Bob Menendez indicted again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should stand trial and face the music if he is found guilty. Democrat here.

+1. Should be pressured to resign and definitely should not be returning to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He doesn't have a choice with resigning as chair for the Foreign Relations committee.
He has to resign. It is in the Senate rules.

[Anonymous]

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will never allow one of their own to serve one single day in jail. It doesn’t matter how criminal their decades long crime spree has been.

Salomon Melgen, Bob Menendez’s co-defendant from his last trial, would still be in prison except that Trump commuted his fraud sentence.

[Anonymous]

Menendez has a press conference today in NJ. Presumably to announce his reelection campaign.
And, he has hired Abbe Lowell as his attorney. Yes, Hunter Biden's current attorney.

[Anonymous]

Not really surprising he's not stepping down. He almost certainly won't get convicted. SCOTUS has made it virtually impossible to prove public corruption. Unless he's on tape saying: "Yes, I will do this official act in exchange for these gold bars," the government is going to lose. It's not even clear that the "official acts" they are alleging will qualify under the McDonnell test. Most of the official acts alleged are things like talking to prosecutors to get them to drop cases, and talking to the State Dept to get them to fund a dam. In McDonnell, SCOTUS said that talking to other officials and setting up meetings aren't official acts. Very good chance this indictment is dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Not surprising that elected officials don't step down anymore. They play these partisan games but engage in corruption and kick some back to each other. I had no idea the rules were so loose that you can hand a politician money with instructions to "ask" that a criminal case get dropped.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

His wife is 56?
No way. That lady is not 56.

[Anonymous]

Disgusting. Alicia had a sub for her show yesterday. I wouldn't show up if my father was acting so shamefully either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

His argument is that he’s worried that the United States government will start confiscating cash just just like the totalitarian regime his family fled.
Wonderful.

And, claiming that he has withdrawn $480,000 from his personal savings will need to be proven by him. This should be fun.

I wonder how he will explain away the gold bars or the Mercedes. Neither were mentioned in his pitiful press conference.

[Anonymous]

Now that he’s announced he won’t resign, Schumer and the rest of the party needs to push him out. Preferably before the government shutdown on Sunday.

[Anonymous]

He is arrogant, obstinate, and defiant. And, a liar.

He will never leave his role in the Senate. He has been in politics his whole life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His argument is that he’s worried that the United States government will start confiscating cash just just like the totalitarian regime his family fled.
Wonderful.

And, claiming that he has withdrawn $480,000 from his personal savings will need to be proven by him. This should be fun.

I wonder how he will explain away the gold bars or the Mercedes. Neither were mentioned in his pitiful press conference.

He doesn't have to explain any of that. The burden of proof is on the gov. And they are going to have a very hard to proving he got any of this in exchange for an official act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His argument is that he’s worried that the United States government will start confiscating cash just just like the totalitarian regime his family fled.
Wonderful.

And, claiming that he has withdrawn $480,000 from his personal savings will need to be proven by him. This should be fun.

I wonder how he will explain away the gold bars or the Mercedes. Neither were mentioned in his pitiful press conference.

He doesn't have to explain any of that. The burden of proof is on the gov. And they are going to have a very hard to proving he got any of this in exchange for an official act.

I wouldn't be so sure.
First, he made this comment publicly. They can access his bank records to see about that $480,000. That would be a hellovalot of withdrawals. Should be easy to check.

Secondly, there are others involved here. And, supposedly their DNA is on the cash. I see a plea deal with one or more of his co-conspirators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His argument is that he’s worried that the United States government will start confiscating cash just just like the totalitarian regime his family fled.
Wonderful.

And, claiming that he has withdrawn $480,000 from his personal savings will need to be proven by him. This should be fun.

I wonder how he will explain away the gold bars or the Mercedes. Neither were mentioned in his pitiful press conference.

He doesn't have to explain any of that. The burden of proof is on the gov. And they are going to have a very hard to proving he got any of this in exchange for an official act.

I wouldn't be so sure.
First, he made this comment publicly. They can access his bank records to see about that $480,000. That would be a hellovalot of withdrawals. Should be easy to check.

Secondly, there are others involved here. And, supposedly their DNA is on the cash. I see a plea deal with one or more of his co-conspirators.

What does it matter if he made the comment publicly? The cash probably did come from someone else. Just like the vacations, Rolex, cash, and golf equipment that McDonnell got came from someone else. Problem is that it's no longer illegal for elected officials to take that stuff so long as the quid pro quo isn't too clear or the quo is just setting up meetings or talking to other officials.