\n<\/p>\n
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife, Cheryl Hines, at his first Senate confirmation hearing to be Health and Human Services secretary at the US Capitol on January 29<\/span>David Corn<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n A version of the below article\u00a0first appeared<\/a>\u00a0in David Corn\u2019s newsletter,\u00a0<\/em>Our Land.\u00a0The newsletter\u00a0comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month\u2014but you can\u00a0sign up for a free 30-day trial<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The\u00a0saga of Olivia Nuzzi<\/a><\/span>\u00a0consuming the polimedia-sphere has prompted me to think about my own journalistic failing regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. No, I didn\u2019t become smitten by RFK Jr. while covering the anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theory\u2013spewing oddball. Nor did I\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0report what I knew about him during the confirmation process that landed this\u00a0deceitful<\/a>\u00a0promoter of disinformation and fake science in a position to oversee our public health system. But at a critical time, I did not succeed in drawing attention to an important story about Kennedy. And that haunts me.<\/p>\n Allow me, dear reader, to explain.<\/p>\n While I was chasing several stories about Kennedy after Donald Trump tapped him to head the Department of Health and Human Services (see\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>), a source who was once close to Kennedy told me that the scion had at least twice settled cases brought against him by women who claimed he had engaged in misconduct. In one of these instances, this source said, Gloria Allred, the famous attorney, supposedly represented the woman.<\/p>\n When covering famous people, it is not uncommon to encounter gossip and tips about bad personal behavior, and this was not a surprising lead. A babysitter who had once worked for Kennedy had\u00a0accused<\/a>\u00a0him of sexual assault. Her allegation had appeared in a\u00a0Vanity Fair\u00a0<\/em>article<\/a>. In a subsequent text to her, Kennedy said, \u201cI read your description of an episode in which I touched you in an unwanted manner. I have no memory of this incident but I apologize sincerely for anything I ever did that made you feel uncomfortable or anything I did or said that offended you or hurt your feelings. I never intended you any harm. If I hurt you, it was inadvertent. I feel badly for doing so.\u201d That was not a denial.<\/p>\n I contacted Allred by email and asked if she had handled such a case. I noted that we could talk off the record, if she preferred. Her reply was short: \u201cSorry. No comment.\u201d I tried her again. Silence.<\/p>\n I pursued other avenues and reached out to Kennedy intimates who might have been in a position to know of any settlements. I found no one with first-hand knowledge, and one person who would likely have been aware of such an arrangement did not respond to my many calls, texts, and emails.<\/p>\n \u201cI have no other comment unless I receive a subpoena, and even then I would have to consider what I would say,\u201d Allred replied.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n While doing this, I came across an\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0published in the\u00a0Daily Mail\u00a0<\/em>a few months previously in which Allred said of Trump\u2019s Cabinet appointees, \u201cI think all nominees should be asked, \u2018Have you entered into any confidential settlement with a person who accused you of sexually inappropriate behavior? And if so, will you agree to release the person with whom you settled from the non-disclosure clause from which he or she agreed?\u2019\u201d\u00a0Coincidence? Or did she know something specific?<\/p>\n As Kennedy\u2019s confirmation hearings were beginning, I pestered Allred again, emailing her that I had just read an \u201cinteresting article\u201d and linking to the\u00a0Daily Mail\u00a0<\/em>piece with her highly relevant comment. This did not change her stance. She replied, \u201cI stand by my quote in the\u00a0Daily Mail<\/em>\u00a0article. I believe that all cabinet nominees should be asked if they have entered into settlements with women (or men) who have made allegations against the nominee involving inappropriate sexual conduct. I have no other comment unless I receive a subpoena, and even then I would have to consider what I would say.\u201d Did that mean she had something to say? Or was this merely legal boilerplate?<\/p>\n As I continued to investigate, I contacted members of the two Senate committees holding hearings on Kennedy\u2019s appointment, as well as their staffers, and I asked if they were aware of any such cases or settlements. Had anything come up during their research and preparation for the hearings? No one had any concrete information.<\/p>\n After the first of the two hearings, which was conducted by the Senate Finance Committee, Democrats on the panel sent Kennedy a list of written questions. It included these queries:<\/p>\n Yes or no, have you ever reached a settlement agreement with an individual or organization that accused you of misconduct or inappropriate behavior?<\/p>\n Yes or no, have you ever agreed to or been subject to a non-disclosure agreement with any individual or organization?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The following day, during the hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) raised the issue of personal misconduct with Kennedy. She referred to the former babysitter\u2019s allegation. Kennedy denied the accusation, contradicting his response to the babysitter. Murray then asked, \u201cAre there any other instances where you have made sexual advances toward an individual without their consent?\u201d Kennedy replied, \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n As to the queries about reaching a settlement following an allegation of misconduct or inappropriate behavior and being a party to a non-disclosure agreement, Kennedy answered in each case with one word: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Murray did not question him about any other allegations or settlements. I bugged Allred again and asked what she thought of this exchange. Her answer was terse: \u201cThat was not the question I suggested should be asked of a cabinet nominee.\u201d<\/p>\n With the hearings now behind him, Kennedy replied to the long list of written questions the senators had submitted. As to the queries about reaching a settlement following an allegation of misconduct or inappropriate behavior and being a party to a non-disclosure agreement, he answered in each case with one word: \u201cYes.\u201d He supplied no further explanation. The tip had been accurate.<\/p>\n I contacted Kennedy and asked, \u201cWill you disclose what those agreements were? What was the misconduct? Who were the individuals or organizations that accused you? Did this involve women who accused you of personal misconduct? Will you release anyone who has an NDA with you related to any of those settlements from that NDA?\u201d He did not respond. But Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller and MAGA advocate who was then serving as a spokesperson for Kennedy, shot back: \u201cAs a matter of policy, we don\u2019t respond to\u00a0Mother Jones<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n I thought Kennedy\u2019s acknowledgment of these settlements\u2014and his reluctance to explain further\u2014was a story that warranted widespread notice. But no Democratic senator raised a fuss. Once again, I reached out to Allred. Crickets.<\/p>\n The senators did follow up with another written question they sent to Kennedy:<\/p>\n Please describe the nature of the financial settlements (including total\u00a0amounts) and non-disclosure agreements reached and what these agreements involved. Please also indicate how many of these settlements and non-disclosure agreements you have signed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n RFK Jr. replied:<\/p>\n Twice, I have been targeted by frivolous, unfounded allegations, which I strenuously denied at the time and continue to deny. I entered into confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements to prohibit these individuals from continuing to make these allegations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This was not a full answer. The Senate Democrats had asked for the total amounts of the settlements, and Kennedy did not provide that information. Nor did this response indicate what \u201cmisconduct or inappropriate behavior\u201d had been alleged. He was not being forthcoming.<\/p>\n Once more, I returned to Allred and asked if one of these cases did indeed involve a client of hers, would that client care to challenge Kennedy\u2019s characterization. Allred replied, \u201cI have not stated that I have a client in this matter, but if I did have one the client would be informed about all of your requests and questions.\u201d<\/p>\n What was most surprising was that Senate Democrats dropped the matter. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n It was clear: If Allred represented such a client, that woman had no interest in saying anything. Hardly a surprising circumstance. One could easily imagine the assault that would befall a person who might violate an NDA and come forward with allegations about Kennedy. Possibly my original source had been wrong about the Allred connection. Allred never confirmed to me that she had such a client. But if I had to guess\u2026<\/p>\n And that was it.<\/p>\n What was most surprising was that Senate Democrats dropped the matter. After Kennedy refused to provide details about these cases of alleged misconduct, there were no further efforts to press him for more information. No press conferences with senators complaining that he was stonewalling them. He was off the hook. Perhaps he had been unfairly accused. Perhaps he had done something horrible. Kennedy would keep the public\u2014and the senators who had to vote on whether to allow him to take this position of great responsibility\u2014in the dark.<\/p>\n I wrote about all this (here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>), but Kennedy\u2019s acknowledgement of these settlements received little attention elsewhere in the media. It seemed that in the second Trump era, the possibility that RFK Jr. had engaged in misconduct or inappropriate conduct did not matter. After all, Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth had been credibly accused of sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement, and he had won Senate confirmation to become secretary of defense. Such transgressions were apparently not disqualifiers in Trump 2.0. The Democrats appeared to have no appetite for demanding details about possible Kennedy misdeeds, and I did not unearth any further information on these episodes.<\/p>\n I failed to crack the case. Kennedy was confirmed and went on to implement calamitous policies at HHS, denigrating vaccines, pulling the plug on critical scientific and medical research, and increasing the nation\u2019s (and the world\u2019s) vulnerability to pandemics. If the specifics of his alleged misconduct had been revealed, might that have sunk his nomination and prevented the disaster he\u2019s wreaking? We will never know.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n