A federal appeals court in Philadelphia is letting the charges of corruption and bribery against Sen.
Advertisement
“The predominant goal of the challenged acts was to pursue a political resolution to Dr. Melgen’s disputes and not to discuss broader issues of policy, vet a presidential nominee or engage in informal information gathering for legislation”, the appeals court wrote.
The ruling Friday was a victory for the U.S. Justice Department. “Senator Menendez’s selective reading of the materials in the record does not persuade us that the District Court clearly erred in its findings of fact or that it incorrectly applied any law”. Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
The senator has pledged to stay in office while defending himself, but has given up his post as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
A federal appeals court has refused to dismiss corruption charges against U.S. Sen.
The meetings in dispute include one on June 7, 2012, between Menendez and his staff and Marilyn Tavenner, then the acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to advocate on Melgen’s behalf in the billing dispute.
Menendez stands accused of accepting bribes from a wealthy doctor, Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, who allegedly plied him with gifts and campaign donations in exchange for political influence.
Last September, U.S. District Judge William Walls in Newark dismissed four bribery counts but left most of the government’s case intact.
Attorneys representing the New Jersey Democrat argued that he was protected from prosecution under the “Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which protects lawmakers from prosecution over matters concerning legislative activities”.
“The acts alleged in this case were essentially lobbying on behalf of a particular party”, the court said, “and thus, under the specific circumstances, are outside the constitutional safe harbor”.
There is “a sufficient basis for the district court’s conclusion that the predominant objective of the challenged acts was to pursue a political resolution to Dr. Melgen’s disputes”, Ambro wrote. “It was not to engage in true legislative oversight or otherwise influence broad matters of policy”. But that’s for a jury to work out at trial, the court said.
Friday’s decision did not address the merits of the charges and noted that there is some evidence in favor of Menendez.
“We. take seriously the sentiments and concerns of the Supreme Court that members [of Congress] are not to be “super-citizens” immune from criminal liability or process”, Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote for the panel.
Advertisement
“You have to inquire into the content and goal to determine whether or not it is protected by the Speech or Debate clause”, Koski said. Lowell said that case raised “important” issues that need to be addressed.
