Federal prosecutors went to courtroom final month with what appeared like a slam-dunk case that New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez had accepted bribes to assist the governments of Egypt and Qatar whereas he was the highest Democrat on the Senate Overseas Relations Committee.
Prosecutors have the gold bars Menendez supposedly acquired as a corrupt cost, a cooperating witness, and textual content messages that, they are saying, confirmed the senator promising to take votes and different official actions in trade for bribes.
However the prosecution is being difficult by the Structure’s Speech or Debate Clause—or a minimum of by the trial decide’s expansive studying of it. This provision goals to permit lawmakers to keep away from authorized legal responsibility for issues they are saying or do in Congress. The concept is to guard elected representatives from being sued or prosecuted for performing their constitutional duties.
You would possibly assume that this clause—whereas sensibly defending lawmakers from issues like libel fits or legal expenses over controversial ground speeches—would have a carveout for public corruption circumstances. It, the truth is, doesn’t. Learn actually, it seems fairly broad. “For any speech or debate in both Home, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in some other place,” it says.
The feds had argued they might sidestep this provision by avoiding proof regarding officers acts Menendez took. As a substitute, they deliberate to give attention to textual content messages associated to his alleged guarantees to take corrupt actions.
However final week, following the trial was effectively underway, US District Decide Sidney Stein stated he would bar prosecutors from introducing textual content messages that, they allege, confirmed the individuals who bribed Menendez discussing “getting their cash’s price” from the senator.
The federal government objected furiously, arguing the ruling would permit lawmakers to be all however immune from prosecution for taking bribes in trade for legislative acts.
The clause is “not designed to make members of Congress tremendous residents immune from all legal accountability,” Assistant US Lawyer Paul Monteleoni argued in courtroom.
“It’s troublesome to see how any gratuity cost may ever be confirmed if Menendez had been appropriate that such proof is barred,” prosecutors argued in a movement. However Stein, a Invoice Clinton appointee, rejected the federal government’s request that he rethink.
In the meantime, Menendez’s legal professionals are working to make use of the Speech or Debate Clause knock out different proof prosecutors hope to current. On Friday, the protection requested Stein to bar the federal government from citing a 2019 electronic mail from Menenedez to an alleged conspirator through which Menendez hooked up the textual content of a invoice he sponsored that may doubtless have benefited Egypt. The protection stated that whereas his sponsoring the measure was unmentioned within the electronic mail, the “implication” of his help meant that introducing it in courtroom might be unconstitutional.
That movement is pending. However thus far, the fallout from Menendez’s trial seems to be (but once more) like excellent news for lawmakers accused of corruption. Donald Trump, it appears, isn’t the one politician who may quickly be basically immune from prosecution.
