Here is a transcript of the interview (first half):

Rachel Maddow: "I posited, just a moment ago before the commercial break, that what you and Gary Johnson are really aiming for this year is that 5% threshold, to try to get some Federal matching funds, to try to get ballot access and all those other things,.basically so the Libertarians might be viable in the future."

Bill Weld: "I think in the real world that's probably, that's probably correct. That would give Federal matching funds, it would mean no more ballot access woes. You know we thought for the longest time we might have a chance to run the table because we're such nice guys and a centrist party, etc., uh but not getting into the debates uh really uh sort of foreclosed that option. So now it is the 5% you're right.

Maddow: "In the real world when you think about pursuing that 5% option, um, for people who are in states where it's really close, for people who are in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, these states where the presidential race really might be decided among the two candidates who actually have shot at it. Do you think that people in those states should vote for you?"

Weld: "Well we are uh making our case that we're fiscally responsible and and socially inclusive and welcoming and we think we've got on the merits the best ticket of the three parties if you will, uh and so, you know, we'd like to get there. Uh, having said that, as I think you're aware, I see a big difference between the, the R candidate and the D candidate, and I've been at some pains to say that uh I fear for the country, if Mr. Trump should be elected. Uh I think uh it's a, it's a candidacy without any parallel that I can recall. It's content free and very much given to stirring up envy and resentment and even hatred, and it's uh I think it'd be a threat to the conduct of our uh foreign policy and our position in the world at large."

Maddow: "When you say fear for the country, do you, do you mean, is, is, are, is that hyperbole or do you mean it literally? You think it'd actually be a threat to us as a country?"

Weld: "Well I think it would be a threat to our polity uh as Tom Brockaw has been saying the last couple of days, you know we're getting to the point where we're, we're impinging on democratic institutions in this country and I think uh, you know it takes a certain, uh, not suspension of disbelief, but a willingness to go along with other people to get the ship of state going forward. I'm not sure that happens in a Trump presidency, frankly."

Maddow: "You've described him as um unstable. Did you mean that sort of psychologically or what's, what's the basis of that?"

Weld: "No I mean that, I mean that psychologically. I, I think he showed in the debates that when he encounters criticism or challenge, uh, he, uh behaves the way, uh, you know, a bully would, he just doesn't take it well. He doesn't deal well with criticism and blame, uh and I don't think he could, uh, competently manage the office of the presidency given, the uh the criticism and the challenge that you face every single day as president of the United States. He just would not be, uh in his uh element and, and I think he would wobble off course, 'n I think the country just can't have that."

Note that Weld has nothing to say about any principle, no appeal to freedom or the rights of the individual, and no criticism of government power let alone of progressive statism. Instead he and Maddow, in their stilted, condescending speech, emphasize talking down on and smearing Trump as an inherent personality low-life, with nothing about what he stands for (good or bad) of relevancy to the presidency, and nothing about why he might have appealed to enough people (right or wrong) to be a challenge to Clinton -- or what he calls the "centrist" Libertarian Party of "nice guys" has to do with any of it..

Weld has nothing but praise for Clinton's character(!) and competence(!) -- as if all that matters is that a president come from their common elitist social-educational class of progressives who know how to show the right attitude in public and rule with 'business-like competence' -- with no admission of any underlying statist-collectivist premises or any of the facts of Clinton's actual life and political career of permanent corruption and power seeking.

Weld openly admits he can't possibly win, and couldn't even suggest, let alone urge, on behalf of his own party that people vote for him instead of Clinton. He wouldn't even say that he thinks Johnson would be a better president than Clinton. Instead he obviously implies that voters support Clinton, especially in states with close elections.

This from the self-proclaimed "party of principle".