Speaker 1: Will Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey become the first
Speaker 1: sitting senator in nine years to become a felon. It
Speaker 1: will be up to a jury of six women and
Speaker 1: six men in Newark, New Jersey. Menendez is charged with
Speaker 1: corruption and bribery for doing political favors for a doctor
Speaker 1: in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions,
Speaker 1: lavish vacations, and other gifts. The doctor is being tried
Speaker 1: with Menendez, his longtime friend. Following his indictment in April
Speaker 1: of the senator has repeatedly maintained that he will be exonerated.
Speaker 1: I'm angry because prosecutors at the Justice Department don't know
Speaker 1: the difference between friendship and corruption and have chosen to
Speaker 1: twist my duties as a senator and my friendship into
Speaker 1: something that is improper. They are dead wrong, and I
Speaker 1: am confident that they will be proven. So the political
Speaker 1: stakes of the trial are high, with the potential loss
Speaker 1: of a Senate seat for the Democrats. Our guests are
Speaker 1: Robert Mints, the head of the White Collar and Political
Speaker 1: Corruptions Unit, McCarter and English and a former federal prosecutor
Speaker 1: and Robert him of Meersenheim, a former assistant regional director
Speaker 1: of the SEC. Bob Mint. Since I see we have
Speaker 1: two Bobs today, we'll have to go by both names.
Speaker 1: Bob Mints tell us about the prosecution's case against Hernandez Shorten.
Speaker 1: The prosecutions case UH includes a ten counts which are
Speaker 1: charges of conspiracy, bribery, thefted on his services which is
Speaker 1: essentially to pride and constituents of your honest services as
Speaker 1: a elected public official, violating the Travel Act, which is
Speaker 1: prohibiting traveling interstate or foreign travel in connection with committing
Speaker 1: certain criminal acts, which in this case is bribery. What
Speaker 1: the heart of the case really is about this long
Speaker 1: running friendship between Center Mernandez and Dr Salomon Meligan, who
Speaker 1: was an ophthalmologist in Florida and who contributed considerably to
Speaker 1: Center Menendez's campaign, lavish gifts upon him, including expensive hotels,
Speaker 1: trips to the Dominican republic um and then linked to that,
Speaker 1: according to prosecutors, were various official acts which Centator Menendez
Speaker 1: bestowed upon Dr Meligan in exchange for those gifts, and
Speaker 1: those had to do with a number of disputes that
Speaker 1: Dr Belgan was involved with one involving millions of dollars
Speaker 1: for Medicare claims. He was an optimologist and had a
Speaker 1: multimillion dollar Medicare claim with the federal government. He also
Speaker 1: had a five hundred million dollar contract to spee with
Speaker 1: the Dominican Republic. And the smaller issue, but one that
Speaker 1: no doubt will be brought up at the trial because
Speaker 1: there's a salacious element to it, was the allegation that
Speaker 1: Center Menendez assisted with be the applications for Dr Meligan's girlfriends.
Speaker 1: Bob Jeim, there's really not a lot of dispute. It
Speaker 1: doesn't appear about the facts of the case in terms
Speaker 1: of whether Senator Menendez did a lot of these things
Speaker 1: for the doctor. What's his defense, Yes, that's a very
Speaker 1: good point. There really is not a lot of factual
Speaker 1: disputes between the parties, and the senator's defense is essentially
Speaker 1: that he was acting as as a friend towards the
Speaker 1: doctor and that what he was doing in terms of
Speaker 1: the favors and other types of things did not rise
Speaker 1: to the level of what is called an official act.
Speaker 1: We have a well known Supreme Court case that came
Speaker 1: out last year that involved the governor of Virginia Robert McDonald,
Speaker 1: and what he what that case had held was that
Speaker 1: it's really not enough to sustain a bribery conviction against
Speaker 1: the public official if they're merely offering courtesies or doing
Speaker 1: things such is setting up meetings or hosting events, that
Speaker 1: more is required. And Senator um de Menendez's arguments has
Speaker 1: always been that essentially the actions that he performed were
Speaker 1: not official acts. They were just essentially courtesies and other
Speaker 1: things that don't rise to the level of an official
Speaker 1: act for purposes of the bribery statute. Bob Mints, is
Speaker 1: it even clear at this point what an official act
Speaker 1: is and what prosecutors have to prove now that has
Speaker 1: been moneyed up quite a bit by the decision that
Speaker 1: Bob just mentioned the McDonald's case. Uh. In that case,
Speaker 1: the governor had set up meetings for a constituent as
Speaker 1: an example, and that was held by the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to not be an official act for purposes of federal
Speaker 1: bribery charges. I think what happened there was the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court was worried that federal prosecutors were criminalizing routine political
Speaker 1: conduct where politicians are are in fact supposed to assist
Speaker 1: their constituents and set up meetings and help resolve issues.
Speaker 1: And I think we're going to see the Menendez defense
Speaker 1: feed right into that narrative where they're going to say
Speaker 1: that the benefits that he provided to Dr Meligan were
Speaker 1: simply assisting him in dealing with federal agencies and that
Speaker 1: they were routine constituent services that were not tied to
Speaker 1: any of the payments he received. They're also going to
Speaker 1: point out to the fact that the decisions ultimately on
Speaker 1: what to do for all of these issues, whether it
Speaker 1: was the large Medicare claim or the dispute with the
Speaker 1: Dominican Republic, were not decisions were ultimately made by Senator
Speaker 1: Menendez himself. We're talking about the upcoming trial of Democratic
Speaker 1: Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey on charges of corruption
Speaker 1: and bribery with Robert Mint's a partner McCarter and English,
Speaker 1: and Robert him a partner at Myers and Heim Bob Mints.
Speaker 1: A lot of it's been alleged, as we mentioned, is
Speaker 1: factual and won't be disputed by the defense attorneys. But
Speaker 1: how does the government go about proving that there was
Speaker 1: a bribe that took place and that both men had
Speaker 1: an agreement as to what that would mean without having
Speaker 1: a cooperator or emails or something other than circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1: That's a great question, because I think prosecutors were hoping
Speaker 1: to have that insider in the form of Dr Melligan.
Speaker 1: Dr Melegan was recently prosecuted and convicted in the Southern
Speaker 1: District of Florida last April two charges unrelated to this,
Speaker 1: and is now facing a lengthy time in prison. You've
Speaker 1: yet to be sentenced on that. Prosecutors were no doubt
Speaker 1: hoping that that would convince him to cooperate in this
Speaker 1: investigation and testify against Center Menendez. That that has not happened.
Speaker 1: So they're left with a circumstantial case, as you say,
Speaker 1: where they have to show that the gifts that were
Speaker 1: given were given with the intent to affect these official acts.
Speaker 1: And it's really a case of asking the jury to
Speaker 1: get inside the head of Senor Menendez and determine exactly
Speaker 1: what his intent was. And it really boils down to
Speaker 1: the question of where does friendship end and corruption begin.
Speaker 1: Was this done out of friendship or was this really
Speaker 1: a relationship that was driven by campaign contributions and laps
Speaker 1: shifts in exchange for the official acts that Senator Menendez
Speaker 1: is charged with having done. On Dr Meligan's behalf well,
Speaker 1: bob him. Given the the issues we're talking about here
Speaker 1: on on proving what an official act is and the
Speaker 1: difference between your official course of action your unofficial course
Speaker 1: of action, how how good a chance does the government
Speaker 1: have of actually convicting Senator Menendez here? Well, it's an
Speaker 1: interesting question because Judge William Wallas, who is overseeing the trial,
Speaker 1: has actually served his decision. Uh. Senator Menendez his attorneys
Speaker 1: filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment as a
Speaker 1: result of that Supreme Court decision, and the judge in
Speaker 1: Senor Menendez case has um has not ruled on that,
Speaker 1: and he said that he will rule on it after
Speaker 1: the government has a chance to present all its evidence
Speaker 1: and when it comes time for the decision. There's certain
Speaker 1: acts that are very clearly counts to official acts, and
Speaker 1: these would be things like selling your vote, um, something
Speaker 1: of that nature, threatening to hold a committee hearing, um.
Speaker 1: But beyond that it becomes quite murky in terms of
Speaker 1: what will satisfy the standard. One of the items the
Speaker 1: government has in its superseding indictment is a charge that
Speaker 1: Senator Menendez threatened to hold hearings um if he didn't
Speaker 1: get his way with respect to the pressure he was
Speaker 1: placing on various agencies with regards to doctor um Melgin.
Speaker 1: And we'll have to see if the government's evidence bears
Speaker 1: out the charges that are laid out in the In
Speaker 1: the indictment, Bodman's a jury of six women and six
Speaker 1: men was chosen from a wide range of professions, from
Speaker 1: a Moody's employee who helps rate debt on foreign countries
Speaker 1: to a mail carrier. What would you be looking for
Speaker 1: as a prosecutor in this case and what would you
Speaker 1: be looking for as a defense attorney in a juror? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the prosecutors are going to be looking for
Speaker 1: a law and order type juror, somebody who tends to
Speaker 1: see things as right or wrong, black and white. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, perhaps someone with a military background, uh, certainly
Speaker 1: people in law enforcement, but that general type of background.
Speaker 1: The defense is going to be looking for people who
Speaker 1: they hope will look past some of these allegations, which
Speaker 1: will undoubtedly paint um Center Menendez in in somewhat of
Speaker 1: an unflattering light. The lavish gifts and hotel stays and
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. Could look beyond that and look
Speaker 1: at him at his friendship with Dr Meligan, which undoubtedly
Speaker 1: was a friendship the last to twenty years, and and
Speaker 1: be receptive to the argument that this was simply a
Speaker 1: friendship that was unrelated to the official acts that Senor
Speaker 1: Menendez took on his behalf bob him. Are we dealing
Speaker 1: here with another situation where we might have a jury
Speaker 1: that thinks, you know, yeah, official acts whatever, this is
Speaker 1: a he shouldn't have done this kind of stuff. He
Speaker 1: was really doing favors he's a senator, this is bribery,
Speaker 1: and Menendez actually has a better chance on appeal than
Speaker 1: a than a trial. I think that's a very fair statement.
Speaker 1: I think with your average juror when they hear about
Speaker 1: these kind of CD allegations, and there's a tendency to
Speaker 1: just say that the whole thing looks wrong, looks corrupt,
Speaker 1: and vote to convict. What we're talking about here, um
Speaker 1: on this panel or some very nuanced legal issues in
Speaker 1: terms of what constitutes an official act and Supreme Court precedent,
Speaker 1: And very often those types of detailed legal issues are
Speaker 1: better addressed at the Court of Appeals or perhaps even
Speaker 1: with the district court judge once he considers the defendant's
Speaker 1: Robert menendez Is motion to dismiss the indictment. Well, Bob,
Speaker 1: I'll ask that question in a different way. Would you
Speaker 1: rather be on as far as winning, would you rather
Speaker 1: be the prosecutor of the defense attorney in this case?
Speaker 1: It's very hard to say at this point because the
Speaker 1: government has not put in all of its evidence. I'd
Speaker 1: say that the indictment lays out a fairly strong case,
Speaker 1: especially on the one point where they allege that Senator
Speaker 1: Menendez threatened to hold committee hearings if he didn't get
Speaker 1: his way. I think if the prosecutors can prove that point,
Speaker 1: that's going to be a very good one and a
Speaker 1: hard one to assert by the defense that that does
Speaker 1: not constitute an official action. Thank you both for being
Speaker 1: on bloom Burg Law. That's Robert Heim, a partner at
Speaker 1: Myers and Heim, and Robert Mints, a partner at McCarter
Speaker 1: and English. Just also want to mention in this case
Speaker 1: that Menendez is very high profile. Defense attorney Abby Lowell
Speaker 1: successfully defended U S Senator John Edwards, who was accused
Speaker 1: of violating campaign finance laws, convincing jurors that donors put
Speaker 1: up money out of personal friendship, and there's a possibility
Speaker 1: that Lowell may be using that in this case as well.
Speaker 1: Coming up on Bloomberg Law, Europe's method rules haven't even
Speaker 1: kicked in yet, but the problems are apparent from every direction.
Speaker 1: What the SEC is doing to prepare you're listening to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law, I'm June Grosso with Michael beston Greg Store.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg