RFK Jr. questioned in NY court over signature collectors who concealed his name on petitions

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks to reporters at the Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola, New York, on Aug. 21, 2024. (AP Photo/Pool)
Short Url
Updated 23 August 2024
Follow

RFK Jr. questioned in NY court over signature collectors who concealed his name on petitions

  • Testifying in a trial over a lawsuit that seeks to keep Kennedy off New York’s ballot, he acknowledged that his campaign submitted thousands of signatures gathered by a subcontractor despite knowing that some of its canvassers used deceptive tactics

MINEOLA, New York: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced questions in a New York court Thursday about how his presidential campaign handled revelations that some people gathering signatures to get him on the state ballot concealed his name on the petitions and used other deceptive methods.
Kennedy’s virtual appearance from an office in California came a day after his campaign announced that he will speak Friday about “his path forward.” The announcement fueled speculation that he could drop out of the race and support former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee.
Testifying in a trial over a lawsuit backed by the Democratic National Committee that seeks to keep Kennedy off New York’s ballot, he acknowledged that his campaign submitted thousands of signatures gathered by a subcontractor despite knowing that some of its canvassers used deceptive tactics.
The lawsuit alleges, among other claims of fraud, that the top of some petition sheets had been folded down, so the names of Kennedy and his vice presidential running mate, Nicole Shanahan, could not be seen, and only their little-known electors were visible.
“I suppose I’m ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the campaign,” Kennedy said on the witness stand, pointing out that he wasn’t abreast of every detail involved in the subcontractor’s balloting efforts.
When asked if he was ultimately responsible for the decision to submit the signatures, he said “Yes.”
New York requires independent candidates to gather petitions with 45,000 signatures from potential voters to get on the ballot in the general election. Kennedy’s campaign ultimately managed to gather nearly three times that many on top of those gathered by the subcontractor. But an April complaint from a voter and a May New York Times article raised concerns about whether some people signing the petitions knew which candidate they had been asked to support.

Kennedy’s staff was concerned, too. The day after the Times article was published, Kennedy’s campaign manager and daughter-in-law, Amaryllis Kennedy, said in an email to other staff that the questionable petitions gathered by the contractor should not be used.
“We’re obviously pulling all of the petitions they’ve submitted and won’t use any of them as they are likely rife with other hidden errors, buried there to disqualify us once submitted,” she wrote.
According to court documents, the campaign sued the subcontractor, arguing it had to pay them even though none of the signatures were usable. Kennedy said in news interviews at the time that no petitions from the subcontractor were submitted.
But he acknowledged during his testimony that that’s not what actually happened.
Instead, the campaign weeded out around 800 pages — containing 8,000 signatures — with visible creases indicating they’d been folded, putting them in two bankers boxes labeled “fraud box.”
The campaign created an affidavit intended to “cure” the remaining petitions by having the canvassers affirm in writing that they hadn’t committed fraud and submitted over 12,000 signatures from the subcontractor as evidence of New York voters wanting to see him on the ballot.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs however produced at least one example of a creased page that was submitted to the state instead of ending up in the “fraud box.” They also argued, and Kennedy acknowledged, that some canvassers had also verbally misrepresented what the signatures were for — for example, increasing candidate ballot access generally.
The subcontractor did not immediately respond to a phone message and an email request for comment.
A judge in a separate legal challenge has already barred Kennedy from appearing on New York’s ballot, though he has appealed. That suit had argued that Kennedy’s petitions were invalid because they listed him as living in New York when he actually resides in California with his wife, “Curb Your Enthusiasm” actor Cheryl Hines. An appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments next week in that case.
Kennedy is facing similar ballot challenges in several other states from Democrats and their allies.


US judge rejects Trump administration’s halt of wind energy permits

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

US judge rejects Trump administration’s halt of wind energy permits

  • 17 Democratic-led states challenged the suspension
  • Offshore wind group supports ruling for economic and energy priorities
BOSTON: A federal judge on Monday struck down an order by US President Donald Trump’s administration to halt all federal approvals for new wind energy projects, saying that agencies’ efforts to implement his directive were unlawful and arbitrary.
Agencies including the US Departments of the Interior and Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency have been implementing a directive to halt all new approvals needed for both onshore and offshore wind projects pending a review of leasing and permitting practices.
Siding with a group of 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, US District Judge Patti Saris in Boston said those agencies had failed to provide reasoned explanations for the actions they took to carry out the directive Trump issued on his first day back in office on January 20.
They could not lawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act indefinitely decline to review applications for permits, added Saris, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat whose state led the legal challenge, called the ruling “a big victory in our fight to keep tackling the climate crisis” in a social media post.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement that Trump through his order had “unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”
Trump has sought to boost government support for fossil fuels and maximize output in the United States, the world’s top oil and gas producer, after campaigning for the presidency on the refrain of “drill, baby, drill.”
The states, led by New York, sued in May, after the Interior Department ordered Norway’s Equinor to halt construction on its Empire Wind offshore wind project off the coast of New York.
While the administration allowed work on Empire Wind to resume, the states say the broader pause on permitting and leasing continues to have harmful economic effects.
The states said the agencies implementing Trump’s order never said why they were abruptly changing longstanding policy supporting wind energy development.
Saris agreed, saying the policy “constitutes a change of course from decades of agencies issuing (or denying) permits related to wind energy projects.”
The defendants “candidly concede that the sole factor they considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the President’s direction to do so,” Saris wrote.
An offshore wind energy trade group welcomed the ruling.
“Overturning the unlawful blanket halt to offshore wind permitting activities is needed to achieve our nation’s energy and economic priorities of bringing more power online quickly, improving grid reliability, and driving billions of new American steel manufacturing and shipbuilding investments,” Oceantic Network CEO Liz Burdock said in a statement.