WEBVTT - Menendez Corruption Trial Gets Underway (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.920
<v Speaker 1>As Congress is in meshed in one dramatic crisis after another,

0:00:04.280 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>another drama began unfolding more than two hundred miles away,

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.879
<v Speaker 1>which could have implications for the Senate. For the first

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:14.040
<v Speaker 1>time in nearly four decades, a sitting US senator went

0:00:14.080 --> 0:00:17.960
<v Speaker 1>on trial for bribery in federal court yesterday. New Jersey

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:22.440
<v Speaker 1>Democratic Senator Robert Menendez proclaimed his innocence outside the Newer

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:26.440
<v Speaker 1>courthouse before the trial began. I started my public career

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:30.800
<v Speaker 1>fighting corruption. That's how I started, and I have always

0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:34.000
<v Speaker 1>acted in accordance with the law, and I believe when

0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:37.639
<v Speaker 1>all of the facts not owned, I will be vindicating.

0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Then he went inside to hear prosecutors call him a

0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:45.360
<v Speaker 1>corrupt politician who sold his Senate office for ritzy life

0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:48.839
<v Speaker 1>he couldn't afford. The senator's attorney did not dispute that

0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:52.440
<v Speaker 1>Dr Salmon Meligan, who's also on trial, paid for lavish

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 1>trips for Menendez and gave him hundreds of thousands of

0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>dollars in campaign donations, But he said the question was why,

0:00:59.680 --> 0:01:03.320
<v Speaker 1>and the answer was friendship. Joining me are Robert Mints,

0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.240
<v Speaker 1>head of the white collar and Government Investigations practice at

0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:09.920
<v Speaker 1>McCarter and English and a former federal prosecutor in New Jersey,

0:01:10.040 --> 0:01:12.960
<v Speaker 1>and Jeffrey Bell and a professor William and Mary Law School,

0:01:13.040 --> 0:01:17.160
<v Speaker 1>and a former federal prosecutor in d C. Jeff Let's

0:01:17.240 --> 0:01:24.319
<v Speaker 1>start with a brief outline of the case against Menendez. Okay, sure,

0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:27.520
<v Speaker 1>So the government has has to show that there was

0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:31.199
<v Speaker 1>money exchanged for official acts here and so are things

0:01:31.200 --> 0:01:34.480
<v Speaker 1>of value. And they've got a whole catalog of things

0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:38.720
<v Speaker 1>of value that went from Dr Melligan to Senator Menendez.

0:01:39.040 --> 0:01:45.160
<v Speaker 1>Highlights include like an expensive Paris hotel room, some trips

0:01:45.240 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 1>to the Dominican Republic where the doctor had, I guess,

0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>a nice villa. And then you know, some of the

0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:56.200
<v Speaker 1>eye catching ones are very large, like effectively campaign contributions

0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 1>up to seven fifty thousand dollars. So that's all the

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:03.400
<v Speaker 1>money going to Senator Menendez and things of value. And

0:02:03.440 --> 0:02:05.720
<v Speaker 1>then the government has a whole bunch of allegations of

0:02:05.800 --> 0:02:09.320
<v Speaker 1>things that the Senator did for Dr Meligan in that

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:13.720
<v Speaker 1>same time period, including intervening on his behalf in a

0:02:13.800 --> 0:02:19.480
<v Speaker 1>medicare billing dispute, um, intervening on Dr Meligan's behalf in

0:02:20.000 --> 0:02:22.320
<v Speaker 1>like a business deal having to do with the ports

0:02:22.320 --> 0:02:26.360
<v Speaker 1>in the Dominican Republic and then arranging or helping to

0:02:26.480 --> 0:02:31.120
<v Speaker 1>influence the visa application process to help Dr Meligan's girlfriends

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:34.720
<v Speaker 1>get some visas, and so the challenges connecting those things.

0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 1>But they certainly have a lot of allegations of gifts

0:02:37.720 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 1>uh and official acts. Bob Menendez is prominent attorney. Abby

0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:45.400
<v Speaker 1>Lowell said that acting out of friendship is not improper,

0:02:45.520 --> 0:02:48.800
<v Speaker 1>it's not corrupt, and it's certainly not a crime. Tell

0:02:48.880 --> 0:02:54.160
<v Speaker 1>us what the defense strategy is, Well, the defense is

0:02:54.280 --> 0:02:57.079
<v Speaker 1>taking the position that the case is really not about

0:02:57.160 --> 0:03:00.799
<v Speaker 1>what happened, but about why it up and and so

0:03:00.880 --> 0:03:03.560
<v Speaker 1>that means for the jury, this is all a question

0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:06.480
<v Speaker 1>of intent, and what the jurors are really asked to

0:03:06.520 --> 0:03:10.239
<v Speaker 1>do is get into the mind of both Center Menendez

0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:14.560
<v Speaker 1>and Dr Meligan and explore this relationship and try to

0:03:14.600 --> 0:03:17.960
<v Speaker 1>determine whether this was a true friendship at these gifts

0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:22.320
<v Speaker 1>were simply given out of their affection for one another,

0:03:22.840 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 1>or whether there was something more nefarious going on here,

0:03:25.880 --> 0:03:30.200
<v Speaker 1>whether there really was a quid pro pro relationship where

0:03:30.200 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 1>this stream of benefits were bestowed upon Center Menendez, with

0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:37.200
<v Speaker 1>the expectation by Dr Meligan that at some point in

0:03:37.240 --> 0:03:41.840
<v Speaker 1>the future center Menendez would intercede on his behalf to

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:46.840
<v Speaker 1>benefit him financially. So, Jeff, how does the prosecution prove that?

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.320
<v Speaker 1>Meligan's lawyer said, where's the evidence of why these men

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>did what they did. There's no corrupt agreement. Does the

0:03:54.640 --> 0:04:00.120
<v Speaker 1>prosecution have emails or anything substantial? Well, so that's you've

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:01.800
<v Speaker 1>hit on the real challenge here. And a lot of

0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:05.440
<v Speaker 1>times what the prosecution will do is they'll have someone cooperating.

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:09.800
<v Speaker 1>So in the trial of Governor McDonald in Virginia, the

0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:14.200
<v Speaker 1>prosecution had the person who had allegedly given the corrupt

0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:17.919
<v Speaker 1>bribes testifying for the prosecution, saying, this is why I

0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:20.760
<v Speaker 1>did it. I did it to get favors from the governor.

0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>In this case, the prosecution does not have that. Uh.

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>And and it's important to note that the case law

0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:29.760
<v Speaker 1>and the Supreme Court has mentioned this that it's not

0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:32.679
<v Speaker 1>necessary for the prosecution to come forward to the jury

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 1>and say here is the explicit agreement between the two parties.

0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:38.720
<v Speaker 1>Where Dr Meligan in this case would have said, I'm

0:04:38.720 --> 0:04:40.920
<v Speaker 1>going to give you this money in exchange I want

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:45.159
<v Speaker 1>these favors. The courts recognize that that's unrealistic and so

0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 1>it's it's well established that the prosecution can establish the

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:52.800
<v Speaker 1>agreement through circumstantial evidence, and there's even a famous piece

0:04:52.800 --> 0:04:55.320
<v Speaker 1>of the case law that talks about winks and nods

0:04:55.440 --> 0:05:00.040
<v Speaker 1>the government can point to kind of unspoken agreement, and

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:01.720
<v Speaker 1>so that's what they're gonna do here. They're gonna try

0:05:01.760 --> 0:05:05.640
<v Speaker 1>to show that, you know, given the circumstantial evidence, the

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:08.560
<v Speaker 1>size of the gifts, the timing of the gifts in

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:13.440
<v Speaker 1>comparison to the actions that Senator Menendez allegedly took, and

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:17.000
<v Speaker 1>that there isn't another reason for the senator to have

0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:19.520
<v Speaker 1>done this for someone who's not even a constituent, and

0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:23.400
<v Speaker 1>hope that the jury will from all the circumstances infer

0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:26.320
<v Speaker 1>an agreement, even if there's not any evidence of an

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:30.640
<v Speaker 1>explicit or written agreement. That's what members of Congress do.

0:05:31.080 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>That phrase from Senator Robert Menendez, an attorney, seems to

0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:37.039
<v Speaker 1>be at the heart of the defense in the bribery case.

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:40.359
<v Speaker 1>I've been talking with Robert Min's, a partner McCarter in English,

0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:43.160
<v Speaker 1>and Jeffrey Bellan, a professor at William and Mary Law

0:05:43.200 --> 0:05:48.119
<v Speaker 1>School about the case. Bob Lowell said that Menendez helped

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 1>Meligan by talking to bureaucrats, senators, and a cabinet secretary.

0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:55.120
<v Speaker 1>But he said none of that was improper because the

0:05:55.200 --> 0:05:58.680
<v Speaker 1>senator had intervened on behalf of others and he believed

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:02.240
<v Speaker 1>in the merits of the policies he was advancing. Is

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:08.320
<v Speaker 1>that a believable argument when so much money was involved. Well,

0:06:08.360 --> 0:06:11.120
<v Speaker 1>one of the central themes of the defense is going

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:13.920
<v Speaker 1>to be what I would call sort of the public

0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:17.000
<v Speaker 1>policy defense. What they're trying to do is to convince

0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:20.919
<v Speaker 1>yours that the actions that were taken we're not really

0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:25.839
<v Speaker 1>driven by Centor Menendez intent to benefit his friend Dr Meligan,

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:30.760
<v Speaker 1>but involved these larger policy issues such as over billing

0:06:30.839 --> 0:06:34.440
<v Speaker 1>by big pharmaceutical companies in connection with the medicare issue,

0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:38.560
<v Speaker 1>and that the port issue in the Dominican Republic that

0:06:38.640 --> 0:06:42.599
<v Speaker 1>Center Menendez got involved with, according to the government, to

0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>benefit Dr Meligan, was really a broader national security issue.

0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:50.840
<v Speaker 1>So if they can convince us that these really weren't

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:55.800
<v Speaker 1>actions motivated to benefit his friend, then the quid pro

0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:59.480
<v Speaker 1>quo argument is defeated by them, and they can convince

0:06:59.600 --> 0:07:03.040
<v Speaker 1>jurs is that this is simply a politician who's acting

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:05.800
<v Speaker 1>in the public interest and who took actions only because

0:07:05.800 --> 0:07:08.880
<v Speaker 1>he believed they were the in the interests of his constituents.

0:07:10.800 --> 0:07:15.080
<v Speaker 1>Jeff The defense attorney Abby Lowell is a high profile

0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 1>defense attorney. He got former Senator John Edwards off on

0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:22.560
<v Speaker 1>campaign finance violations by arguing the donors put up the

0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:26.720
<v Speaker 1>money out of personal friendship. Is that sort of echoing

0:07:26.760 --> 0:07:30.000
<v Speaker 1>what's happening here? Yes, I do think that that the

0:07:30.080 --> 0:07:33.720
<v Speaker 1>John Edwards cases is the closest comparator to this one,

0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:37.960
<v Speaker 1>particularly if you factor in the defense attorney, and so,

0:07:38.600 --> 0:07:40.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think that that's the idea. Can you

0:07:40.800 --> 0:07:43.680
<v Speaker 1>convince the jury that what was going on here was

0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:47.480
<v Speaker 1>not an exchange of money for official acts but some

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 1>other thing. And you know, obviously jurors are familiar with

0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:52.240
<v Speaker 1>the reasons that you might give someone money out of

0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:55.840
<v Speaker 1>friendship or you know, for other purposes, and if you

0:07:55.880 --> 0:07:58.760
<v Speaker 1>can fit it into that, then then you get an acquittal.

0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:03.840
<v Speaker 1>But the big question will Menendez take the stand in

0:08:03.880 --> 0:08:07.720
<v Speaker 1>his own defense? These jurors are used to hearing Menendez

0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:10.840
<v Speaker 1>speaking out on issues, and the judge will tell them

0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:13.200
<v Speaker 1>at the end of the trial not to draw any

0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:19.160
<v Speaker 1>conclusions if he doesn't, But will they draw them anyway, Well,

0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:22.320
<v Speaker 1>they'll be instructed, as you said, not to draw that conclusion.

0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Center Menendez has been very vocal, uh speaking to the

0:08:26.480 --> 0:08:29.680
<v Speaker 1>media in his own defense. My guess is in this case,

0:08:29.800 --> 0:08:32.560
<v Speaker 1>we will not see him take the stand because I

0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:36.400
<v Speaker 1>think the way the defense is laying its case out here,

0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:40.000
<v Speaker 1>they don't really need his testimony. What they're really trying

0:08:40.000 --> 0:08:42.800
<v Speaker 1>to argue is that the government has not been able

0:08:42.840 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 1>to prove its case, that there's not enough evidence there

0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:49.559
<v Speaker 1>that shows that the intent here was really a corrupt act,

0:08:49.960 --> 0:08:52.840
<v Speaker 1>and that this really was a case of friendship and

0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:56.400
<v Speaker 1>gifts being given out of friendship. There's really very little

0:08:56.440 --> 0:08:59.240
<v Speaker 1>that Center Menendez can add to that defense, and all

0:08:59.360 --> 0:09:02.559
<v Speaker 1>it would do would be to give prosecutors the opportunity

0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 1>to run through their prosecution case again and go through

0:09:07.360 --> 0:09:10.600
<v Speaker 1>in in lurid detail all of these gifts that were

0:09:10.640 --> 0:09:14.000
<v Speaker 1>given to him. So I don't expect we'll see him testify. Jeff,

0:09:14.040 --> 0:09:17.320
<v Speaker 1>do you agree? Well? So, I mean this is I

0:09:17.360 --> 0:09:20.640
<v Speaker 1>think that Bob made the the that's the common sense

0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:23.760
<v Speaker 1>or that's the received wisdom on this. I think he's

0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:26.680
<v Speaker 1>laid it out really well. And so um I happen

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:28.120
<v Speaker 1>to be in the camp of people that think the

0:09:28.200 --> 0:09:31.240
<v Speaker 1>jury really wants to hear from the defendant. And you know,

0:09:31.360 --> 0:09:34.520
<v Speaker 1>often in cases, defense attorneys are worried about putting a

0:09:34.520 --> 0:09:36.880
<v Speaker 1>defendant on the stand because they don't know how they'll

0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:40.280
<v Speaker 1>do in that kind of high pressure public setting. But

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:42.800
<v Speaker 1>here you've got, you know, someone who's made a career

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:46.560
<v Speaker 1>out of making big time speeches and things like that,

0:09:46.880 --> 0:09:49.840
<v Speaker 1>and so you know, I think, uh, that there's a

0:09:49.880 --> 0:09:52.200
<v Speaker 1>good argument to put him on the stand. Everything Bob

0:09:52.200 --> 0:09:54.440
<v Speaker 1>said is right though, and that's what you'd hear from

0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 1>most most attorneys. Um, so the you know, the question.

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 1>Then the other piece of this, it's kind of interesting

0:10:00.360 --> 0:10:02.240
<v Speaker 1>to think about is that you could have made the

0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:04.360
<v Speaker 1>same argument I just made about John Edwards. I mean,

0:10:04.360 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 1>who would be better to put on the stand than him?

0:10:06.960 --> 0:10:09.800
<v Speaker 1>And Abyla won that case without putting him on the stand.

0:10:10.040 --> 0:10:12.560
<v Speaker 1>So I think Bob is right, Uh, probably, even though

0:10:12.760 --> 0:10:15.200
<v Speaker 1>my leanings are to put that that I would put

0:10:15.200 --> 0:10:20.200
<v Speaker 1>Menendez on the stand. Bob New Jersey's other senator, Corey Booker,

0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:23.880
<v Speaker 1>who has been supportive of Menendez, came the first day

0:10:23.920 --> 0:10:29.160
<v Speaker 1>of trial and sat behind him. Does that visual do

0:10:29.240 --> 0:10:34.080
<v Speaker 1>anything for jurors? Well, I think it's helpful to the defense.

0:10:34.160 --> 0:10:38.040
<v Speaker 1>It shows that Senator Booker, who's popular in New Jersey,

0:10:38.240 --> 0:10:42.480
<v Speaker 1>is supporting his fellow Senator Um. But by the time

0:10:42.559 --> 0:10:44.600
<v Speaker 1>this case goes to the jury, I think the fact

0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:47.240
<v Speaker 1>that Senator Menendez was there for the opening statements is

0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:50.160
<v Speaker 1>going to be something that they will have long forgotten.

0:10:50.520 --> 0:10:53.840
<v Speaker 1>I think in many ways, the most difficult issue here

0:10:53.880 --> 0:10:56.480
<v Speaker 1>for the defense is going to be to deal with

0:10:56.559 --> 0:10:59.640
<v Speaker 1>these lavish gifts, because all every person on that jury

0:10:59.679 --> 0:11:02.560
<v Speaker 1>is going to think to themselves, I have friends, but

0:11:02.600 --> 0:11:04.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't have any friends who have given me the

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 1>type of gifts here that were bestowed upon the Centator

0:11:07.320 --> 0:11:09.800
<v Speaker 1>of Menendez, and that is going to be the hurdle

0:11:09.840 --> 0:11:11.600
<v Speaker 1>that the defense is going to have to overcome if

0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:15.880
<v Speaker 1>they're going to get an acquittal here. Well, last question

0:11:16.000 --> 0:11:19.440
<v Speaker 1>about thirty seconds, which side would you rather be on

0:11:20.400 --> 0:11:22.960
<v Speaker 1>if you were doing the defense or the prosecution if

0:11:23.000 --> 0:11:25.720
<v Speaker 1>you were in court? Jeff I I I'm not going

0:11:25.760 --> 0:11:28.760
<v Speaker 1>to answer that question. I know that that that's that's

0:11:28.480 --> 0:11:31.400
<v Speaker 1>a good question. It's my favorite question. If I were

0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:33.280
<v Speaker 1>the host, I would ask, But if I'm the guest,

0:11:33.320 --> 0:11:35.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm not answering. I'll tell you after the Jerry returns

0:11:35.960 --> 0:11:38.400
<v Speaker 1>this verdict. Bob, do you want to take a take

0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:41.320
<v Speaker 1>a stroll down the lane there? You know, I think

0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:43.160
<v Speaker 1>this is I think this is a good case for

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:45.320
<v Speaker 1>both sides. You know, as a defense lawyer, there's some

0:11:45.360 --> 0:11:47.720
<v Speaker 1>good issues here. They've got some good facts and they've

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:50.760
<v Speaker 1>got some great legal issues to deal with on appeal

0:11:50.840 --> 0:11:53.679
<v Speaker 1>even if they lose here at the trial level. All right,

0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.439
<v Speaker 1>thank you both for being on Bloomberg Law, even though

0:11:56.440 --> 0:11:59.439
<v Speaker 1>you didn't answer my favorite question. That's Bob Men's a

0:11:59.480 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 1>partner mc carter in English and Jeffrey Bell and he

0:12:02.679 --> 0:12:05.440
<v Speaker 1>is a professor at William and Mary Law School. Coming

0:12:05.480 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>up on Bloomberg Law, Democratic Attorneys General will begin their

0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:12.880
<v Speaker 1>legal attack on President Trump's end of the DOCCA program.

0:12:12.880 --> 0:12:15.600
<v Speaker 1>What are the odds of success? And we'll go live

0:12:15.679 --> 0:12:19.440
<v Speaker 1>to the Rose Garden where President Donald Trump is going

0:12:19.480 --> 0:12:23.760
<v Speaker 1>to be appearing with the Emir of Kuwait. I'm June Grosso.

0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:25.040
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg