have it. >> madame chair, microphone two. a point of personal privilege. >> again please proceed. >> thank you. if i could make a motion to add derek to the ohio delegation proper per credentials and my

clerical error. >> is there any objection? there's no objection. i just want to say that i'm proud of this -- no objections. derek is added. >> madame chair. >> microphone three. >> microphone three. >> trisha butler missouri. i would like to make a motion to add ariel shaq who is currently a new jersey alternate to missouri as a delegate please.

>> a motion to add ariel shaq and she's from new jersey? did i get that right? i think so. it's been moved and seconded. fantastic. do we have objections? we have a question. but we don't have an objection yet. to the point of parliamentary inquiries. >> yes, are we voting to remove her 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 add her as a delegate in missouri; is that correct? >> yes please. >> okay. there we go. there's your information. is there any objection?

>> alicia parcell. delegate from california. i'm going to say first of all i'm not a member of they caucus faction. >> boo. >> go ahead. have at it. but i've spent -- i 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 the presidential convention. we don't want lawsuits against whoever is nominated coming out of this.

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 states that i don't have in front of me to decide whether the people being added are in violation of their bylaws. and it is in violation of the state bylaws. article x. >> i have a word. microphone 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] >> i'm going to tell you i'm not going to intentionally make a point of order, because i don't want the convention to evolve into chaos. but it needs to be said, guys. guys, if we just vote emotionally, we can hand string the party. i just -- i think we need to

realize it is 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. there you go. >> i get it. some of the things we did earlier weren't in accordance of our bylaws. i'm not making a point of order. i want to remind us how important it is, if we don't follow our rules, we don't want to tied up in litigation

forever. let's be meticulous about it. okay. thank you. [applause] >> next at mic. >> gabe alexis, california. can you hear me? >> yes, ms. alexis. >> okay. i think we should trust our state to give us the proper information. i don't think the bylaws spell out the credentials committee is supposed to check on the updates bylaws. >> thank you. >> we can trust them to give us proper ones. >> that's not a point of order. i appreciate it. let's keep moving. >> microphone four. >> kevin levin. i call for the orders of the day. >> thank you.

>> match one. >> speaking of orders of the days and agendas, there are a number of questions out here about the vice presidential tokens and when they are due. >> they are due at 5:00 p.m. place them in the box. pass the pillars on the side of the screen. >> thank you very much. >> okay. orders of the day. adoption of agenda. is there anyone making a motion regarding the agenda? >> yes. i would like to move to make the presidential debate part of convention business. and to include mike as a sixth participate in that debate.

to be specific, i would say tomorrow morning for the presidential debate. if you need a time on the motion, madame 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. >> okay. followed by nominations? >> correct. debate to include mike as the sixth participate and followed by nominations and voting.

followed by orders of the day. the debate tomorrow morning and orders of the day. >> okay. we are not moving up vice presidential election. are we just bumping everything else backwards? >> that would be my motion. >> request for information, madame chair, mic two. >> request for information. mic two. >>y. >> thank you. is it the intention of the mover to place a time limit on the presidential debate? >> is it the intention of the mover to place a time limit on

the presidential debate? if i could weigh in, i would recommend no more than one hour. >> i would say two hours, ma'am. 90 minutes. 90 minutes would be sufficient, i think. >> that's fair. i appreciate it. >> i would move it to 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. >> okay. >> thank you. >> microphone one. >> microphone one. >> i have a motion to amend the amendment. if i understand what he's doing, he's wanting a time certain for the debate to include the presidential candidates -- including mr. thomas. oh. if i understand it correctly, he's making a motion to amend the order of business. the convention to add as part of the business for the opening of the meeting tomorrow the presidential debate which would include mr. chermas.

then he says for orders of the day after that. my amend is that the agenda that i'm proposing would be that we do in this order treasurers report, audit committee report, and i'm proposing to put a time limit of ten minutes on both of those reports. election of party officers and at-large members of the national committee, nominations of party candidates for presidential and vice president, bylaws and rules committee report, platform committee report, resolutions, that's other business with the caveat that there will be the debate that he's requesting at the time certain. but that would not change the order therefore we would go to elections of party officers prior to presidential elections. and that's by motion. >> hang tight please.

>> guys, it is so wordy. we need you to submit them in advance. >> i have it submitted in advance. i didn't know he was making the motion. i can bring it up to her right this second. >> i would love that. for future reference, submitting it in advance means bring it up before you go to the microphone. it is helping. i've been the one trying to facilitate that the hardest. please don't take this as pushback. >> but that's my motion. i'm bringing it up. my motion. >> hang tight everyone. we're one amend deep. i'm not recommended you go one

more amendment. but i'm letting you know where we're at.

[inaudible conversations]

>> microphone two. madame chair. microphone two.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay. there's been a little bit of confusion about the amendment. i think i understand it. mr. hull -- no. mr. redhat, my apologies. please let me know if this is messing you up. we're trying to get coordinated here. she wants to amend the agenda to

go with treasurers report ten minutes, audit committee report ten minutes, followed by election of the party officers and at-large members of the national committee. there's no time certain for that. followed by nominations of party candidates for president and vice president. there's no time certain for that. followed by bylaws and rules committee report. no time certain. followed by platform. no time certain. followed by resolutions. no time certain. followed by other business. no time certain. tomorrow morning at 7:30 a.m. we want to put our presidential debate. so now the question is, i think, our secondary is trying to understand what do we put -- how do we actually order this written down? i think i understand it perfectly. okay. so i'm going to anticipate that

we're going to run through elections through the end of the day. then we're going to start tomorrow morning with a debate. let's do it then. does that work? >> madame chair, microphone one. >> got it.

>> point of information. microphone four. >> please. >> is it the intend to nominate potus and then vpotus? >> okay. okay. so the issue has been raised that mr. redtop assortedder is special order. they are an agenda amendment. they are not the same. they should be voted on separately. thoughts? >> please state your name. i don't believe mr. redtop's motion was seconded. we do not have an agenda at the

current time. perhaps mr. redtop could amend it? >> that's fine. can i clarify my motion? my motion -- i know. >> i know exactly what your motion is. >> my motion is that order of business period. >> excuse me. i'm sorry. >> okay. >> point of inquiry. >> yes. >> did my motion not get a second? >> it is seconded. i thought it got a second. >> all right. how about we vote on that real quick. then we vote on the motion real quick. >> madame chair, point of order. microphone two. >> delegate from michigan. my point of order is regarding the business earlier today. per the national bylaws, article i, section 4e, there's a 7/8 vote required to seat delegates and alternates that are not

entitled to be seated preprejudice sterred. as such the submission of the delegate from oklahoma and washington are in violation of the bylaws. >> point of order, microphone four. this motion is delegatory, madame chair. there's been about 25 bites of the apple now. the motion is dilatory. as the points are violations of the bylaws. they are continuing in nature. the delegations from oklahoma and washington the additions that were made to them are in violations of the bylaws and should be ruled null and void.

>> i think we need to come back to the point of order after we dispose of the motion. please hang around. >> thank you. >> all right. mr. redtop had a motion. it did have a second. >> microphone one. >> point of order. >> it was essentially to get our debate, presidential debate happening from 9:30 to 10:00 tomorrow. i want to do this quickly and tamelessly. it was to include mike. let's do this as painlessly as possible. it is not technically in order. i'm going to quickly rule it out of order. you are going to quickly rule -- you are going to do what you are going to do. we are going to move forward; right? because i have to follow the bylaws. we need to kind of get this happening; right? the motion is out of order.

do you have a second? do we need to debate it? can you stand up real quick? you are all appealing my ruling. i'm sorry i'm doing this backwards. you hate the rule and you want to see the debate happening, am i correct? fantastic. sit down. thank you. i apologize. i did this in reverse. those of you who are like, no, no, no -- i hate -- just, no. we've got to make it go slow, stand up real quick. >> madame chair, microphone four. >> thank you. the appeal is -- my ruling is overfunder. so this motion is in order. now we're going to go back to the motion. we're going to vote on it. all of those in favor of mr. redtop's motion which is to stick our presidential debate tomorrow morning, time certain from 9:00 to 10:30 and include

mr. mike, say aye. >> aye. >> opposed. >> i apologize. but the ayes have it. >> madame chair, microphone four. >> yes, sir. my understanding is we are on mrs. robson's order. i call to question. >> madame chair, i wanted to depate this and asked this to be recognized before. i want to debate the robson motion. >> you wanted to? >> i want to debate the robson motion. it has some flaws. >> your objection has been called to question.

>> it has some flaws i would like to point out. >> there's objections. we need to discuss -- we have a delegate concern there's some flaws in this. considering there have been some other issues of business, i think it would be in order. do we have any objections to call into question? any additional ones? okay. are we going to call the question and move forward without considering any more bylaws violations? since it is a problem? all of those opposed to climate question, we can discuss this and make sure we're doing things properly. >> is that a question? >> do you want to call a question, say aye. if you don't, say nay. aye? >> aye. >> nay? >> nay. >> thank you. the nays have it. >> madame chair -- >> i'm not convinced that was a 2/3. i'm not convinced there was not 2/3s in favor, madame chair.

>> this might be quicker. >> it'll take longer to figure that out -- >> i'm sorry. you think it needed to be 2/3? >> i believe there was 2/3 in favor, madame chair. >> exactly. >> it was not 2/3. we are on debate. >> thank you. erin star, california delegate. there's a reason why we have the agenda the order is that it is in. you want bylaws to be before officer election. the bylaws can change the compensation of the officers and officer holders. that's why you have to do bylaws before. can everyone hear me? i'm going to speak up again. is this better?

can you hear me? okay. so the reason why you do by laws before the officer election is because they might change the bylaws of the lnc. typically bylaws go into effect immediately until there's something that states otherwise. this is why you want to do bylaws before office election. to do before the platform before nominations for president or vice president. that's their contract with us. we're -- you don't elect somebody to represent you and then later on say, oh, by the way, this is what you stand for. they are running on our platform. we have to define our platform first.

that's why i'm opposed to the motion. thank you. >> thank you. >> we have mr. brown. >> yes. i want to speak in favor of the robson proposal. it is on practical grounds. we don't have time to do the business. especially with adding the presidential debate, we barely have any floor time to consider our elections, let alone the bylaws and platforms. we need to adopt this to go forward and elect the people that we need to elect.

>> okay. questions have been called. we're going to call the vote. the motion already passed. this is the order of business. notwithstanding the special order. if that makes sense. i hope it does. all in favor of approving this agenda? >> aye. requires at least 2/3 of the votes. okay. ayes have it. [applause] >> that was 2/3. >> point of information. >> he has been waiting. we're going to go back. >> thank you, madame chair. as stated earlier, i'm raising a point of order.

regarding the business conducted earlier today, there's a 7/8 vote required to seat delegates. seat delegates and alternates that are not entitled to be registered. as such the submission of the delegation from oklahoma are in violation of the bylaws. i'm sorry. the amendments adopted to the delegations of oklahoma and washington are in violation of the bylaws. this is a violation of the continuing nature. therefore those actions must be ruled null and void. >> okay. we're going to take a second. i'm going to discuss it. what i'm going to do is when i come back, we're doing to offer a solution so we don't descend

into chaos. that's a very bad thing. we're going to have a solution one way or the other. [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations]udible] >> all right. we are going to get a little more information. i'm requesting more information from the credentials committee. here is my concern, someone has suggested we are in a continuing breach of our bylaws because we have a chair ruling overturned in violation of our bylaws that i should not have ruled on 7/8 but it is completely out of order. it is convoluted.

my concern is if we do not handle this appropriately, our presidential elections and obviously other elections will be contested. whatever happens, i believe -- no, you can wait --i believe a bylaws amendment would fix it, so i will not tell everybody to pound sand. we will hear from the credentials chair on why he rolled washington and oklahoma as ineligible. >> thank you, madam chair. the reason washington and oklahoma were rolled ineligible is once again in their bylaws, they have stated, the wording is clear and we seem unanimous across the credentials committee that at convention or during convention, after the gavel in call to order, in those bylaws, that was allowable once we came to convention.

this is why the committee ruled those delegate lists ineligible. now we are at convention and all of this can happen. this is why it was ruled ineligible. everything happened before convention, during convention, at convention. >> parliamentary inquiry. is this debatable? are we in debate? >> we are not in debate. i'm try to rule on a point of order that will have serious ramifications one way or the other. >> microphone four. billy pierce, delegate from texas. i would like to point out they were not unanimous, those votes were not unanimous amongst the committee. [applause] >> let the committee reach a

decision. >> correcting the record of the chair that it was not unanimous. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> microphone four. >> arthur from texas. what is the parliamentarians' opinion about this question. >> i'm the one tree setting, i have consulted with the parliamentarian and two other parliamentarians. [applause] [laughter] >> point of information, microphone one. >> star child, delegate from california. this is an unrelated matter but it is timely so i would like to ask it now, regarding the submission of tokens for platform plank to leash i'm curious how none of the above votes would be handled -- >> not in order, not in the

middle of serious business. please wait. >> point of information, madam chair, microphone two. [inaudible conversations]

>> all right. we have a potential solution for this. >> i would like to introduce a possible solution. >> before i rule, we will hear the potential solution to this point of order. >> if you were to rule that the point of order is in order, what i would do at that point is propose a bylaw change so we can fix this and do things legitimately without legal challenge. right now it takes a 7/8 vote for the convention to a roof delegates. i would propose to change that language to 23, that way -- to 2/3, that way we can seek more people, be in compliance with the bylaws, we do not get people challenging the presidential and vice presidential nominees.

if you were to rule this way, that is the motion i would propose. >> all right. his point is unfortunately well taken. >> point of order, madam chair. >> madam chair, if i can make that motion. >> it is nonappealable and i will not entertain the appeal. >> i will put it to the body myself if you do not allow this appeal. >> madam chair, i would like to make a motion. >> he is right in the middle of this. >> i would like to come a motion to suspend the rules to change

bylaw article 10, section 4-e, replacing 7/8 with 2/3, so it would read by 2/3 the convention may approve additional delegates who are submitted to the credentials committee during the convention. if we do that, we can solve all these issues. is there a second? >> requesting information, four. >> scott lieberman, california. is mr. starr's bylaw amendment for this convention or the future? >> my understanding is this convention. >> actually i have made it for an ongoing change.

if a future convention wants to change it back, they can. my motion is just a change from 7/8 to 2/3. if we can get this done, i think we have 2/3 in the room will receipt these people. >> point of measure, madam chair. >> microphone four. >> yes. >> entertaining bylaws changes at this time is out of order. >> it would require an mmn change and take 2 -- it would require an amendment change. >> his point of order is incorrect. >> i disagree, i hated it and it sucked and i thought it was also in order. >> i would like to change the ruling of the chair on that. >> i will not entertain a challenge to my ruling but i

will entertain -- that is within my right -- i said i would present a solution which is exactly what i'm doing. >> i would appeal the ruling of the chair. >> madam chair, if my motion on the floor could be voted on. >> speak up a little. >> if my motion can be voted on at this time. >> it needs a second. >> request for information, microphone two. thank you. i agree with his motion but a lot of this is a rising over confusion this morning, we were stand up, sit down, majority, civil majority. -- simple majority. what happened this morning, 7/8 approve these delegates, and then the appeal only required a simple majority.

is that what happened or where the delegate elected by simple majority? >> my ruling was it took 7/8, specifically washington and oklahoma. my ruling was appealed and overturned. a point of order has been raised that we are in breach of our bylaws and my ruling should not have been on 7/8, but whether they were eligible at all and they remained ineligible. they were not pre-credentialed even though that is not a term we should technically be using. they were never presented and stricken, they did not qualify according to their own state bylaws. >> to add them according to the lnc bylaws -- >> it would have taken 7/8. >> that was the bylaws, that would have taken 2/3 majority. >> it would take only 2/3, not

7/8. >> it would not have been a civil majority to overrule your ruling but a 2/3 majority. that is where we are running into confusion. this gentleman's motion to change the bylaws to 2/3, is that retroactive to this morning or do we have to do it all over again? >> it would be easy to pass now if it was retroactive. >> i agree, which is why i'm asking. >> that would be fine. >> point of order. >> normally bylaw changes our perspective, you do not usually adopt a bylaw change. >> it is not retroactive. >> here is how i understand events have unfolded so far. currently we have this situation where you are finding that some

delegates were not eligible at the time they were seated, and that is a ongoing bylaw violation and cannot be overturned by this body. however, this bylaw change can help clean this all up. that is why i'm hoping we will have 2/3 of the folks here willing to vote for this so we can move on and go through the votes of actually ceding these people properly. -- actually seating these people properly. >> point of order. >> my understanding, mr. starr, i want to make sure i understand you correctly, it is not retroactive but it does lower the threshold from set -- from 7/8 to 2/3. we could add in those delegates by 2/3, which we should be able to do, we should not need to count that off. then we are on our way and no

one will raise continuing breach of bylaws again. >> point of order. microphone two. >> from maryland. you cannot, when there is a high threshold for something to be done in changing the bylaws is a lower threshold, you cannot change that bylaw with a lower threshold. you have to use the higher one. this issue comes up repeatedly in these conventions in the past with regard to changing the statement of principle. you cannot change the 7/8 by a 2/3 bylaw change. >> that is just not true. we changed the bylaws. >> folks, this is a trap. vote no. >> point of order.

microphone four. >> microphone one, you had your hand up first. >> i wanted to correct him, what he is talking about is violations of rules. this is a change in the bylaws. you can change bylaws with a 2/3 threshold even in cases where it would require a higher threshold. that is why in some cases in our bylaws we specifically state it requires a higher threshold than 2/3. >> someone had a point of order. go ahead. >> it is my understanding -- let me step back -- this thing is a motion to reconsider, and it has to be moved by somebody from the winning side, and he was on the losing side.

>> i disagree. he is not, and i discussed it for the entire lunch period. >> appeal the ruling of the chair. microphone three, kentucky. appeal the ruling of the chair. >> ok. >> when to become to my vote to suspend the rules to do this? >> i would like to come to a vote soon, if we can vote and pass a bylaws limit quickly to dispose of this. >> i'm appealing the ruling of the chair that this is not a reconsideration. >> i'm not going to entertain it because we are regarding a breach of the bylaws. >> it is not your determination, it is the body convention, not yours. [applause]

>> leave the room! >> all right. mr. starr, are you ready to go to a vote? are we ready for a vote on this? >> point of information. >> microphone four. >> speak more clearly please. >> microphone two. if we really wanted to do this right, move that number instead of 2/3, move it to majority, 50%. it should be 50%, not 66. this is an attempt to override what we did earlier tonight, that is all this is because you cannot get 50 +1. move it to 50 +1 and we will

vote for it. >> request for information, microphone three. >> is his statement a motion to amend the item we are currently voting on to change 2/3 to majority? >> it was not framed that way but he made a suggestion. >> can you ask esther craig if he wants to do that now? >> mr. craig, were you trying to do an amendment and please consider this well? >> i would like a friendly amendment instead of being 2/3 to 50% majority rules. >> you want to amend mr. starr 's amendment. >> point of order. >> microphone four. >> hang tight, we will jump from this point of order, then that one.

>> madam chair, i do not have a point of order but i want to bring up a different solution that maybe makes everybody happy because geordie does not work. -- majority does not work. we can combine my motion to suspend the rules to change the bylaws to 2/3, and with that same 2/3 agreed to seat the delegates we tried to seat this morning. that way the only way this bylaw can change is if at the same time you are seating these delegates. >> point of order, madam chair. >> you need 2/3 anyway to adopt a change. >> from texas, mr. starr made a motion to suspend the rules, we never voted to suspend the rules. >> it was to suspend the rules to consider a particular bylaw. >> we would need a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules, and then 2/3 to pass it.

>> i believe we rolled it into one. >> that is not what it says on the screen. >> it was to suspend the rules and adopt the following bylaws change. >> correct, suspend the rules, adopt the change. i would like at the same time agree that with this 2/3 vote we will seat all the people in question. >> and mm it may be change it from 2/3 -- an amendment to be changed from 2/3 -- all right. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> i will hear this the mentor he inquiry, then we will go to -- parliamentary inquiry. >> from texas. >> madam chair, what will be the

vote threshold to suspend and adopt? >> 2/3, not 7/8. >> if the chair rules that this vote succeeded with a 2/3 vote, i will raise a point of order, then we will see what happens after that. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> where are you? >> microphone two. >> can the motion he clarified, then a follow-up inquiry? >> can you speak up. we need to go through this quickly and not get sued. we need to do this so we are all correct. >> can the motion before the body be clarified and follow-up parliamentary inquiry. >> point of personal privilege,

please. >> weight. -- wait. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> all right. great. amendment and point of personal privilege -- moving to suspend the rules is not debatable. it is not amendable.

i did consult with the parliamentarian. the point of personal privilege -- and then we will jump back to mr. starr. >> point of personal privilege. we were unable to hear because of the chaos in this room. a number of us have no idea what is going on because there is too much noise. please try to control the delegation. >> guys, we need to be quiet. i am tried to move us as quickly through this as possible. some of you think it is a joke or people. i'm trying to do the best i can for you which is why i'm trying to negotiate this and facilitate dialogue as opposed to steamrolling it. please work with me to make this happen. just like we did on the agenda. you know i have worked with you for three weeks to make the

agenda work. i'm trying to work with you on this too. mr. starr, the amendment to your approval is not in order, we are back to your motion. >> if it is not too late and there is no objection, i want to make sure that this is combined as a vote that also seats the people who were seated earlier. we are changing the bylaw to 2/3 and seating those people from this morning. >> we are changing the threshold from 7/8 to 2/3 and seating the washington and oklahoma people at the same time. >> point of order, microphone two. >> hold on. we just ruled washington and oklahoma were seated improperly so it will take 2/3 to pass the

bylaws amendment. then we will do a quick 2/3. >> point of order. microphone four. this is a motion to suspend the rules, it may not be amended in the middle. >> i agree, we just need to go t here. >> point of order. >> point of inquiry. >> point of parliamentary inquiry microphone three. >> i would like mr. starr to reiterate what he said that you try to argue which is not your place because he is making the motion. please tell us again what you intend with your amendment. >> my intended motion is to

change -- suspending the rules -- to change the bylaws so it reads 2/3 instead of 7/8 to seat additional delegates at this time and seat the people from this morning all in one combined motion. >> point of order. that was not stated in the original motion. we need to vote on the suspension of the rules now. >> that was not the original motion. >> let me suggest something. can i suggest -- >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> can we vote down my motion and then be recognized to represent this motion -- >> we need to proceed to a vote. >> point of parliamentary

inquiry. >> how many of those would you like me to entertain before we go to a vote? >> i have a better solution than a bylaws amendment. when there is ambiguity in the bylaws like the definition of -- what the national commission means, a civil majority vote can solve that problem. cruelly there is ambiguity here. -- clearly there is ambiguity here. it is multiple states to have different interpretations. your own website has national business happening yesterday, that is not ambiguous. we have a motion for our bylaws committee that specifically said after this convention is brought to order, that is different than at the national convention, different language. this is ambiguous. >> we need to go to a 2/3 vote. >> point of order.

it is 2/3 point of order. as everyday know what they are voting on? >> thank you, i am getting there. look at the screen. by 2/3 vote the convention may seek additional delegates. -- seat additional delegates. >> point of order on microphone four. >> we are going to a vote. >> it is vital as to how my vote goes. if there was objection to calling the question. >> there should not have been a question call because it it is not debatable, we should just go to a vote. let's vote. let's vote. i told you you would get a

solution, we did. we need to vote. all of those in favor of this bylaws amendment please stand up, and all of those opposed, sit down. this is to suspend the rules too. this is to suspend the rules, you can roll it into one motion. it is on the screen. it should say suspend the rules on the screen. everybody be seated. thank you. some of you are standing and talking. all of those opposed, please stand. >> divide the question. >> the motion failed.

>> madam chair, can i get my point of information? >> yes. >> you stated you had a solution , and i would have liked to hurt your solution. >> i think that we should change the bylaws, moved to suspend the rules to change it from a 7/8 vote to 2/3, and make it only for this convention. then we should vote yes and immediately revisit the oklahoma and washington delegation. we added and the others quickly. there are more people in the room, we can get an update. >> to be clear, your solution was his solution. >> close.

someone else tried to make an amendment. >> microphone one. i am a parliamentarian and i'm having trouble figuring out what we are voting on. it is important for you to make sure you read the motion every time we vote so we know what we are voting on. >> ok. >> madam chair. >> the robert f. kennedy, jr. talk is starting in 15 minutes. >> microphone one. thank you. i want to thank everybody voting down the motion so i can re -present it combined. my combined motion is to suspend the rules and -- please don't

interrupt me -- and to seat the people from this morning that were deemed ineligible. that is my combined motion. i think 2/3 of the room want to do that. >> second. [inaudible conversations] >> if we although yes on this, it gets the job done and we move on. i know it is not our favorite solution, just saying. >> point of information.

point of information, microphone three. was mr. starr's motion a privileged motion? >> mr. starr, can we get his motion? it is up. it moves to suspend the rules to amend the bylaws to say by 2/3 vote the convention may seat the washington and oklahoma

delegates. >> my point of information was is his motion to suspend the rules a privileged motion? >> no. >> then why was he recognized again prior to other folks waiting to be recognized longer than he has? >> i'm sorry, state that again. >> if his motion was not a privileged motion, why was he recognized prior to other delegates waiting longer to be recognized than he had been. >> because i cannot see or hear you. and when other people are speaking -- that is the reality. >> point of information. >> microphone one. >> elizabeth, california. a point of information, are you under the impression they are

already seated and were not deemed ineligible? >> i ruled what happened was out of order because of the continuing breach of bylaws. the whole reason we are doing this is to cure the breach of bylaws and find a way to seat them. >> i thought i heard mr. starr say they were -- i believed that they were -- >> point of information. number four. >> microphone four. >> south carolina. let's say this motion passed, with that invalidate everything that has been done since those delegates were seated earlier this morning? >> what has been done? >> we passed the credentials

report. what with the impact be? everything that has happened since then would all have to be redone? >> let me do a quick count. >> microphone number three, question of privilege. madam chair, delegate from connecticut. i have a time sensitive motion that pertains to donald trump's speaking time, the motion was amended hours in advance and we filibustered our way out of the motion cosponsored by 43 delegates that everyone wants to hear and debate. >> point of order. >> your point of order is not a point of order.

>> yes, it is. >> it is not a point of order. >> you were going to alienate 43 cosponsoring delegates, you are doing it right now. >> no, because the boat is 29 people -- >> i would like to propose we tell donald trump to go fuck himself. [cheers and applause] >> that is my motion too. we are a libertarian convention looking to nominate a libertarian. this is not a jailbait convention. i move to vacate the chair. >> point of order. [cheers and applause] >> point of order.

>> he had a point of order and i had a good answer. the number of delegates in question would not invalidate any of the results because it required 2/3, and we had way more. it would not have reached the threshold during the agenda, does that make sense? >> no. >> it was for the motion to be vacated. it should be responded to, to vacate the chair. it should not be ignored like the previous motions. >> my motion has the floor right now. we need to dispose of the motion, then you can do whatever

the heck you want to do. right now this motion is on the floor. vote in favor of this. seat these delegates and let's get some god damned business done. >> i would like to call a question on his motion. >> the motion, the question has been called, any objection. please, don't. we should not really be debating it. we need 2/3. there is an objection calling the question even though it is non-debatable. we are going to go to the boat and we need 2/3 to suspend the rules. the bylaws say by 2/3 vote the convention may name additional delegates named during convention and seat the washington and oklahoma delegations.

all in favor, please stand. it requires 2/3. >> they said vote no, so please vote yes. >> please, be seated. all those opposed, please stand. do you need me to repeat the motion? it is on the screen. we have said it many times to move the suspend the bylaws, move to suspend the rules to amend the bylaws as follows,

instead of 7/8, by 2/3 vote the convention may choose additional delegates named during the convention, and seek the washington and oklahoma delegate at issue. -- addition. those of you standing are opposed to that right now. we will start over. if you are in favor of this motion, please stand. it takes 2/3. >> i thought we did this already. >> yes, there were a go, everybody is standing. all right. >> let's be ungovernable. let's prove it and be ungovernable. >> we are ungovernable. >> ungovernable. let's do this. >> those of you opposed, stand up. all right. we have 2/3 passage, thank you.

[applause] >> microphone four. >> my motion to suspend the rules to add to the agenda and item following its acceptance to consider the ratification of region one. >> boo! >> we need an agenda first. >> we have an agenda. a long time ago. >> point of order. >> that is out of order. it is not up to the people in region want to vote on who is in region one. >> madam chair, he is not asking that, he is asking to consider the lnc's move that ratified region one. >> ok, can you be clearer?

>> how do you want me to be any more clear? >> restate your motion. >> moving to suspend the rules to add to the agenda a time to consider and debate the lnc's move to ratify region one against the will of some of their members. >> parliamentary inquiry, microphone one. >> does it have a second. >> parliamentary inquiry, from texas again. we finally adopt our agenda earlier? >> yes, we had an agenda. >> the answer is yes?

>> absolutely. >> microphone three. delegate from indiana. i move to amend the agenda timewise to extend business today and tomorrow to 5:00 p.m. each day. >> we were on the motion regarding region one. >> microphone one. >> i need to know who made that motion. >> wisconsin. point of order. microphone one. this is more of a question. during the last kerfuffle, there was a motion to vacate the chair. would that become the next agenda item? want to make sure we are doing things correct. >> it was not recognize because

it was not in order at the time. >> it was in order at the time. >> right now we are on region one. >> microphone four. madam chair, i think it would be more accurate to say this is not an amendment to the agenda but a suspension of the rules to take up a question about this move. >> it will still require 2/3. >> i believe your motion is in order although i did not know there was a particular consequence to it but we can deliberate it if that is what you would like. someone speaking in favor or against the motion? >> madam chair. delegate from virginia. can you please state the motion.

>> a move to suspend the rules to take up consideration of the lnc's move to ratify region one. >> thank you. and to take it up now, not at a particular time. was there a second? >> yes. >> moved and seconded. >> madam chair, point of order on microphone two. we have to follow the agenda and the next thing is the treasurers report. we should go to the treasurers report because we have to follow the agenda. >> thank you. that is a reasonable given. >> i move to call the question. moved and seconded, any objection? >> i object. the motion has not had a chance to speak in favor of the motion yet.

>> you are right, it is not debatable, we are just hearing points of order and information although most are trying to argue. it is what it is. >> i would like to speak in favor of the motion. >> should we go to a vote. >> we need to suspend the rules to take up consideration. this is a two parter, not rolled into one. i'm looking at it on the screen. i need 2/3. we will go to a vote. all those in favor, standup. i'm sorry it is like church but it is easier. all of those in favor of suspending the rules. these are the people who want to do this, to suspend the rules. sit down. >> point of order, madam chair.

this is mary from santa clara county, california. people who do not have delegate badges displayed are voting. please ask them not to do that. >> that is an issue. >> delegation chair, please check your delegation. >> madam chair. >> microphone four. >> i call for the order of the day. >> next item on the agenda is the treasurer's report. [applause] >> madam chair, question of urgent privilege, time sensitive, 10 minutes from now, microphone three from connecticut. i have submitted a motion that was cosponsored by 43 highly now alienated and disaffected delegates. that motion seeks to give back the time to rfk and trump

libertarian candidates we intend to run against these individuals. >> your motion is out of order. >> i appeal the ruling of this rogue republican chair. [cheers] >> i can also be a plaintiff if you want. >> that is fine. >> fuck you. hey, angela, suck cock. >> out of order. >> that is out of border and a violation. >> you can kiss my ass. [screams and shouts] >> assault! assault!

assault! >> sergeant at arms, please escort anybody come been rowdy to hotel security. >> madam chair, do we have a sergeant? have you identified who that person is so that we know? >> i see ollie, richard. ollie is doing a fantastic job. it is 3:30. we had a scheduled day. kennedy is talking. reading the room, it looks like most of you want to continue. >> madam chair, microphone one. >> my suggestion is for those of you who would like to talk, you are free to do so at this time. is that reasonable?

>> madam chair, i have a highly privileged motion at microphone four. i'm going to make a motion that we need because not have a time-based agenda. i will make a motion to fix the time in which to adjourn. i move that when this meeting adjourns, whenever that is, we adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. >> actually, that is already in order because that was part of the special order. >> i did not know that was the time of convening, i wanted to clarify that. thank you. >> point of information, microphone one. >> can we find our treasurer, and, yes. >> starchild, delegate from california. another time sensitive matter

that it will ask again now -- i will make for quiet in the room. thank you. i am inquiring as to how votes for none of the above cast in terms of platform plank retention token will be counted. can people vote for none of the above for that if they don't want to delete anything from the current platform and have those votes counted? >> i don't believe that is in order for platform tokens. >> i would like, if i could, get a parliamentarian ruling on that. >> not going to happen. >> some of us would like to stop stuff from being deleted, and if we can vote none of the above in terms of the tokens, otherwise they do not have a vote.

>> could you wait one second so i can chat about it. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> microphone four, point of information. >> it is not in order for platform tokens, sorry. it is not in order. >> madam chair, microphone four, point of information, illinois. what time is this supposed to end today?

i do not have a schedule in front of me. >> 5:00. >> thank you. >> madam chair, microphone three. >> that is when business should end. check the schedule that you are not overstepping. >> madam chair. motion to recess for 10 minutes so people can calm the hell down. >> do we want to recess for 10 minutes? >> no! >> i'm not sure people want to take a recess for 10 minutes just why i have not called one. i do not hear any seconds on that. i believe our next item is the treasurer's report. >> madam chair, microphone three. >> we are going to the treasurer's report.

ok, microphone three. >> thank you for recognizing me after waiting in line for over an hour. i would like to make a motion to suspend the rules to extend tomorrow's times of adjournment from 5:00 p.m. to 10 p.m., and to rescind the invitation to former president and wwe hall of famer, donald trump. >> second! >> i second that! >> it is not in order. he is not part of convention business. >> point of information. >> last one. we are going to go to the treasurer's report. >> can we hear from the parliamentarian whether or not that is in order? >> i have already discussed it many times, it is not in order. >> it is part of the convention,

which is allowed and controlled by the delegates, correct? >> we are moving on. [applause] >> i'm going to keep this fairly short. not nearly as rowdy. i have submitted a treasurers report that has charts, facts and figures. today i will go through the first two pages, the summary. inside of that treasurer's report, you will have a summary, statements of activities and changes. you will have statement of cash flows, an auditors opinion

showing a clean audit, term accomplishments. the next page is the letter from the treasurer. the treasurer of the lnc is responsible for the oversight of all financial functions including but not limited to receipts, disbursements, internal and external reporting. i'm happy to announce the following results. we have a clean bill of health. [applause] we have had the cleanest august in several years with no significant deficiencies. [applause] we have paid off the mortgage that we previously took out. [applause] we have outsourced our accounting department that led to that clean audit.

[applause] we defeated fec complaints wrongly filed, unanimously in our favor. [applause] and we have the highest sustained cash balances that we have had in 10+ years. the bottom line is this party is financially strong despite rumors to the contrary. we have done a good job. [applause] thank you all, i appreciate it. that is the treasurer's report. i will take questions. >> i have one question, a quick question at microphone four. from texas. would it be accurate to say lnc

revenue in 2023 was lower than in any of the previous 20 years? >> i do not know if it was lower than in any of the previous 20 years but it was certainly low. >> was it lower than almost any of the previous 20 years? >> that is probably accurate. >> could you please give us the projected revenue for 2024? >> yes, we should be in the arena of $1.6 million to $1.7 million in 2024, potentially higher based on [applause] >> and for comparison purposes, mr. treasurer, do you happen to know the revenue for 2020? >> i do not on 2020. i believe 2022 was just over 2

million. >> microphone four. speaker out of south carolina. it says they paid off the mortgage balance he inherited. wasn't that a loangainst business assets and not a mortgage. i am pretty sure they ended up not doing the mortgage. >> i apologize, there was a lien, not a mortgage. >> line of credit based on business assets? >> correct. >> point of personal privilege. i was wondering if you have an estimate of what the libertarian party and has raised in the last two days? >> yes, we have raised over $400,000 this month. i believe we have raised over $200,000 in the last 2.5 days. >> well done. >> microphone four.

leap years from texas. could you please tell us how much of the libertarian party nationally has spent on valid access and candidates? >> i would have to look at the reports for that. i apologize, i do not have that, but it is in all of the monthly reports i have been submitting. >> question, microphone one please. does the report include changes, so if there was a percent increase or decrease over time from last year or two years ago, do you have any of those? >> the report was based on what previous reports of flight, so what it will show is 2022, 2023, and here today 2024, which is what we have always shown. you can always email me with more questions from previous reports or all the financial

reports from the last 10 years. >> thank you so much. >> microphone four, mike, chair, michigan. mr. treasurer, can you please tell us how much of the lnc has spent on suing me and the rest of the michigan eight? >> ballot access spending was not cut so that question is moot. >> how much did you spend on suing us? >> [indiscernible] >> john thomas, i move that we accept the treasurer's report. [applause] >> it is not in order. thank you though. i appreciate the cheering. >> next question.

>> point of information. >> microphone four. i guess it is a parliamentary inquiry. what part of the bylaws makes it out of order to westgate treasurer about a budget item such as how much money was spent by the lnc to sue other libertarians in order to defend intellectual property is a concept? >> nobody said it was out of order. >> question, microphone four. >> john phillips. how much was raised in the presidential straw poll this weekend? i would like to thank our presidential candidates for all their fundraising efforts. [applause] >> i believe the number was

$183,000. >> great job, presidential candidates. great job bailing us out. >> any more questions? >> microphone three. i recall you mentioning the outsourcing was more expensive than anticipated. is that an ongoing expense over short-term one? >> we are hoping it is short-term. that they have been going down and dow in cause. it had to do with the fec portion of the accounting and accounting portion of the accounting. it took longer to get them up to speed by the fec portion, so in addition what we get when we have to go through audits or when we need additional information for the fec, every bit of that cost money, so when we have a challenge that is ridiculous, that cost us money. >> microphone one.

>> yes, sir. >> mark, national chair, california. in the last two years did the lnc pay any fines to the fec? >> no, we did not. >> mr. treasurer, microphone one. related to previous comment about alledge at a bailout of this convention, was the convention profitable or is it possible without that fundraising from the presidential candidate? >> we will not know until the end of the convention. >> could you speculate? >> yes, i believe this convention will be extremely profitable regardless of the $183,000. >> i move to go to the next agenda item, which i believe is the audit committee report.

>> any objections to moving to the audit committee report? hearing none, we will go to the audit committee report. thank you. here comes our audit committee chair. ♪ announcer: "washington journal," are live for them involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from washington, d.c. and across the country. saturday morning, we talk about camping 2024 and this weekend's libertarian national convention with the washington post. in our spotlight on buckeye segment a u.s. marine corps veteran discusses his podcast that focuses on real life stories of active duty military

and veterans. "washington journal," join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. announcer: on saturday president biden will be in new york to give the commencement address to the u.s. military academy, west point. it will be his third the commencement address at the academy but his first as commander-in-chief. it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. announcer: we will have more coverage from the libertarian national convention saturday when 2024 presumptive republican nominee will speak to delegates. watch that live at 8:00 p.m. on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband.

♪ announcer: buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: and now vice president kamala harris and kenyon president william ruto sat down with ambassador to kenya william whitman to discuss it investments in africa hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce. this is about 30 minutes.