Sitting Democratic Senator Robert Menendez on trial for corruption charges

Does anyone even know this? The trial as been ongoing for nearly a month, and the major networks have given it a cumulative total of two minutes of coverage. How on earth can that possibly be? Only one plausible explanation, our democratic media does everything to protect democrats, destroy republicans and spin everything they can possibly spin. They're enabled by the fucking idiots that they target.

Menendez is accused of taking bribes from a wealthy businessman, a doctor named Melgen. Menendez is accused of accepting lavish gifts from the billionaire, including the use of private jets and fully paid for vacations. Their relationship has enabled the Senator to live a lavish lifestyle he could never afford to live otherwise.

In return, Menendez intervened with medicare on the doctor's behalf. He pressured medicare to release millions of dollars of disputed billings to the doctor's medical practice. One medicare doctor said a Menendez staffer told him to release the funds, that the case is very close to Senator, and that the practice of "bad medicine is not illegal".

As it turns out, the Senator was helping a Doctor that was subsequently convicted on 67 counts in a $ 105,000,000 medicare fraud scheme, that's right 105 million dollars. The Democratic Senator also intervened and helped obtain visas for friends of the doctors that were previously denied.

The Democratic Senator's defense? He and the doctor are friends, and friends give gifts to each other. Seriously, that's the defense, the Senator was just helping a constituent which is what Senators are supposed to do and the doctor gave him lavish gifts because they were friends. Menendez might be acquitted too, as it appears the jury is hung right now. They must a found a few democratic jurors, a/k/a fucking idiots, they are buying into that "they were friends" defense. Using that idiocy, no politician can ever be convicted.

"The defense does not dispute the core facts of the case. They admit that Menendez had ready access to the private jets and resorts paid for by Melgen. They admit Menendez got visas for the girlfriends, intervened on the port-security contract and demanded HHS allow Melgen to keep overbilling Medicare. But they are innocent, the defense says, because the government is trying to criminalize friendship."

In Connecticut, a former Republican Governor was convicted of corruption and went to jail for accepting a hot tub from a Connecticut contractor. The builder installed a hot tub in his second home, and that was considered bribery.

The entire case gets no coverage, I doubt anyone in this country knows the facts, and if Menendez pulls an OJ, I guarantee you the acquittal will get more coverage than the case.

The defense does not dispute the core facts of the case. They admit that Menendez had ready access to the private jets and resorts paid for by Melgen. They admit Menendez got visas for the girlfriends, intervened on the port-security contract and demanded HHS allow Melgen to keep overbilling Medicare. But they are innocent, the defense says, because the government is trying to criminalize friendship.

It should be noted, it was Obama's justice department that started this investigation and brought the criminal charges against Menendez

If GOP would be getting "slightly" more coverage.

The media and press are somehow completely controlled by the far left. Everything: TV, newspapers*, Hollywood, and throw in the universities. No one is allowed to go off script.
Fox is allowed to provide false hope for those of us who still have traditional American values, believe in capitalism, nationalism, and Judeo-Christian values.
We see Fox and hear rational approach to issues but it is not real, the 98% of the rest are hearing far left socialist-PC-globalist propaganda 24/7. Late night TV is the worst, Kimmel, Colbert, Meyers, all spew lies that people are too lazy or dumb to know otherwise. Ridicule is their main weapon, sound familiar?
"It" is happening one brick at a time while we watch...



* pop quiz: how many newspapers does Warren Buffet control? What person controls the NYT? What person controls the Wash Post?

Willie99 said:

It should be noted, it was Obama's justice department that started this investigation and brought the criminal charges against Menendez

Click to expand...

Mendendez, from what I have read, is absolutely guilty, but you conveniently overlooked that the bar has been set low by the dumb ass Supreme Court reversal-unanimous, no less-in the trial of that Republican scum Bob McDonnell. Corrupt scumbag got rolodex at fancy cars up the ass, and they overturned it:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016...-bob-mcdonnells-corruption-convictions-224833

[h=1]Supreme Court overturns Bob McDonnell’s corruption convictions[/h]
By JOSH GERSTEIN
06/27/2016 10:33 AM EDT
Updated 06/27/2016 02:37 PM EDT

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a "boundless" definition of the kinds of acts that could lead politicians to face criminal charges.
The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or gift to a contract, grant or vote.



The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the government's position that simply agreeing to meet with someone on account of such largesse could be enough to constitute an official act that could trigger a corruption conviction.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute," Roberts wrote. "A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."
The justices set forth a straightforward rule: "Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act.’”
In addition, the chief justice warned that accepting the government's stance in the case could chill all sorts of routine interactions between politicians and their supporters.
"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns—whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm," Roberts wrote.
"The Government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse," the chief justice added.A jury convicted McDonnell on 11 corruption-related felony counts in 2014, including “honest services” fraud, extortion and conspiracy.The trial triggered public outrage as evidence showed the Virginia Republican and his wife accepted over $175,000-worth of loans and gifts, such as vacations, designer clothes and a Rolex watch, from a businessman seeking the state’s help in promoting a tobacco-based dietary supplement. McDonnell also borrowed a Ferrari from the businessman, Johnnie Williams, who turned state's evidence and was not prosecuted.In the court's opinion, Roberts seemed eager to head off criticism that the justices were blessing politicians' brazen attempts to improve their own financial condition through use of their official positions.However, the chief justice emphasized that there were also risks in allowing prosecutors to decide for themselves what kinds of conduct crossed the line.




"None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction between public officials and their constituents. Far from it. But the Government’s legal interpretation is not confined to cases involving extravagant gifts or large sums of money and we cannot construe a criminal statute on the assumption that the Government will ‘use it responsibly,’” Roberts wrote.
McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison, but never began serving the time after the Supreme Court put his sentence on hold last year.
In a statement, McDonnell thanked his legal team and repeatedly invoked his religious faith.
"From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not, betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," the former governor said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild our lives."
In an interview Monday, a lawyer for McDonnell hailed the court's unanimous decision as a blunt rebuke of the prosecution.
"The court squarely rejected the entire theory this prosecution was based on from the beginning and embraced the theory we've been articulating literally from day one on this case," said Noel Francisco, the attorney who argued for McDonnell at the Supreme court. "We think it's a vindication for the governor."
McDonnell's wife, Maureen, was also convicted for conspiracy by the same jury and sentenced to a year and a day in prison. She was free pending appeal. Her attorney, William Burck, expressed confidence Monday that her conviction will also be overturned.
"This decision applies no less to our client Maureen McDonnell and requires that her conviction immediately be tossed out as well, which we are confident the prosecutors must agree with," Burck said in a statement. "Mrs. McDonnell, like her husband, was wrongfully convicted. We thank the Supreme Court for unanimously bringing justice back into the picture for the McDonnells."
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, whose office prosecuted the McDonnells, issued a terse statement about the high court's ruling.
"The U.S. Attorney’s Office is reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision in the McDonnell matter and does not have any further comment at this time," Boente said.
Despite the public outcry over the McDonnells' actions, his challenge to his convictions received a groundswell of support from public officials, ex-prosecutors and former legal advisers to presidents of both major parties.
In a series of amicus briefs filed with the high court, the former officials warned that giving anti-corruption laws the sweeping breadth urged by the Justice Department would have dramatically constrained the normal operation of government.
The Supreme Court noted those briefs in its opinion Monday—the final one delivered before the typical summer break. The ruling also allowed the shorthanded court, through the voice of its chief, to emphasize agreement at the end of a term where the justice deadlocked in a series of cases.

Mistrial declared.