Brief Libertarian National Platform Committee Update

There's not a lot to tell, but I do want to keep my readers (and my fellow Florida Libertarians) updated as to my activity on the platform committee. So, what's going on right now:

We're finally under way on the process of electing a permanent chair, by email ballot, with a bylaws-compliant voting time of 10 days (which started last night at midnight).

The declared candidates (although "write-ins" are eligible) are temporary chair Alicia Mattson and Libertarian National Committee regional representative Caryn Ann Harlos.

As the acting representative from Florida (I am the alternate, but the actual representative has resigned from the party and all positions in it, which leaves me doing the work), I have cast my vote for Ms. Harlos.

Why?

No one can doubt the work ethic of either candidate. Ms. Mattson has held a number of positions in the party and while I often disagree with her, it's not over any perception of lack of effort. While she hasn't been in the party for as long, Ms. Harlos has been incredibly energetic in various efforts, including the party's Historical Preservation Committee.

That said, it is my belief that with Ms. Harlos as chair the committee's work will be 1) procedurally smoother, 2) more transparent, and 3) more focused on improving the platform from a standpoint of clarity, concise wording, and harmony with the party's Statement of Principles in a way that the national convention delegates will be inclined to support.

The next step, if I am not much mistaken, will be deciding whether or not to have a pre-convention committee meeting in meatspace, and if so where and when. My best guess is that if it happens, it will be in May and in Chicago or Atlanta, but those are just guesses.

Thanks to all of you who boosted me as a candidate/participant in this committee's work. I look forward to getting past the necessary set-up and to the guts of the thing.

File Under "Mistrial"

Camera 1: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"

Camera 2: "The men and women picked to be jurors for the trial of drug kingpin Joaquin Guzman -- better known by his alias El Chapo -- have been granted special protections due to his notorious reputation. A New York judge ruled Monday that there were 'strong and credible reasons to believe the jury needs protection' and said that anyone chosen to be a juror would be anonymous and partially sequestered. The ruling means jurors will remain hidden from the public inside the courthouse, will be escorted to and from the trial, and their personal details will not be revealed to the defense, prosecution, or the press."

Emphases mine.

So, he's accused of crimes that he would have committed in, um, Mexico. Why would a New York judge and a New York jury be involved? And how can the jury be known to be "impartial" if neither his attorneys nor the public are allowed to even know who they are?

Is Anyone Actually Surprised?

According to the Nunes memo, the FBI took a folder full of "minimally corroborated" campaign oppo research compiled by a foreign former spy on behalf of Donald Trump's political opponents, and a Yahoo! News article based on leaks from that same guy, in front of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge for the purpose of getting/renewing a warrant to surveil a former member of Trump's campaign team. And they got their warrant.

Assuming the memo is reasonably accurate ... why would anyone find that surprising?

As of 2013, that court had granted 35,434 requests for warrants and denied a whopping 12. Not twelve hundred, twelve.

They probably could have gotten their warrant -- in fact, they've probably gotten a warrant before -- with a dog biscuit and an old copy of Air Supply's Lost in Love as their "probable cause" exhibits.