He has been indicted in the past and escaped due to a hung jury.
Some of his charges:
The three-count indictment, which also charges the senator’s wife and three New Jersey businessmen, accuses him of using his official position in a wide range of corrupt schemes at home and abroad. In one, he sought to benefit the government of Egypt, including secretly providing it with sensitive U.S. government information, while in two others, he aimed to influence criminal investigations of two New Jersey businessmen, one of whom was a longtime fund-raiser for Mr. Menendez.
I hope he resigns immediately and they throw the book at him. He never should have run last time while under this cloud. He has had corruption allegations dogging him for years and he should step down and give up the seat to someone else.
What drives me most batty is that it’s not like the Dems, his party, has some huge lead in the senate. He’s putting his own seat at risk next time around, which is putting the Dems majority in the senate at risk.
It takes 2/3 of senators to expel someone. I think a norm–“If you’re indicted and don’t resign within five business days, we’ll hold a vote of expulsion”–might be appropriate. I’d support calling for such a vote.
But the weird question becomes, what happens next?
I suspect that Dems would vote for expulsion. Besides the general sense I have that the current Democratic party is far less corrupt than the current Republican party (not least influenced by the triflinest bit of triflin I’ve ever seen, out of my own legislature yesterday), I think it makes good political sense. Dems would win some anti-corruption brownie points, AND the Democratic governor would get to appoint a temporary senator until a special election.
My question is, given how much sense it would make for Dems, would Republicans also vote for expulsion? Or would they try to deny Dems that benefit by voting against it?
I posted some thoughts in the Senate 2024 thread. If NJ Democrats don’t primary him out, they are committing political malpractice.
Typically, the House and Senate have waited until there is a conviction to entertain expulsion. And we’ve been down this road before with Menendez – he was indicted for corruption in 2015 and was only required to step down as Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His trial resulted in a mistrial and charges were dismissed after the Supreme Court gutted anti-corruption standards in McDonnell v. United States.
I don’t think there’s any way that the Dems in the Senate will vote for expulsion.
But, if they do, the Republicans would be right with them – “The Democratic party here in NJ is corrupt, so bad that they kicked out a member of their own party. Vote Republican this fall for a better NJ”. The ads would be so easy to write.
Wouldn’t the return ads be better? “We hold ourselves to high standards. These New Jersey Republicans who support expelling Menendez voted against holding Trump accountable. Vote for the party with standards.”
Maybe on the national stage, but in NJ, it would used specifically about NJ corrupt politicians, IMO. We have plenty!
Anyway, I guess there’s no way he’s going to resign, so I hope the Senate makes a move. If I were the governor, I’d be all over him to quit, get someone new in, in time for the next election.
Reporter on either NBC or CNN this morning says SCOTUS rulings have made it very difficult to convict in these cases. Proving the quid pro quo necessary is difficult because the law has been narrowed. Just giving money to a politician isn’t enough, and then proving it resulted in the crook using his official powers in return is complicated. The feds say they have a lot more evidence than the last time they went after him and failed.
I’d be reasonably happy with a law that barred people from office if a jury gives a “preponderance of the evidence” result, rather than the usual “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Democrats voted to expel James Traficant from the House in 2002, but only after he was convicted on ten felony counts.
Traficant actually may have benefited from publicity surrounding an earlier corruption trial, being re-elected to the House multiple times after beating a RICO rap (he successfully defended himself).
Just having charges hanging over him might not be enough to keep Menendez from winning re-election, assuming he can delay a trial long enough to survive until the November 2024 election. Voters might buy his claims of persecution by shadowy forces. And isn’t it normal to keep $550,000 in cash stashed around your home in places like closets and clothing?
That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. Basically, the public sues to put an injunction in place that he cannot serve in the office. Lawsuits only require that it be more likely than not that the defendant was liable for the damages alleged.
Then again, I’m not a lawyer and I’m talking out of my ass, I’m sure there’s some law making this impossible.
I’m slightly surprised at what a big news story this is turning out to be today. The BBC has an article about it on its front page. Or maybe I’m too cynical about corrupt politicians.