Hillary Clinton

Libertarians on Clinton Email: The Party Condemns, the Candidate Declines

Prior to FBI Director Comey's statements, Gary Johnson did not want to be a "stone thrower" when it comes to Clinton and her email issues. Some Libertarians are peeved at a missed opportunity.

|

After FBI Director James Comey announced yesterday, more or less, that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law but wasn't going to be prosecuted for it, the Libertarian Party issued a press release condemning the lack of any potential legal punishment for Clinton.

ReasonTV

Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee, was quoted:

"This is a serious miscarriage of justice," says Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "One key criteria for laws to be just is that they must be applied equally to all." Countless other people who have served in roles handling classified information have been prosecuted, fined, and jailed for far lesser breaches of protocol and security.

I asked the Johnson campaign for a comment yesterday given the latest. "As this unfolded the Govs have been traveling and we don't have a statement," was a response sent overnight from the campaign's press office.

The most recent detailed comment on Clinton and her email troubles from Johnson I found were on CNN and were quoted in the Washington Examiner on July 3:

"I don't think there's been criminal intent on Hillary Clinton's part, so I don't see an indictment," the former New Mexico governor told CNN on Sunday morning.

"I'm not a stone thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her emails and her server…"

Johnson and Weld were already being written off by many Libertarians as overly solicitous to Clinton, who they are, it should be remembered, running against. One might expect them to at least occasionally take the time to critique when appropriate.

Asked about Clinton on their CNN Town Hall appearance in June, Johnson praised her as a "wonderful public servant" and vice presidential candidate William Weld truthfully referred to her as an "old friend."

Johnson's manifest unwillingness to play what he might see as a right-wing gotcha game against Clinton almost certainly comes from a sincere place where policy is more important than a process scandal. He may perhaps be a staunch defender of mens rea and think, even after Comey's statements, that a prosecution is unjust.

Whatever the case may be, a campaign currently running nearly entirely on free earned media should consider taking advantage of news cycles to his benefit and to remember that on all sides he is trying to appeal to—disaffected Democrats or progressives who preferred Sanders, or Republicans who can't abide Trump—there is much to gain and little to lose in being willing to point out political or personal flaws in his competitors, whether or not he sincerely believes she should face jail time for it. Even if it is merely using that news hook to point out where he thinks Clinton does deserve censure or criticism.

The Green Party's Jill Stein quickly condemned Clinton in the aftermath of the Comey announcement, openly calling for Clinton's prosecution, saying "All the elements necessary to prove a felony violation were found by the FBI investigation."

I've seen a whole lot of annoyance and anger coming Johnson's way over his lack of interest in condemning Hillary Clinton over this, particularly among fans of Austin Petersen, who came in second to Johnson in the Party's nomination process. 

Petersen released a video dinging Johnson for his previous comments above about Clinton's email. And he contrasts it with his willingness to call Trump a racist on CNN.

"Unless you are just a Gary Johnson sycophant, you won't be a big fan" of how Johnson has dealt with this issue, Petersen said. "Even the FBI said she was grossly negligent…it is a crime, so it doesn't make any sense from a political standpoint to defend Hillary Clinton unless there is some weird ulterior motive." Petersen notes that Weld is a very old friend of Clinton's, and goes on to condemn what he sees as an overly "social justice warrior" vibe to Johnson's "effete liberalism" and calls his defense of Clinton "egregious."

Advertisement

NEXT: $15 Minimum Wage Could Kill Up to 5 Million Jobs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Seriously, what the fuck is Johnson’s strategy here? He doesn’t seem to have any. He seems to be spending his time trying to appeal to Democrats and be liked in the cocktail circuit rather than, you know, actually push libertarianism.

    I’m morphing from thinking he’s ineffectual to he’s a sorry sack of shit.

    1. There’s more money & prestige in appealing to the cocktail crowd.

      1. There is also more money and prestige in being anything other than a Libertarian. So I think he’s just a lousy campaigner or a pussy.
        I never really get the “cocktail parties” critique. If that’s what you really care about, seems like step one is don’t call yourself a libertarian.

        1. Definitely a lousy campaigner, strangely both of them are.
          There is no firebrand outrage coming from these two, when there is so much to be outraged about.
          Then they are given a gift of obvious righteous outrage against Clinton, who has provided a public example of cronyism in avoiding prosecution, and her original incompetence in handling secret privileged information.
          And instead of running with it, and getting some more free media attention, they just mew a little, and shrug their shoulders.
          A lot of crap as far as campaigning goes.
          The rules of political campaigning and selling yourself have little to do with clean libertarian philosophy, it is a different animal that has rules that require aggression, political criticism and attacking, and selling of one’s self that would otherwise appear gouache and grandiose.
          But those are the rules of the game, and the biggest opportunity that us libertarians have now is being wasted, by mamby-pampy, milquetoast campaigning.

    2. His strategy can be summed up here:

      1. Stop smoking weed and become ‘sharp as a knife’.

      2. Tag an east coast Democrat lite for VP.

      3. Try to be just like the other teams.

      That’s it, there’s nothing more.

      1. You forgot:

        4. Profit!

        1. +1 gnome

      2. He should have kept smoking weed and more publicly. Probably would have won over more Bernie supporters and otherwise apolitical stoners that way.

    3. And….i’m back to voting for None of the Above

      1. Brewster’s Millions reference? I’m down.

    4. I think the best spin is probably to try to take as many votes from the likely winner, or at least make it seem that way. Remember how butt hurt Gore supporters were when Nader got enough votes to look respectable while Gore just lost?

      Johnson has a chance of surpassing Nader’s result. If he gets a percent that is more than the spread between Clinton and Trump and it seems like he got mostly Republican votes, then it is going to be a similar situation.

      As it is, I suspect he is trying to make his ticket look balanced between the two parties.

      For me, this is far from inspiring, but it will probably take more apostasy to get me to not vote LP than it will take to convince a couple D’s to think about voting for Johnson.

    5. GaryGarbage strikes again.

    6. So goood Nick will vote for him twice!

    7. You can’t push libertarianism and be liked by democrats. They’re entirely incompatible by the modern party.

    8. I think his strategy is play footsie with Clinton to get the DNC OK to be in the debates. He doesn’t need to do the same with Trump cuz the RNC hates Trump

      1. That’s probably what it is. He’s not confident of getting to 15% in the polls, so his next best chance is getting the acquiescence of the party committees if he’s between 10 & 15%.

        It wouldn’t make sense to think it’s about appealing to Hillary’s voters. If you’re telling them Hillary’s OK, then they have no reason not to vote for her.

        1. Except this is a perfect opportunity for Johnson to gain awareness and reach that 15% threshold. I have seen Stein’s comments numerous times and that will gain the attention of many NeverHillary’s. I have not seen anything from Johnson on this issue, which means he is losing out on free publicity. Vital crucial error on his campaign’s part. Personally, I would be reaching out to every service member/contractor whose careers have been ruined by far less (Brezler, Petraeus, etal) and parading them around as an example of the double standard and why it is time for a third party candidate.

    9. i think the thought process goes like this.

      on the right, you have a huge block on the right who do not want trump….. but will not vote for a third party if they fear it will give Hillary the white house.

      on the left, you have people who don’t REALLY like Hillary, but they like her enough to vote for her.

      if you get enough support from the second group, the first group sees him as viable, and they come practically for free. i think the strategy they are playing is to pull as much from the left as they can, while staying just middle of the road enough to not completely alienate the nevertrumpers.

      i think that is why a lot of the push seems to be left leaning, at the moment…. they are actually playing the game like they want to win, and not just spread the good word.

      1. This.

    10. If he cannot condemn Comey’s lack of testicles, I can’t vote for him.

    11. I continue to not give a shit about this. Although I will say that I am a little concerned about libertarians being so gung-ho about prosecuting someone for compromising state secrets. That seems backwards to me.

      1. The thing is that Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, David Patereus, and others (including those who are nameless but surely were sent to prison) have been fucked by the Feds over this shit, but Clinton gets a free pass.

        I hope wikileaks makes good on the promise to publish Hillarys emails now that the FBI doesnt want to give her equal treatment under the law.

        State secrets have a purpse, but by not going after Hillary they prove those secrets should be public. The fallout and blowback are on them now, just as much as Hillary.

        1. I agree with all that, but shouldn’t libertarians be using this to call for a pardon of Snowden and Manning, rather than calling for jailing Hillary? I mean that sounds like a terrible precedent to me.

          1. I’m sorry was Hillary a whistelblower?

          2. Chipper Morning Wood says, “…I am a little concerned about libertarians being so gung-ho about prosecuting someone for compromising state secrets.”

            Really? Libertarians should not care about state secrets in the hands of hostile countries and e-mails that can be used to black mail goobermint officials? Did you chip your wood and now your hemorrhaging? Would explain the poor thinking.

      2. If libertarians believe the laws Clinton violated are victimless, they shouldn’t focus on Clinton’s criminality and perhaps should silently be glad Clinton didn’t face the wrath of the Feds. However, libertarians should focus on the perceived, if not actual, selectivity of Clinton’s non-prosecution when others have been prosecuted for less. Maybe Obama should pardon Clinton, Snowden, Manning and Patraeus together to show he’s not using favoritism. Libertarians should also focus on Clinton’s dishonesty during her email scandal. Here’s a winning yard sign for Johnson/Weld:

        Unbelievable D
        or
        Unpredictable R
        OR
        Believable & Predictable
        Governors Johnson & Weld

    12. What would John McAfee say? My new bumper sticker: WWJMS.

    13. The libertarian convention. Sorry. Lame. Man stripping down on stage(not even an attractive one), A/V run by ninth graders, hot amateur mess. GayJay being soft and meek,a ship with a broken rudder. All an embarrassment. A write in of Mickey mouse is sounding very tempting.

    14. I’m agreeing with you. He thinks that the way he is gonna “win” is to pull people from the hillary camp, which is absurd. Anybody who is gonna vote for her, especially after these recent “revelations” is a fucking retard who has no ethical compass whatsoever. So, Johnson assuming he has a snowballs chance in hell of pulling ANY of those people is the epitome of stupid.

  2. This could cost Johnson the election.

    1. Yup, Johnson and Sanders can car pool to Hillary’s inauguration parties.

      1. Sanders won’t pony up any money for gas though

    2. Thankfully not your vote though.

    3. You know what else could cost Johnson the election?

  3. Asked about Clinton on their CNN Town Hall appearance in June, Johnson praised her as a “wonderful public servant” and vice presidential candidate William Weld truthfully referred to her as an “old friend.”

    It’s people like this who make Bob Barr ashamed to call himself a Libertarian.

    1. That pretty well finished off Johnson for me (no homo). Exactly what you’d expect a courtier at the imperial throne to say about the heir apparent.

      1. He never misses a chance to unimpress.

      2. The LP is a necessary evil with the bandwidth needed to introduce newbies to the basics of libertarianism, basically the same role as Reason. But half the stuff I hear from the beltway Libs makes me want to burn the party to the ground.

        For a cromit-licious good time, check out the interview that GJ did with Wenzel for the 2012 cycle. Wenzel was deferential as he could be, be when he started asking Johnson about Austrian economics, it’s obvious that GJ has no clue wtf this weird little Jewish guy is talking about. No wonder Johnson doesn’t understand anything about freedom of association–he’s basically a successful business owner who eliminated some obvious waste from a small state gov for a few years in between puff-puff-pass sessions.

        1. Wenzel’s first question is always: Do you accept Rothbard as our Lord and Savior?

        2. I thought only Barack got 2 puffs.

      3. It is becoming abundantly clear that Gary Johnson has punked the LP.

        His resume and his self-identification as libertarian made him seem like the ideal candidate. But then I heard him advocate state coercion of individuals to bake cakes against their will on the Fox debate, and it’s only gotten worse since then. William Weld as VP pick … Hillary’s wonderful public service … The TPP … The free market is killing coal … The Johnson/Weld campaign seems to be intentionally trying to alienate libertarians since it got the nomination for some reason.

        In moments of weakness, this 25-year LP member is thinking about voting Republican for the second time in 32 years.

        But, then, I remember how awful Trump is.

    2. Oh Burn!

  4. Johnson’s manifest unwillingness to play what he might see as a right-wing gotcha game against Clinton almost certainly comes from a sincere place where policy is more important than a process scandal.

    But he speaks openly about the awful racism of Trump. No, what I see is a guy who is a perfect manifestation of the absolute worst of the cosmo element. Criticize Trump – he’s earned it. But Hillary is the exact sort of hacky, incompetent in all the ways that matter establishment politician the libertarian party is supposed to oppose. And he can’t say much beyond that she’s a wonderful public servant.

    If this is sincere, that’s worse.

    1. No, what I see is a guy who is a perfect manifestation of the absolute worst of the cosmo element.

      My shocked face is in the repair shop and they’re asking for more than it’s worth.

    2. How has Trump earned mockery compated to Clinton? By saying mean things about some of the progressive’s pets?

      There’s really no comparison between the evil that Hillary has been involved in for decades and Trump’s faux pas.

      1. How has Trump earned mockery compated to Clinton?

        He hasn’t; he’s earned it all on his own.

      2. Hillary Clinton: destroys Libya creating millions of refugees and causing untold deaths. Leaked the countries secrets like a sieve. Sold Influence to foreign governments.

        Trump: Said some mean things.

        How dare Trump!!

        Gary Johnsons lack of enthusiasm for attacking Hillary has cost him not just my vote this time, but all my respect for him too.

      3. I think being a blathering idiot who can’t go a day without contradicting himself has earned him just criticism, personally. Not to mention he’s adopted a number of authoritarian positions.

        I tend to agree that Hillary is worse having had her hands on power for a long time now and abusing it. Yet, that doesn’t make Trump any less of a clown.

        1. I think being a blathering idiot who can’t go a day without contradicting himself has earned him just criticism, personally. Not to mention he’s adopted a number of authoritarian positions.

          But enough about Tony…

    3. This is exactly how i feel. He’s fine with throwing stones at Trump for saying racist things, but afraid to call Evil for what it is.

      Especially if you are going to talk about casting stones. Jesus used that analogy was about not judging people who had sinned and repented. This is just plain cowardice on Johnsons part.

      1. he is clearly focused on pulling votes from Hillary. those who will not vote for him, because he insults trump…. were always going to vote trump. those who might not like Hillary on the left….. will dig in and stick up for her if two nasty former republican’s start talking mean.

  5. This says to me that, if elected, a Johnson administration plans separate, unsecured mail servers in every nook and cranny of available real estate.

    1. Privatized email servers… It’s the libertarian thing to do, really.

      1. Yeah, THAT’S why Hillary had her private servers – because she’s a closeted libertarian.

        HUMA – BRING ME THE AX!!!!

    2. All emails will be printed out and distributed to little birds for safe keeping.

  6. He’s turning out to be a disaster. How did this guy get elected governor of a state?

    1. He’s a politician. A professional politician. One that is so bad at his job that he fled the Republican Party where he was a little fish in a big pond to a smaller political party where he’d be one of the bigger fishes in that little puddle.

      In other words, he’s a worthless scumbag.

      I think it’s very important for people to stop identifying with politicians. It’s like identifying with rapists or people who talk at the theater.

      1. It’s like identifying with rapists

        *takes down Bob Packwood poster*

        1. Every time Packwood’s victims asked him to stop, he did. This is in accordance with the “one free grope” standard set by Bill Clinton.

        2. I’m still wearing the T-Shirt.

        3. Crusty, we know that was an old jello advertisement hiding under that Packwood poster.

    2. Didn’t take him long to prove everything I said about him right after the LP convention. I hope the LP learns from this, but I somehow doubt it.

    3. Pot

    4. It was New Mexico. Have you not seen the shit show that is the list of New Mexico governors?

  7. Asked about Clinton on their CNN Town Hall appearance in June, Johnson praised her as a “wonderful public servant” and vice presidential candidate William Weld truthfully referred to her as an “old friend.”

    Trump is great pals, so’s the rumor. Bernie refused to attack her scandals. Is anyone else getting the impression that this entire silly season was just theater? Start to finish. Complete fucking crock of shit.

    *sets tinfoil ballcap at rakish angle*

    1. The incompetence on display is truly breathtaking in its scope.

      1. We are talking about a Clinton here. They probably have dirt on every last one of the others.

        Most likely scenario. Bill meets your plane on the tarmac at some out-of-the-way airport, plies you with rohypnol, and then photos you receiving the Juanita treatment.

        Tacit support ensured.

        1. And now Russia and China have dirt on them…

    2. When Weld came on board I was suspecting that the goal was really just to stop Trump. The strategy here doesn’t even make sense as an appeal to Democrats. The Dems who would even think about voting third party are the Bernie supporters who were hoping she would be indicted. So what does praising Clinton actually accomplish?

      A lot of people have signed on as they see it as a chance to grow the LP. But what are the odds that establishment Republicans don’t jump back to the GOP next go around? They don’t care about the libertarian party. These are people who pretty much hope Hillary wins and just hate Trump.

      1. Maybe both Johnson and Weld are hoping to take enough votes away from Trump and then get rewarded with cushy jobs in the Hillary admin?

        1. So it would seem

      2. Johnson and others in the party (narrows gaze at Reason) have made it crystal clear that the don’t want support of right leaning libertarians.

        So I have to say alrighty then…. no support.

        1. Johnson and others in the party (narrows gaze at Reason) have made it crystal clear that the don’t want support of right leaning libertarians.

          I think that’s right.

          Someone (group of ones) somewhere seem to have made a strategic decision that the future growth of libertarian interests is in some appeal to disaffected liberals. (*whomever/wherever they are)

          i’ve pointed out before that i don’t think its currently working, and that its not going to work any better in the near future. Because even where there are some superficial overlaps in policy? (*drugs, criminal justice, possibly foreign policy) there are diametrically-opposed underlying reasons about why those things should be changed.

          Meanwhile, efforts at kicking the right-libertarians to the curb seem far more effective. I suppose it ensures the cocktail parties never turn into keggers.

          1. I think your assumption makes Johnson-Weld hilariously incompetent. Even if you wanted to appeal to liberals, what liberals are there pissed off with Democrats right now? It’s just the Bernie supporters, and a fraction of them at that who already hated Hillary before and even more so now.

            So how the hell does this even appeal to disaffected liberals? It doesn’t. The Dems who may stray are anti-Hillary as much as Republicans who are looking for alternatives are anti-Trump.

            1. I think your assumption makes Johnson-Weld hilariously incompetent.

              We are talking about the party that selected Bob Barr.

              The most libertarian candidates to run for president in recent history ran as Republicans. And are named Paul.

            2. So how the hell does this even appeal to disaffected liberals? It doesn’t.

              See my comment below where i said exactly that

              I’m not sure what you’re responding to in my above comment, because we’re mostly agreed on what you’re saying.

              e.g. Yes, i think Johnson-Weld are hilariously incompetent. but i don’t know what ‘assumption’ you’re referring to.

              1. Johnson-Weld being that incompetent is plausible. But it is an assumption about their motives. I for one think they are at least smart enough to connect the dots and realize that if they want to attract leftwing voters to the LP, then praising Hillary isn’t the best way to do it.

            3. Any switching is going to be done at the margin, not the core. There are current Clinton and Sanders supporters who are just as indifferent to their candidate as you were to Johnson when you might have voted for him. Those are the ones that are going to switch their votes. Not your stereotypical, ideological liberal, socialist or lifelong Democrat, but the ones who are mostly voting against they other team.

          2. Whats funny is that going after liberals will be as successful as going after conservatives. Most people are happily statist in their mindset and do not care about libertarian arguments.

          3. Gets Reason’s endorsement.

    3. A great, great show as we anxiously pray for SMOD’s appearance . . . Any day now

    4. Is anyone else getting the impression that this entire silly season was just theater? Start to finish. Complete fucking crock of shit.

      I have wondered the very same thing. As someone once said, if voting actually mattered they wouldn’t let you do it.

  8. Cut it out with the mens rea nonsense. Clinton knew full well what she was doing, and that it was both illegal and deceptive.

    1. ^This. Even based on the evidence laid out by Comey yesterday (rather than the piles and piles more that’s been in the media for the past 6-12 months), it is abundantly clear that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing and acted willfully at all times. She’s guilty even under the stricter interpretations of the statute.

      1. Nobody sets up an email system by accident. That line of defense is complete bullshit.

        1. And if mens rea was actually necessary, the only necessary element was “Did you mean to push the send button on that e-mail, Madame Secretary?”

        2. Magic. Oh, ye of little faith, that server just magically appeared. In the bathroom, no less.

        3. Everything Clinton says is BS. She opens her mouth, a cow craps in the world and it just falls right out of her mouth.

      2. Even based on the evidence laid out by Comey yesterday…

        This is what makes Johnson’s reaction utterly stupid. He doesn’t have to say anything about Clinton. “Mr. Comey, the evidence you laid out was more than you used to prosecute other people, like [list about eight cases]. Why wasn’t it enough for an indictment in this particular case? And is the FBI or someone at least going to make sure that nobody runs the Presidency of the United States out of an unsecured server?”

  9. Epic, epic, epic fail on the part of Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party that nominated him. The strategy of being ‘Democrat Lite’ (which is exactly Johnson’s bizarre strategy) is certain to guarantee him another showing of 1%. The Party should have never nominated Johnson, who is content on ignoring Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump in order to gain Leftist voters who don’t believe Clinton is socialist enough (that is really why Sanders fans don’t like Clinton). Just a quick FYI, Johnson, Leftists will never, ever vote for a Libertarian, ever.

    1. Just a quick FYI, Johnson, Leftists will never, ever vote for a Libertarian, ever.

      but but but weed

    2. McAfee would have been a better choice. Yes, someone who is suspected of murder in a foreign country and quite possibly bat shit insane is a better choice than “Clinton’s Libertarian Inspiration Team”. Go C.L.I.T.!

  10. Maybe Johnson doesn’t want to get whacked.

    1. That might be the first time Hillary ever whacked a Johnson.

    2. Weed whacked?

  11. Maybe just withdraw Hilary and Trump from the ballot and let another party try for a change. Then the Democrats and Republicans can both by the only thing they really seem to enjoy, being opposition parties.

  12. Asked about Clinton on their CNN Town Hall appearance in June, Johnson praised her as a “wonderful public servant” and vice presidential candidate William Weld truthfully referred to her as an “old friend.”

    i’d already written off johnson as a coward when he pandered to drug-warrior mommy

    but this shit is just getting ridiculous. I don’t care how ‘generous’ you are = Clinton has never served anyone except herself. Suggesting otherwise is deluded.

    She spent most of her time in the role of Sec.State fussing about her personal PR and photo ops. Her foreign policy legacy is an unmitigated disaster. Her “reset button” efforts – which supposedly were about improving diplomatic relations with Russia – were swiftly followed by 2 incidents where we’ve nearly come to blows with them (*Ukraine, Syria). China all but ignores us. Israel doesn’t even answer the phone anymore. Europe is coming apart at the seams. And *she doesn’t even talk about foreign affairs* despite having been Sec State. If possible – she *cares less* than Obama, and is focused entirely on short-term appearances.

    Even my most realist, “best case” version of Clinton is that “she’s manageable” and can at least be ‘paid off’.

    1. Hmmm. now that you mention it. Not so bad?

      1. Depends on your perspective. I’m of the POV that the US has put itself in a position where it actually needs to be more involved in world affairs, if only to better disentangle itself from them.

        Doing what Obama/Clinton has done is the worst of all options = pretending to be involved for the purpose of PR, but otherwise screwing everything up and allowing “big problems” to force the US into worse places than where we started.

  13. This is really just pathetic.. Like I absolutely do not want him getting on any debate stage with a national audience. I used to think that would be a great step forward but now scared it would be the worst thing ever to happen to libertarianism

    1. scared it would be the worst thing ever to happen to libertarianism

      Let’s not go that far.

      1. I mean, that would rip us from our current “Libertarian Moment” TM….. right?

        1. An actual “libertarian moment” is not happening, obviously. However, something like Hillary/Austin, Tx/NYC doing their best to hurt the sharing economy is what could help libertarianism. Some people who are interested in the sharing economy will eventually try to find a viable political alternative, and since the Republicans are awful, having GJ out there acting like an adult (which is usually does) presents a decent face for the cause.

          He is far from perfect, at least from a purity point of view, but he could attract a healthy amount of interest in libertarian politics.

          1. he could attract a healthy amount of interest in libertarian politics.

            And how shocked and disappointed those people will be when they actually see the Real McCoy.

          2. As someone pointed out yesterday, it’s a “libertarian movement”, and we’re now at the point where it’s necessary to wipe our ‘voting booths’ and prepare to be ‘polled’.

    2. I agree – I don’t think I want his Dem-lite clown act on national TV.

    3. I’ve already stopped calling myself libertarian in anticipation of it. I’ll disavow the party if he makes it in.

  14. The Green Party’s Jill Stein quickly condemned Clinton in the aftermath of the Comey announcement, openly calling for Clinton’s prosecution,

    What does it say when the #@(@)($ GREENS have more common sense, political honesty, than libertarians?

    Its fucking embarrassing.

    1. What does it say when the #@(@)($ GREENS have more common sense, political honesty, than libertarians Gary Johnson?

      … did you even read the headline?

      1. Gay Jay is the libertarian party candidate. Whatever the LP actually say themselves doesn’t matter and wont get any press.

        Because GJ is the one out in the public eye on major news programs whose quotes are going to be reprinted as representing libertarian voters,

        Pretending that he’s “effectively selling libertarianism to the masses” when he’s doing well, but he’s just ‘his own guy’ when he’s not, is self-deception.

        Do you see anyone giving the GOP a pass for shit Trump says? don’t pretend you can have your johnson and pretend “principled libertarianism” is still untarnished by it.

        1. … how did you get a pro-Johnson sentiment out of what I wrote?

        2. Ok, so I guess you’re criticizing Reason which is fun and all but that brush you’re painting with is a little broad.

          1. so I guess you’re criticizing Reason

            No, my point is pretty much that Gay Jay is a pretty shit representative for actual-libertarians.

            The green candidate – in theory – pulls its voters from the left; shitting on hillary as a crook is a smart play to pull those ex-Bernie people who find her slimy.

            Johnson wants some of the same people, while trying to keep the ‘actual’ libertarians in the fold. His comments (and Weld’s) do exactly the opposite, and basically make libertarians look like fucking morons to both the right and the left. Who is he appealing to? The Pro-Hillary people who ARENT voting for Hillary? What constituency is that, exactly?

            Reason itself mostly gets a pass on the dumb shit Johnson says. they’re not trying (*excessively hard) to sugarcoat the 2-man shitshow.

            My point to you was that you can’t pretend the LP doesn’t own the shit he says either. They can issue their own contradicting press-releases, but they effectively don’t matter in the process.

    2. It says to me that the libertarian party’s candidate has been co-opted by the GOP establishment and is serving their agenda. The Johnson-Weld ticket is a means to an end – that end being to make sure Trump loses. Which isn’t the same thing as growing the LP.

      1. the libertarian party’s candidate has been co-opted by the GOP establishment and is serving their agenda

        ….

        ….

        uh, what?

        1. Like this wasn’t bound to come up soon anyway. 🙂

        2. But I thought the GOP’s candidate had been coopted by the Dem establishment?

          I’m so confused.

          1. I suspect Reverse Vampires and the Rand Corporation are involved.

          2. Look, there has to be a reason for Trump low poll numbers and it can’t be blamed on Trump, so what’s your take, smart guy?

            1. Lessee . . . Johnson coopted by Repubs, Trump coopted by Dems, Hillary coopted by . . . Cthulhu? So, Trump’s polls are down . . . wait, gimme a minute . . . because of the Elder Gods?

              1. The Illuminati layout on it would be hilarious. Probably fairly predictive too. Who’s going to succeed in a deal for a shared victory?

        3. Weld didn’t suddenly get involved in Libertarian Party politics because his principles compelled him or because he wanted to help the Libertarian Party. Weld disagrees with Hillary on little and has a history with her where he considers her a friend.

          The people Weld was brought on board to attract are anti-Trump. Their goal is stopping Trump, and that leaves just Hillary. And I see a campaign that is very anti-Trump (legitimately needed), but strangely almost pro-Hillary based on the comments made. They are perfectly willing to get negative – but only against Trump.

          The pro-Hillary comments aren’t going to attract Democrats who are pissed off right now. They are angry at Hillary.

          So, yea, my statement doesn’t seem that complex to me. If people want to read more into it – that this means vote for Trump or a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary or some bull, feel free.

          1. I think this whole thing just cut the legs out from under the Never Trump people. In every other case I know of where a politician skates from going to jail, they at least leave public life. Hillary of course has no shame and continues to run for President. Because of that, this election is no longer about taxes or trade or any of the nation’s problems. This election is about the rule of law. The single question this election will answer is whether a known criminal who was allowed to walk because of their position is allowed to hold the nation’s highest office and as a result no one who holds high office will ever be subject to the law going forward.

            I think that aspect is going to cause all but the real dead end Never Trump Republicans to suck it up and vote for Trump. So, I don’t see how this does him any good.

            1. Sure, rule of law is nice and all, but support that man? are you crazy?

            2. No.

            3. It’s working.

              I was part of the Never Trump movement and was leaning toward Johnson.

              Now? If it comes down to it, I can vote for Trump if Johnson can’t prove that he can stop Clinton.

              I can’t tell you how much I hate this situation.

      2. Brochettaward, I think you’re close. However, I think it’s more accurate to say that the LP was co-opted by Gary Johnson.

        It’s pretty clear that Johnson is pretty much a dope smoker with SJW tendencies who favors smaller government. That doesn’t make him a libertarian. But he seems to loathe the so-cons far, far more than he loathes overbearing crony-capitalist nanny-state, warfare-state, and welfare-state that Clinton advocates.

        1. So Nick then.

          1. Without the Jacket?.

            1. I never support someone from New Jersey. EVER.

            2. The Jacket stopped imparting its super-powers years ago.

    3. What does it say when the #@(@)($ GREENS have more common sense, political honesty, than libertarians?

      the Greens are merely being consistent. Hillary Clinton acted outside the interests of the state. To the Greens, there is nothing outside the State.

  15. So to mix metaphors, the cakes were a canary in the coal mine.

    He’s not a candidate who’s generally libertarian but happened to “violate the purity test” on one or two points.

    He’s disappointing on several levels.

    1. Incidentally, when was the last time someone unironically used the term “purity test” in one of these discussions?

    2. He’s a Republican governor of a Democratic state. We all knew he wasn’t a real libertarian. Some of us just fell into the belief that he might give the LP a look of seriousness to it by having a former governor as the candidate against the crook and the clown. Maybe in 2020 we’ll get a real libertarian candidate, rather than a squishy Republican.

      1. To be fair to Johnson, he beat the crook and the clown in the primary.

  16. Maybe polling shows him hurting Hillary too much for mainstream approval.

  17. Not a bomb thrower? Isn’t this the guy who called Trump a pussy? Hey, it is.

    Not attacking her for this is a horrendously stupid move. Go after her corruption, her lack of transparency, her many other terrible faults for fucks sake.

  18. Unless you are just a Gary Johnson sycophant

    A “Johnson-sucker,” perhaps?

  19. Gary Johnson is a bit of a letdown. I wish libertarians had nominated a fearless and unapologetic leader of libertarian thought, whether Peterson or even Macafee, and someone not afraid to throw some shade at other politicians, especially when they obviously deserve it.

    1. The curse of “electability” strikes again.

      1. There is no electability for the LP on the federal level. None. Having a charismatic leader making the case and spreading the word at this time would be so much better than a feckless career pol trying to actually ‘win.’

    2. Where have you gone, Dancing Thong Man? A movement turns its lonely eyes to you.

    3. Peterson’s a prick and McAfee’s a lunatic. They both would have been far better than the muddled mess we have now. We really have no standing to snicker at other parties’ candidates when ours promptly drives our hopes over the cliff.

    4. They’re all in their Koch-funded think tanks, thinking big thoughts and dreaming big dreams.

    1. That “church service open to the public” pretty well negates the entire preceding “limitation”.

      1. Agents of de gubmint are completely able to impartially determine what is a bona fide religious purpose, so these silly bleefers just need to calm deyselfs down and stop trying to use the religion to justify the Gay Holocaust.

    2. update and clarification – a church in Iowa is suing the state Civil Rights Commission and its members, claiming its right to operate bathrooms for different sexes, and even its right to teach its own religion, is being threatened by the Commission’s regulations.

    3. We all knew this was coming. I’m just a bit surprised at how quickly.

    4. Scott and Robby approve.

  20. Well, I’m just about done with Johnson. I had been excited, and willing to go the pragmatic route during a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I had been going to bat for him on non-Reason comment threads, and sharing stuff on Facebook about him. Not any more, at least in my current mood.

    There’s no one else to vote for, so he’ll still get my vote. But whatever, all that’s left to do is say fuck it and watch it burn.

    1. Not criticizing Hillary isn’t pragmatic, it’s just stupid.

      1. I agree with you. Did that not come across in my post?

      2. It’s also cowardly.

    2. There’s no one else to vote for, so he’ll still get my vote.

      I see. So you think he’d make a good political leader? You’ll reward the Libertarian party for fielding guys like Johnson in the future? You’ll teach the party delegates that they should support more guys like him because that’s the path for electoral success?

      Sounds to me like you’re really not done with him at all.

      1. What would you have me do? Not vote for president? Write someone in? I will not vote for Trump, Clinton, nor Stein.

        I still think there is a benefit to having the Libertarian name show up with a slightly more than an irrelevant vote percentage.

        1. How about not vote? How about voting for Trump on the basis that it would at least help end Hillary’s career?

          After this, you can no longer claim that you are voting for Johnson out of principle. He doesn’t hold the right principles. And he can’t win. So, you are not voting for him to stop Trump or Hillary. So why are you voting for him?

          1. Maybe to show support to the LP? The same reason Republicans who dislike Trump have for saying they’ll vote for him, to show support for the Republican Party.

            1. So, is there anyone the LP could nominate that would cause you not to vote LP? If it is about supporting the party, then who they nominate doesn’t matter, no matter how bad they are.

              1. Hey, I’m just saying that would be a reason someone might have for voting for him. Right now, this is definitely bad, REAL bad. It’s making me lean towards not voting for him for sure, especially since I was never wild about him to begin with. Might be time to look into the Constitution Party’s candidate.

          2. He holds a good number of watered-down libertarian principles. He’s far better on libertarian principles than the other people running for president.

            1. That is fine. But understand that by voting for Johnson you are saying those things are more important than the rule of law. Don’t tell yourself or anyone else that you really care about the rule of law because you clearly care about those things a lot more.

              1. I care about all of those things and they are intertwined and inseparable. So don’t you be telling me what I care about or don’t care about.

                1. Stated preference versus revealed preference.

              2. Only if FreeRadical lives in one of about six states that will matter in November.

        2. This is how I’m leaning right now too. Johnson is an ass, he’s not a libertarian, but he is running on the libertarian ticket. Would it not possibly be helpful to have the LP get a noticeable percentage of the vote? I can understand the argument not to vote for him if there was even a chance in hell he could win, but there’s no chance of that.

          1. Would it not possibly be helpful to have the LP get a noticeable percentage of the vote?

            But is that even a worthwhile goal if the result is that they are encouraged to put up non-libertarian milquetoasts like these cosmos? I’m leaning toward “no,” at the moment, but it’s still a long ways to November.

            1. True enough. From the beginning I was iffy about the idea of goofy not-really libertarian Johnson getting into the debates. Now even more I fear he’ll just get people to think Libertarian = Republicans who like pot.

              1. It seems the consensus around here is that Johnson is a Democrat who thinks he looks better with a bit of red showing. They are not saying “look at him sucking up to the Republicans again”.

                People don’t always think things through, so even if Johnson did nothing to change that perception, I really don’t see it as reinforcing the previous views.

                It isn’t the way I would prefer, but if given the choice, ‘cosmo’ libertarianism is an improvement on the current state.

        3. I’m planning to write in either Rand Paul or Justin Amash.

          1. I am toward voting for the Constitution Party candidate. Have you seen his statement concerning the Federal Reserve?

            “I would end the Federal Reserve’s control of the United States’ monetary system by repealing the Federal Reserve Act. Interest rates would no longer be tampered with, as lenders and borrowers would set their own rates.
            I would remind the banks that there would no longer be a Federal Reserve to lend to them in an emergency so if a bank gets in trouble, it’s on its own.
            Then I would let the American people know that they are now free to use whatever currency they want. The dollar would again be exchangeable for a fixed quantity of gold and the U.S. Treasury would now accept any major currency, including bitcoin, in payment of taxes. As a result, the country would return to a traditional and sensible money system so people could decide for themselves what kind of money they wanted to use. They could save it, spend it, or put any price they wanted on it if they wanted to lend it out.”

          2. Unless the vote is close, I’m planning on voting Almanian — seriously. The only question is who will I vote for vice-president. I’m considering Cthulhu , but I’m afraid if elected Cthulhu will rip off its mask and we will find out it really is Hillary.

            1. Cthulu’s been running since I was 12 years old. Never makes a good showing.

        4. In our two party system, the only point of an outside candidate is in staking out a narrow position that is passionately cared about, so that voting for that candidate signals an issue that one or both of the other two parties can use to build their coalitions.

          The problem with Johnson Weld is that no strong signal is sent by voting for them.

          1. The Nader vote in 2000 certainly dragged Team Blue further left.

        5. What would you have me do? Not vote for president?

          That’s what I’m doing. I don’t want Johnson; I don’t want Trump; I don’t want Hillary; I don’t want Stein; I don’t want Vermin Supreme, etc.

          So I don’t vote for the guys I don’t want. I may have ideas as to how the candidates rank in terms of evilness, but that doesn’t mean I should be giving my blessing to some monster in the hopes that he gets enough blessings to displace some other monster.

      2. I have not seen any proof of the LP following any “candidate type” paradigm long term. We worried that Barr was a sign that they were going conservative, but that didn’t last.

        Like herding cats, it is.

    3. Well, I’m just about done with Johnson.

      So, hormone therapy, followed by surgery?

  21. Time to let the liberal daughter of the Constitution Party nominee, Darrell Castle, explain your other third-party options.

    1. She speaks better than Chelsea.

  22. Hopefully they say something negative about Hillary. Jesus Christ.

  23. The one thing noticeably missing in this election is an adult. If Johnson wants to talk about issues instead of throwing mud, I say, good for him!

    1. Issues like the rule of law?

      1. Absolutely, as long as it’s cast in terms of principles rather than personalities.

        1. I fail to see how this case does not present that opportunity.

          1. “Not to name names, but people shouldn’t be exempt from the law simply because they’re the nominee of a major political party” – that sort of principled discussion?

          2. How about opening a discussion on mens rea?

        2. Absolutely, as long as it’s cast in terms of principles rather than personalities.

          Apparently you’re overlooking the part how his musings about “criminal intent” are irrelevant in the case of “Gross Negligence” statutes, then?

    2. And how is calling Trump a racist talking about the issues?

      1. Insulting Trump is goodfulthink in the eyes of the people he’s trying to impress.

        1. Of course, the people he’s trying to impress still won’t fucking vote for him, but what does that matter?

          1. A man can dream, can’t he?

    3. The one thing noticeably missing in this election is an adult. If Johnson wants to talk about issues instead of throwing mud, I say, good for him!

      Nothing says ‘adult leadership’ like being a real person striving to emulate Ned Flanders when running against Homer Simpson and Mr. Burns.

  24. Is Cytotoxic his campaign advisor?

    “Hillary’s got it in the bag, so you have to compete for her voters if you want a chance. Oops, gotta run, mom’s calling me for lunch”

    1. Is Cytotoxic his campaign advisor?

      No. Johnson’s not calling anyone stupid and claiming to pwn people.

      1. maybe he’s saving the good stuff for the fall political ads

  25. so he hasn’t officially said anything yet? that’s prudent. he’s still coming up with a killer “laws for thee but not for me” pronouncement.

  26. I am sorry but this is bad. Someone please explain to me why anyone should have any respect for Johnson given this. Is it really all about pot and ass sex and everything else, including the rule of law apparently, is negotiable?

    1. Well, you left off the Mexicans. The Mexicans are also non-negotiable.

      1. That’s Messicans to you.

      2. That’s Messicans to you.

  27. How is applauding your opponent helpful to you?

  28. Petersen is an annoying fuck. Johnson has tried to position himself as *not* the other crapola. That includes not wasting time on shit that does not matter. Even if you thought it mattered at one point in time, it no longer does as there will be no prosecution. There is absolutely nothing negative Johnson could say about Clinton that has not already been said countless times before. Non-chattering class voters actually care to hear what the candidates are going to do to make their lives better. Talking about her email server does not help.

    1. So Hillary violating a ton of laws and causing all kinds of damage to the country and walking away because of her political position, doesn’t matter?

      So what if she won’t go to jail? Doesn’t the fact that the FBI director got up on national TV and said she was grossly incompetent and careless and would lose her security clearance, job and likely her freedom if she were anyone else have some barring on her qualifications to be President? I guess the bar now is you can do anything and it doesn’t matter and can’t even be discussed in the campaign unless it results in a indictment.

      Get the fuck out of here. This sure as hell does matter as long as she is running for President.

    2. Then say nothing. Don’t talk nice about her and let her off the hook. And certainly don’t fucking call her a “wonderful public servant”.

      Johnson calls Trump a racist. That had already been said countless times. Why the difference?

      1. Then say nothing. Don’t talk nice about her and let her off the hook. And certainly don’t fucking call her a “wonderful public servant”.

        Exactly. You don’t have time to throw stones but, apparently, baking cookies and free foot massages are on the table. Unless you’re a racist like Trump, then you’re just too busy to throw stones.

        At this point, I’m convinced that the LP is largely populate by useful idiots that are only dimly aware of the fact that they’ve been used by their *current* party.

        1. Sorry, used by their *immediately previous* party.

    3. “Even if you thought it mattered at one point in time, it no longer does as there will be no prosecution.”

      *facepalm*

      1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    4. “There is absolutely nothing negative Johnson could say about Clinton that has not already been said countless times before.”

      But it’s perfectly fine for him to call Trump a racist and pussy. Because there haven’t been countless times negative things have been said about him so far, right? Johnson’s just showing himself to be above it all, right? God, the more time goes on, the less I want to vote for Johnson. And I’ve reposted some of his stuff on Facebook too, even got someone on there to apparently consider voting for him.

  29. Hate to say it, but I think Petersen is pretty much dead on right about Johnson. You know, a lot of the writers here were damning Rand Paul for “selling out to the social conservatives” for moves that were less of a violation of libertarian principle. I’m not trying to play the “cosmo” card, but it really does seem like Johnson is letting personal cultural affinity interfere with solid strategy or libertarian principle.

    1. I think what you just said *is* playing the cosmo card. In any case, I believe it to be true.

    2. I admit to giving Rand hell around here for pandering too much to the SoCons. But I never stopped supporting the guy. Johnson, otoh, can forget about me ever even considering him again, period. I wanted McAfee to get the LP nomination, and would have preferred Petersen 2nd. The Weld thing was why I didn’t consider Johnson at that time. But now, he’s just jumped the shark. I’m done. Staying home in Nov.

      1. I am also among those who have criticized Rand for his SoCon pandering. I think it’s important for libertarians to engage in such criticisms if they to remain about ideas, rather than personalities and TEAM politics.

        I voted for Johnson in 2012, as he seemed pretty libertarian at the time. I don’t expect to this time around.

        1. I voted for Johnson in 2012 also. Apparently, sometime before he lost his freaking mind.

        2. I don’t ultimately begrudge Paul or Johnson their particular cultural blindspots (God knows, I’m sure I have my own). And I think in both cases, it really is blindspots more than pandering. I think Paul is really on the socially conservative side of libertarianism and Johnson probably tends to be more progressive in his outlook. And that’s okay.

          But Johnson is taking this to the point of undermining his own candidacy.

          1. Maybe he agrees with Hillary. Single payer healthcare, it takes a village, voting for the Iraq War . . .she’s a wonderful public servant.

          2. Yeah, I don’t think Rand was pandering, he is a libertarian-leaning Republican, not a libertarian pandering to Republicans.
            I don’t think Gary Johnson knows who he is, anymore, if he ever did.

  30. Well, I for one am not surprised in the least. I knew this guy would be a train wreck. Seems the support for Gary is dropping off sharply here, though, finally. The guy is a fucking major embarrassment is what he is. Every damn time he opens his mouth in public, he not only fails miserably to dispel the notion that Libertarians are nutcase wackos, he’s enforcing that belief. I hope all of the dummies and dancing naked dudes at that convention are real proud of themselves right now. Hillary is a wonderful public servant? Fuck you, Gary, just fuck you.

    1. What does he think he is going to accomplish? I think this hurts him with voters from both sides. I think there are a good number of Democrats who are appalled and embarrassed by this. After saying this is no big deal, what reason will they have to vote for Johnson? And if this didn’t kill him with Republicans, I am not sure what would.

      1. What does he think he is going to accomplish?

        Get enough money from Hillary, or her bosses, to remain “viable”?

  31. Johnson’s a dud, but at least Nicholas Sarwark got it right. Maybe we can write Nick in?

    1. Thanks for the kind words, but most states don’t count write-in votes. It’s better for the long-term success of the Libertarian Party if you vote for the Libertarian candidates on your ballot, even if you don’t agree with everything they say.

      1. Holy shit – you exist? And you read Reason? And you respond to comments from H&R?

        Holy shit!

        1. Tulpa sock-puppet (I keed, I keed.)

  32. I know lots of yall hate Gay Jay, but remember the LP ticket in 2008? Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root?
    http://tinyurl.com/htvzsdb

    Yeah, that Wayne Allyn Root.

    1. In the little known, but famous-to-me-words of Hank Paulson = “Better” is NOT “Good”

      Just because the LP was “worse” at a time when they were less likely to matter… basically means nothing. As has been frequently noted over the last few months – this is the best opportunity the LP has had in decades. And the Johnson/Weld show is seizing that opportunity and shitting all over it.

      1. Yup. This election season was a real chance to get our message out there. I can sorta understand the party nominating Johnson. Being a former governor, he could make the LP ticket “ironically” look like the group of adults next to Hillary and Trump. But Johnson has been doing everything in his power to squander this opportunity.

      2. ^This.

        Like a punch in the gut.

      3. I don’t disagree with any of yous guys. Johnson seems to be intentionally fucking it up.

        I mostly wanted to bring up that picture of Wayne Allyn Root standing on top of an H2 hummer. What a tool.

    2. GayJay makes Wayne Allyn Root look like Lysander Spooner.
      Weld makes Root look like Murray Rothbard.

    3. I can easily understand criticizing the nomination of Bob Barr, but what’s wrong w Wayne Root?

  33. Big missed opportunity when Rand didn’t elect to get the Libertarian nomination. His response would have been important not only as a candidate, but also as a sitting Senator. And the media would have been at him more than they will Johnson.

    And all that is minor compared to the missed opportunity at actually winning the White House, which he could have done if the election was thrown to the House. Lots of Reos would have voted for him over Trump.

    But alas.

    1. *Reps

    2. Rand didn’t elect to get the Libertarian nomination.

      The GOPe would’ve Trumped him, honestly.

  34. If Johnson were afraid of the media, or if he simply didn’t want it to look like he was “piling on” against Clinton (given how much criticism she’s already received), then fine, just nothing at all.

    But to praise her as a great public servant was just mind boggling and idiotic.

    The problem is inconsistency; he’ll call out Trump for making bigoted/racist statements but then excuse Clinton’s behavior by claiming he “doesn’t want to throw stones.”

    Either attack them both equally or shut up and stick to policy issues. Give the voters reasons to support you aside from not being Clinton or Trump. And if you’re ever asked about them, criticize their policy stances first, doing so politely, and then move on while reminding the voters that they have another choice besides R and D.

    Look, I really thought GayJay was the best option for the LP because he was a governor and seemed to be “above the fray,” but he can’t even do that right.

    1. I wonder if all of our sarcasm meters broke at the same time.

      Do you think GayJay was being sincere? Hmmm ….

  35. http://ijr.com/2016/07/643354-…..ign=alerts

    Here is what Comey had to say when he went after Martha Stewart for the “crime” of lying to the FBI about a stock transaction that turned out to be entirely legal.

    If it was Jane Doe she would have been prosecuted. [T]here were 2,000 cases by the Justice Department that year for providing false statements during an investigation.

    I thought of my hesitation about the case due to someone being rich and famous, and how it shouldn’t be that way. I decided we had to do it.”

    Fuck Comey and fuck Johnson. And oh by the way the FBI has been total hard asses on leakers for years. But when it was Hillary they were all about “intent”. And Johnson thinks that is okay. Fuck him.

    1. Oh my god. I was just doing a little bit of mental “compare and contrast” between Hillary’s treatment and Martha’s treatment. I didn’t realize it was the same fucker. That’s horrible.

    2. Why fuck Comey? There’s no evidence he and the FBI didn’t do their jobs (Investigation, the thing for which they’re the Federal Bureau of) competently and in good faith. He can’t force a case to happen when the AG has been bought off. Resigning will only place the FBI completely under the control of people like Clinton and Lynch and Obama, and given what they’ve done with only the EPA and IRS, that should be a terrifying thought. He basically stood up and announced that she definitely broke the law, and the DOJ is too corrupt to prosecute.

      If there are any cowards in this story, it’s Congress. He essentially gave them the green light to hire a special prosecutor. The meeting between Lynch and Clinton should be sufficient justification for taking the case away from the DOJ, and he literally said that her actions were in violation of statute. Unlike Comey, they actually have the power to do something. You wanna blame someone, blame them. They’ll bring Comey in, shout at him so as to avoid having to take any responsibility for anything, and walk away.

      1. Comey had the personal authority to recommend to the AG that charges be filed. Had he done that then she would have owned the decision not to bring charges, and would have had to justify herself.

        Instead he called a bizarre press conference where he completely contradicted himself with his arguments. He didn’t say the DOJ was corrupt. He said “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges based on this evidence.” He is saying that Lynch would have been right to refuse to bring charges. Thus she has escaped from having to justify the decision herself.

  36. At the town hall Johnson missed an important opportunity to at least define the difference in character between him and Hillary. I understand the motivation to run a campaign on issues and principal, but that is not a winning strategy when a Clinton or Trump is involved. Ask Bernie how well it worked for him.

    1. I was gonna run a campaign, but then I got high…

  37. I’m going with my first choice – I’m writing in Calvin Coolidge.

    1. He’s dead, right? *makes note to self*, sounds good.

      1. In the long run, so will we

  38. Apparently Gary forgot that you have to wait until you’re a big tent before you totally cast off all of your principles and morals and join the good ol boys club, you can’t do that when you’re polling less than 10%. What a fucking idiot. Do yourself a favor, Gary, keep smoking weed, smoke more weed, eat a kilo a day, and shut the fuck up!

    1. Maybe Hillary promised him a cabinet job. If Johnson could take enough Republicans to get Hillary elected and then get a nice “bipartisan” cabinet position, things would work out pretty well for him. He wasn’t going to get any cabinet positions before he joined the LP was he?

      1. Gary would need to become Mary before Hillary would offer xe a cabinet job.

        Remember – 50% of her cabinet positions will be filled by women.

  39. And why should he get upset. The mainstream media will just distort whatever he says. Everyone knows Johnson and Weld aren’t true Libertarians but they sure beat the hell out of our other choices. Gary Johnson isn’t confrontational so suck it up.

  40. If he is going to excuse Hillary for this, how do his attacks on Trump have any credibility? Last I heard, Trump was never investigated by the FBI or had the FBI Director say “he is guilty of crimes but he is just too big to charge”.

    If Johnson wants to run an anti-Trump campaign in hopes of attracting dissatisfied Republicans, that is not a bad idea. I don’t see how kissing Hillary’s ass and refusing to hold her to any standard of behavior helps him with that, however.

    1. He’s doing it because he’s sold out to the #NeverTrump crowd. That started with Weld, and Gary is expecting big bags of cash to be headed his way. Basically, the way I see it, Gary is being a useful idiot.

      1. So you are telling me he is a fake Libertarian who is going to use the nomination to cash out by throwing the election to Hillary and collecting a fat pay check from the powers that be as a thank you. I can’t say you are wrong.

      2. I’m a Republican member of the #NeverTrump crowd who considered himself a lock to vote for Gary Johnson in November. But this shameful event has caused me to add #NeverJohnson.

        At this rate I’m going to be over 140 characters with the never-hashtags by November.

  41. I still prefer Johnson over Her Cankleness or The Great Trumpken, but seriously? Grow some fucking balls and quit trying to be the nice guy. I’m starting to wonder if Hildebeast has some blackmail material on Johnson and/ or Weld.

    1. Not blackmail, bribery. Johnson was a washed up Republican when he discovered the LP.

        1. Sorry, try not to let that tune keep repeating itself in your head.

          1. damn you!!!

        2. That much is true. But even then he knew he would find a much better place either with or without Libertarians.

          1. You know he can’t believe it when they say that you won’t vote for him…

        3. Daham, 1981. I feel… old. And suddenly, very very tired. Thanks, Eddie.

    2. Yeah, there’s a difference between being the sane reasonable candidate, and being the door mat candidate. It’s possible to be sane and reasonable, and say honest things about Clinton and her corruption and incompetence, and say them in a way that doesn’t involve sexist jokes about her lady parts.

      1. You’re making sanity and responsibility sound like too much work, and not much fun.

  42. Austin may be a bit of a prick, but at least he can define some principles.
    I’m at a loss seeing this unfold.

    1. I think you can define principles without name calling. That emotional stuff is a double-edged sword. Maybe he can refine that with age.

      and yeah, I don’t know what Johnson was thinking either.

      1. You do know that you’ve just opened yourself up to a blistering attack of name calling, you moron.

      2. I think a few years, or a seat in the house would help him. I don’t think his positions are bad.
        And that emotion at least says “I care about the party!”

  43. Question to everybody:

    What would you think the Media would say about Johnson if he started to criticize the Democratic presidential candidate and tell me of you could seriously entertainment the notion that the Media would not accuse him of being a Trumpista?

    I thus do not fault Johnson for being circumspect about Clinton and her damned emails.

    1. So what if they did? Sometimes life is like that. It is not always easy to tell the truth. What good does lying do, especially about something as appalling as this?

      Moreover, if Johnson can’t take that media attention and attacks and turn them to his advantage and make his case, then he is a loser anyway. Stop making excuses here.

      1. Re: John,

        So what if they did?

        So you do concede that is a possibility.

        What good does lying do, especially about something as appalling as this?

        Did he lie? Johnson told CNN on July 3rd that he did not see criminal intent in how Hill-Rod handled her server and emails and that he did not see an indictment happen. He had his opinion subsequently validated by Comey yesterday, which, looking at the calendar really quick, was July the 5th. Where is the lie?

        […] if Johnson can’t take that media attention and attacks and turn them to his advantage and make his case, then he is a loser anyway.

        I don’t understand your argument. Not criticizing Hill-Rod over the email scandal is not evidence of cowardice but of prudence. Why would you think it is better to recklessly seek the attacks from the Media gratis? Why would you think it is far more valuable for Johnson to be seen as someone who parrots the same attacks from Republican talking heads rather than being seen as a different kind of candidate?

        1. It’s not that he didn’t criticize her, it’s that he praised her.

    2. If he’s done nothing else, Trump has shown that it’s better to be criticized than ignored.

    3. He could, you know, criticize both. It’s not hard.

      “The decision by the FBI was appalling, setting above the law a woman who has brazenly and intentionally broken the law and lied about it repeatedly. And at least half the country is still going to vote for her because the alternative is a thin-skinned demagogue who makes openly racist comments. Vote for me, Gary Johnson.”

      See? It’s that easy.

      1. Re: Derp-o-Matic 5000,

        He could, you know, criticize both

        Why?

        Standard game theory, the three-way shooter standoff: two top shots and a mediocre shot in a three-way standoff. The theory goes that the two best shots will shoot each other dead. The strategy for the underdog is then to: Let the two idiots (El Trumpo and Hill-Rod) destroy each other.

        I think it is a good strategy. I think that people who simply hate Hill-Rod (not without cause, mind you) want people like Johnson validating their hatred. I really don’t need Johnson’s validation to know that Hill-Rod is crooked nor does the fact that he’s being circumspect about it means that he’s a bad candidate. I think he’s playing it smartly.

        1. But he hasn’t been doing that, he’s been stridently criticizing trump while praising Clinton. How does that implement the strategy you have described?

    4. I don’t fault him. However, I’m not voting for him now.

    5. True, the MSM would paint him as nut instead of use him as a tool to attack Trump. So I guess he’d rather be a tool.

      1. Re: Eye8apie,

        True, the MSM would paint him as nut instead of use him as a tool to attack Trump. So I guess he’d rather be a tool.

        I don’t think he’s being a tool. You have to remember that Trump’s unfavorability is much higher than Hill-Rod’s, so all he has to do is raise his own favorability above Hill-Rod’s by looking the non-hawk and most trustworthy.

        1. He has no shot in hell of winning. Really.

          A better use of his time would be advocating on behalf of Libertarian ideals in a charismatic fashion. But since he has zero charisma, he can’t even do that.

          1. Agreed.

  44. I don’t like his reaction, but I’m not going to call people names because they don’t share my view.

    1. What on earth are you doing at H&R, then?

    2. Well, that’s no fun.

    3. Isn’t that what he did to trump?

      1. It’s not “name calling” if you’re a self-righteous boob.

    4. Do you even lift internet brah?

  45. I have to say in my experiences as a Republican, Gary Johnson has a point. Jumping on the negative / scandal bandwagon is mostly ineffective and can detract from the campaign. One notable was some time ago, in my 1st Congressional district in Oregon. Goli Ameri went all in campaigning on David Wu’s college indecision than differentiating herself from David Wu’ incompetence. I believe focusing on her strengths was one reason she was defeated.

  46. Johnson calls Trump a racist (for what Trump says) but Clinton a great public servant (for what she does – including her lies about not sending or receiving classified emails through her home-grown server).

    And he doesn’t see the problem there? Seriously?

  47. Time to purge the faux Libertarians like Nick Gillespie, Johnson, and Weld. They should just be honest with themselves and become Democrats. They never really believed in any of this stuff to begin with.

  48. I agree. Saying nothing is a bad idea, if ONLY because it throws away free air time.
    Anything that can get Johnson’s name out there and on television is a plus. It’s certainly has worked for Trump.

    If you are a third party candidate, any time the media gives you a microphone, you fucking grab it and don’t give it back until they wrestle it out of your sweaty hands.

    1. “Ewwwww!”

      /teenage girl

  49. I guess Gary Johnson doesn’t want to dog-pile on poor, picked on Hillary. . . .

  50. I want to vote for Gary Johnson but he is starting to piss me off.

    1. He won’t win, so you can just pretend he says things you like and it won’t matter.

      I’m leaning back towards non-voting, which I’ve been heading towards for a while anyway. Or perhaps voting for myself for every office.

      1. You know, I wonder if they even count my votes. For instance, the last time I voted was McCain vs Obama, and I didn’t pull the lever for anyone for president. But I did vote on most of the other offices and amendments, etc. But, because I didn’t vote for Pres, I’m wondering if they just assumed there was something wrong with my ballot and didn’t count it?

        1. No, they get plenty of ballots like that.

  51. I don’t understand why Gary was such a great guy to head the ticket anyway. The LP candidate for President should sound be talking a lot more about rolling back the Monarchy of the Presidency than about what he would do if he gets the crown.

    So, lots more of “I don’t know, I don’t build a budget, that’s Congress’ job.” Instead, we’re getting “I promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013.” (yeah, yeah, that was last time – but same complaint) I guess I missed that part of the Constitution where the President submits legislation.

    1. “[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…” Article II, Section 3

  52. Valid points right up to the last couple of paragraphs.

    The opinion of a clickbait king manchild whose libertarian cred tops out at getting coffee for Andrew Napolitano is something I can’t bring myself to take seriously. Petersen should just toddle on back to slobbing Rand Paul’s half-limp knob.

  53. So, far as I can tell, Johnson hasn’t said anything, and is being criticized for comments he made before Comey’s announcement?

    I’m not voting for the guy, but the in this thread is Sad!

    1. I think you are missing a word there. But I probably agree.

      Though Johnson is still looking pretty pathetic. But I still think he’s the best chance for the LP to top 1%.

  54. So far Johnson has been a big disappointment as a libertarian candidate. I wish I could vote enthusiastically for him, but he is consistently blowing it.

    But compared to the alternatives? There’s no way in hell I would vote for Johnson’s main competition, so where does that leave me? Jill Stein? Yeah, no thank you. There are already too many watermelons around without electing them to office.

    So my choice is either to stay home or vote for Johnson as the least of four evils. What a shitty situation. Seriously, can they not find better candidates?

    1. Re: Inigo Montoya,

      So far Johnson has been a big disappointment as a libertarian candidate.

      If you wanted an AnCap, I would understand your disappointment. But so far he has not given any indication that he would stray away from the principles that has guided HIM throughout the years. At least when it comes to consistency, I do trust the guy, even if I don’t agree with his too loosey-goosey approach to private property rights. I trust him more than El Trumpo and his band of “‘America Uber Alles!” Trumpistas and definitively more than Hill-Rod.

  55. There can be no doubt now that GJ is running as a moderate democrat. As such, he cannot anger the base that he’s trying to steal votes from. The average democrats might be turned off by Clinton, but they won’t warm up to former republican who bashes on someone who’s one of the faces of the party. And they’ll have no shortage of rationalization on why their nominee is ultimately better than the nominee of the other party. You can say the same thing about Trump.

    It’s a smart play on his part. There are way more registered democrats than republicans. Bernie Sanders supporters VASTLY outnumber the #NeverTrump. If you run as a libertarian you risk looking like a right wing offshoot. If you run as a “peace and prosperity” candidate who cuts down on “wasteful spending” (not medicare, o god no) and supports gay marriage, you’ll look like a generic reformist going against two terrible candidates.

    Which is to say, there is no libertarian running in this election.

  56. Stop trying so hard to be ‘likeable’. This is politics, not a book club.

    I think this election cycle, the electorate DGAF about likeability.

  57. I voted for Johnson in 2012, despite not feeling like he was a particularly good candidate, but I’m now starting to actively dislike him. He definitely won’t be getting my vote this time. We should have went with Peterson or even McAfee. I hate Trump, but at least the media and congress won’t let him get away with (much) murder.

    1. No that was McAfee who got away with murder.

  58. Well, to Johnson’s credit, I’ve seen no evidence that he is trying to raise money from Libertarians. So, no scam that way. As a Life Member, I’ve yet to receive even one appeal for funds from the Johnson campaign. If he is
    not going to run as a Libertarian, then good on him for not raising money from us.

    1. Yes!

    2. At least there was/is consistency in this year’s election cycle. Bernie isn’t a democrat, trump isn’t a republican, johnson isn’t a libertarian. The first two claims are more of a compliment than a criticism.

  59. I guess I’m a Johnson sycophant, because I don’t care that he isn’t condemning Clinton.

    More accurately, though, I just don’t give a crap anymore. I have outrage fatigue. I’m tired of hearing about new arguments for why Trump or Clinton suck. I’m already convinced: they suck. Most Americans are just as convinced.

    I think there’s a lot of appeal in a candidate who has something positive to say.

  60. “I’m not a stone thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her emails and her server…”

    Isn’t that what bernie alluded to? How did that work out?

  61. Every statement Clinton made about her email has been proven a lie, yet Johnson sucks up to her. Calling her a “public servant” is particularly galling. She’s enriched herself at the public trough: something only possible because of the leviathan and exactly the sort of corruption libertarians oppose.

    Meanwhile he’s on the racist bandwagon. I guess his preference for policy over “scandal” is only true among the aristocracy.

    Johnson’s getting close to losing my vote (and I pushed for him in the primaries).

    1. “public servant”

      As a servant, she’d be what Jeeves would be like if he were much less ethical, cared nothing for Bertie’s welfare, imbezzled Bertie’s money to pay off all the Jeeves relatives, and had a four-year ironclad contract.

    2. Totally, the racist bandwagon is crap! If he gets into the Debates he will be destroyed.

  62. Let’s ignore the “criminal element for second”, how about the fact that she actively skirted the records keeping responsibility so her emails could be not included in FOIA requests? Isn’t that a libertarian tenet–a transparent and open government?

  63. I found Gary to be fairly likeable from a libertarian perspective in 2012, but Jesus the guy is weak sauce supreme this cycle. I had diverging opinions with Rand occasionally, however he was a far stronger liberty candidate than GJ is this go around.

    A year ago much of the commentariat was freaking out over how unlibertarian Rand was and all that posturing looks rather silly now. Compared to GJ’s current obsession, with pitching himself as part of the uber “reasonable” mushy middle, Rand was flying the liberty freak flag.

    Why the hell does there seem to be such a yearning, from some of our ranks, to be “liked” and called “cool” by the left, while kicking out many of our steadfast friends and allies who align with the right? Doesn’t grovelling before the collectivists on the left negate individualism as a core part of our philosophy?

    1. Double yes.

  64. I warned you cosmos, I’ve been warning you for years…

  65. It’s gotten pretty fucking pathetic when libertarians are stuck with deploying “lesser evil” arguments to support the LP candidate.

    Almost as pathetic as it’s gotten when the chair of the Libertarian Party says that even if you disagree with the LP candidate, you should vote for him anyway because it’s good for the TEAM.

    If Democrats or Republicans were defending their candidates with these tactics, Reason would be skewering them for blatant partisanship.

  66. Give them a break. They’ve obviously decided to conduct a positive campaign, sticking to the issues, in stark contrast to the circus the others are conducting. Further, since when do libertarians want to enforce federal laws against free speech? Yes, it totally disqualifies her for office–but didn’t we already know that? We should not vote for her.
    If it was me, I’d be calling for pardons for the others who have been harshly punished for carelessness and technicalities of federal law, especially if they were truly contrite. There are plenty of people in the world who are ignorant of the law, ignorant of the dangers of using an unsecured computer, and who make these mistakes.
    Hillary should not be elected to the office of president. She’s incompetent. But leaving that to the voters instead of to prosecutors is either cowardice of prosecutors or a compliment for voters, and not really the business of the Libertarian candidates.
    I think they’re doing a good job of staying above the fray.

  67. “Johnson’s manifest unwillingness to play what he might see as a right-wing gotcha game against Clinton almost certainly comes from a sincere place where policy is more important than a process scandal.”
    Here’s the thing, this is a policy debate. Is it the policy of the USG to allow people to be this careless with classified material? Because if it is then a lot of people who were prosecuted are owed an apology and exoneration. Or is it the policy to excuse the powerful and prosecute the powerless.

  68. “Johnson’s manifest unwillingness to play what he might see as a right-wing gotcha game against Clinton almost certainly comes from a sincere place where policy is more important than a process scandal.”
    Here’s the thing, this is a policy debate. Is it the policy of the USG to allow people to be this careless with classified material? Because if it is then a lot of people who were prosecuted are owed an apology and exoneration. Or is it the policy to excuse the powerful and prosecute the powerless.

  69. Embarrassing, had to rip off my Gary Johnson bumper sticker. Peter Schiff 2020

  70. Good Grief. Until now I hadn’t realized what a bunch of butt-hurt crybabies comprise LP ‘leading voices’. Who needs old party attacks when you have holier-than-thou ideological purists and masters of ad hominem second-guessing and criticizing those that are doing their best to bring sanity into the public, political discourse. If you love Trump, vote for him. If you love Hillary, vote for her. If you hate Trump, attack him, If you hate Hillary attack her. If you are not going to help promote the LP message and our current ticket Johnson-Weld…stfu or get out of the way. Next time, run for office or seek a media venue to vent your emotions.

  71. If libertarians hope to be relevant, drop this non-*******-issue. As Secretary of State, She has a lot of say in how things get classified. This is not like some low-level flunky taking TS documents home to show his friends.

    Instead, tell me what you plan to do about private abuses of power. What are your plans for bosses who sexually harass or corporations that file bogus DMCA takedowns?

  72. reposting this reply as a main comment:

    Definitely a lousy campaigner, strangely both of them are.
    There is no firebrand outrage coming from these two, when there is so much to be outraged about.
    Then they are given a gift of obvious righteous outrage against Clinton, who has provided a public example of cronyism in avoiding prosecution, and her original incompetence in handling secret privileged information.
    And instead of running with it, and getting some more free media attention, they just mew a little, and shrug their shoulders.
    A lot of crap as far as campaigning goes.
    The rules of political campaigning and selling yourself have little to do with clean libertarian philosophy, it is a different animal that has rules that require aggression, political criticism and attacking, and selling of one’s self that would otherwise appear gouache and grandiose.
    But those are the rules of the game, and the biggest opportunity that us libertarians have now is being wasted, by mamby-pampy, milquetoast campaigning.

  73. This is why I’ve never joined the libertarian party. While I can agree with their platform, their candidates at all levels are no more principled than any other politician ( well maybe not Harry Browne). I honestly believe that Hilary Clinton has the potential to be the most dangerous president ever. Far worse than Trump or Sanders. She’ll be Herbert Hoover, FDR, LBJ, GWB, and Obama rolled into one. She will expand the imperial presidency in ways that no other president ever dreamed of. We will have endless war. The federal courts packed with evil judges for generations. The regulatory state dictating our every move. The financial system booming and busting thanks to a debt money system with absolutely no restraints. Blatant, overt corruption will be business as usual. The WOD will continue to run at full throttle. She will steal our collective labor to pander to whatever group will help solidify her grip on power. She will tax the air we breathe. She has no respect for the constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty or human life. And the media will convince a majority that she’s the 2nd coming of Christ. For libertarians to absolve this woman of her crimes and continue to endorse her is appalling. If there is some strategy here to appeal to voters I hope they get at least one because they just lost mine.

  74. uptil I saw the receipt which was of $4452 , I accept …that…my mom in-law woz like truley bringing home money part time from their laptop. . there neighbour haz done this for only 9 months and resantly paid the loans on there condo and purchased a gorgeous Cadillac . go to this site …..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.