[link removed] [[link removed]] John, Senator Bob Menendez’s corruption trial begins today.
Menendez and his wife are charged with accepting $566,000 in cash, $150,000 in gold bars and a drop-top Mercedes-Benz from businessmen in exchange for his willingness to use his political power to help allies in New Jersey and the governments of Egypt and Qatar.
As a U.S. senator and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez has a duty to serve Americans and uphold the Constitution. Rather than protect the public interest, Menendez allegedly used his office to profit — but whether he’s held accountable for engaging in bribery hinges on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a lesser-known law.
We’ll explain, but first, make a donation to CREW today as we fight to hold politicians like Menendez accountable → [[link removed]]If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:
Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]
Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]
Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]
The government’s case makes it clear that Menendez committed numerous official acts to conspire and aid the co-defendants and the Egyptian government — and then sought any opportunity to cover up the bribes. But ultimately, this case will be decided on the Supreme Court’s narrow case law interpreting Section 201(a)(3), known as the bribery statute.
Specifically, the statute prohibits giving or accepting anything of value to or by a public official if the thing is given “with intent to influence any official act,” or if it is received by the official in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Under the bribery statute, an “official act means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.”
But the interpretation of this law has narrowed over time.
Now, courts use the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonnell v. United States as the framework for determining whether or not a public official committed an “official act” within the meaning of the criminal bribery statute. Under the Supreme Court’s reading, a general pressure campaign to help a patron is not an official act. Rather, under McDonnell, an official act only occurs when a public official makes a decision or takes an action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” like a lawsuit or an agency determination.
Senator Bob Menendez’s alleged participation in a multi-year corruption scheme is a clear example of the risks to our democracy when top government officials fail to meet the most basic ethical standards.
But while Menendez should be convicted of bribery [[link removed]] , the Court’s recent judicial interpretation of Section 201 is making even this slam dunk case more challenging. We’ll be here to break it down every step of the way.
If you believe we need to hold our elected leaders accountable no matter the obstacles, then make a donation to CREW and help us continue our work → [[link removed]]
Thank you,
Team CREW
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add
[email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
Sign up to receive our messages straight to your phone! This is the best and fastest way to support CREW's work. Text 'JOIN' to 40234 to get updates. Txt STOP 2 end, HELP 4 help.
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2023
CFC 42218
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States
