Washington — An email from the campaign of independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has disowned language used in a fundraising email on Thursday that referred to those facing charges in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot as "activists" who have been "stripped of their Constitutional liberties."
The email encouraged supporters to sign a petition advocating for the release of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is facing extradition to the U.S. The email labeled Assange as a "political prisoner" and drew parallels between those incarcerated for their involvement in the Capitol riot and Assange, as well as Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor currently residing in Russia after disclosing information about classified U.S. surveillance programs.
"The Brits are working to prevent our government from harming Assange. This is the harsh reality that every American Citizen confronts — from Ed Snowden, to Julian Assange, to the J6 activists confined in a Washington DC jail cell without their Constitutional liberties," the email stated, in reference to a recent decision by a British court to postpone Assange's extradition until the U.S. government provides assurances, including a guarantee that he will not face the death penalty.
After a recent statement caused controversy, Kennedy's campaign clarified that "the statement was an error that does not reflect Mr. Kennedy's views."
The campaign attributed the mistake to a new marketing contractor and admitted that it had slipped through the normal approval process. As a result, they have terminated their contract with this vendor.
Describing the defendants as "activists" has drawn comparisons to former President Donald Trump's rhetoric. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has openly supported the Jan. 6 rioters, referring to them as "hostages" and promising to free them if reelected.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Kennedy indicated that he would consider pardoning those convicted in connection to the riot, stating, "If prosecutorial malfeasance is demonstrated, then yes. Otherwise, no."
Source: The Washington Post
