[MUSIC]

David Furst: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm David Furst, WNYC's weekend edition host filling in for Brian. On today's show, we'll get to the big political news of the morning in about an hour, which is how did Biden do? He held a highly anticipated press conference yesterday evening where he spoke for about an hour after the NATO summit. A lot of the pundits today say he fielded a number of tough questions and handled things pretty well, but we will ask you to weigh in of course. Again, that's going to be coming up at about eleven o'clock this morning.

Plus we'll try to understand a little bit about why Amtrak has been having major service issues on the Northeast corridor this summer. Plus, it is the last full sun Manhattanhenge of the year this evening. An astrophysicist will explain the phenomenon for us and talk about a party that the American Museum of Natural History is throwing to celebrate. First, closing statements wrapped up this week in the federal corruption trial of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. Jury deliberations are expected to get underway this morning. Menendez is charged with bribery and corruption along with his wife and two businessmen.

A third businessman who was charged pleaded guilty and testified during the trial. The Senator's wife, Nadine, will stand trial at a later date. Over the last several weeks, US attorneys described what they say was a scheme where New Jersey's senior US Senator did favors for Egypt and tried to intervene in criminal cases and in exchange received gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz convertible, and more than a $500,000 in cash. Menendez pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing. His lawyer says the Senator has only been doing his job and doing it well.

Meanwhile, election. An election is underway for his Senate seat to Democratic Congressman Andy Kim is running against Republican businessman, Curtis Bashaw in the general election this November. Menendez, who is a Democrat, has also filed to run for reelection this time as an Independent. WNYC's Nancy Solomon joins us now with all of the latest. She hosts Ask Governor Murphy for WNYC, and the podcast, Dead End, a New Jersey political murder mystery. Nancy has been covering the Garden State for over two decades. Is that right, Nancy?

Nancy Solomon: That's right.

David Furst: You are a knower of things, all things Jersey. Welcome to the Brian Lehrer Show.

Nancy Solomon: [chuckles] Thanks, David.

David Furst: Nancy, as I was just suggesting during that lengthy introduction there, there was a lot to digest over the last few weeks. Can you sum up the charges in the Menendez case and the government's case?

Nancy Solomon: Right. Most of it is about bribery. I'd say the strength of their case is the cash that you mentioned, $500,000 in cash that was hidden in their home, stuffed into jacket pockets and a pair of boots and shopping bags, and a duffel bag. Then there were the gold bars. Some of the cash and the gold bars could be traced directly to one of the businessmen charged in the scheme, Fred Daibes. I think some of the gold bars were registered to him previously and his fingerprints were found on a few of the envelopes of cash.

Basically, what the government alleges and the case that they put on is that these three businessmen, one who has pled guilty and testified against Menendez and two others who were on trial with the Senator, that the three of them gave both Nadine and Bob Menendez gifts and cash and gold and a Mercedes-Benz, an elliptical, [laughs] all kinds of things and in exchange, what they wanted was help for various things.

There was the deal to help support one of them while Hana get a monopoly on-- he had a monopoly on certifying halal meat for all US meat exports to Egypt. He had recently gotten that and the USDA was not happy about this. There had previously been four American companies doing it, and they didn't like the idea of only one or a monopoly. Menendez made a call to the USDA head to say, this guy is my constituent and stop harassing him. He should have a monopoly. There's that case.

Then he met with and allegedly helped Egyptian government officials, notably military and intelligence officials, gain weapon sales that they had previously had from the United States. Those weapon sales had been put on hold over human rights violations. Senator Menendez advocated for the release of those deals. He was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I think most critically one piece of evidence is that he ghostwrote a letter to other senators that Egypt was making the case for themselves that they should get these weapon sales. That letter that he ghost wrote, he didn't submit it through his staff, but he wrote it and sent it to Nadine, and his wife, who might have been his girlfriend at the time. At any rate, then Nadine sent it on to Wael Hana, the Egyptian businessman who had the monopoly on the Halal meat. Then there were two cases of going to either the Attorney general or the US attorney in New Jersey asking that cases be dropped, criminal cases against two of the businessmen.

David Furst: Going back to the scene that you were setting there, there's so many eye-popping details. It's easy to get carried away by a lot of them. There's images of cash stuffed into boots. Getting down to this, what does the government have to do to prove that there was a favor done in exchange for gifts?

Nancy Solomon: They have to prove that there was what is referred to as a quid pro quo. A quid pro quo, Latin for this for that. The crux of the case is whether or not the government can prove that Robert Menendez did official acts to help people who were paying him for it. It can't just be that he accepted the gifts and that that's wrong. There has to be a connection between the gifts and the actions, official actions as a senator that he took. That is the crucial thing. It's where the testimony of Jose Uribe is most critical because this is the businessman. He owns a couple of insurance and trucking companies.

David Furst: This is the one that pleaded guilty.

Nancy Solomon: Yes, that pled guilty and testified. He testified that he did indeed buy Nadine a Mercedes-Benz and give cash to the Menendezes and that he met with the Senator and he gave him the names of the people in the case that he was worried about. He wasn't a named defendant in the case, but people connected to him more. That was the crucial moment where he finally got to meet with the Senator and ask for his help. Of course, the senator's defense is, I help my constituents every day, I take meetings. This one was late at night on the back patio of his home, but, I take meetings, I help constituents, I help my friends. My friends give me gifts because they're generous.

David Furst: I should mention that, listeners, you can join the conversation. We're already getting some calls right now. If you have a question about the trial or if you just want to share your thoughts on the second corruption trial for Senator Bob Menendez, call us at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text that number. New Jersey listeners, especially anyone planning to vote for Senator Menendez in the fall, he is running as an Independent, or perhaps former Menendez voters, give us a call to talk about how you are thinking about him now after these bribery accusations. 212-433-9692. Just, Nancy, to talk about the stakes for a moment here, if convicted, what happens with Menendez?

Nancy Solomon: If he's convicted, he faces some very serious prison time. These are serious charges. There are 16 counts against him. I would be very doubtful that he wouldn't go to prison. For how long, it seems that's anybody's guess in terms of what the judge would decide. They're very serious cases. Then of course, if he's acquitted, does he continue to run for office? He made the case very early on in this whole thing that he wanted to come to trial quickly. He wanted to show that he wanted to be exonerated.

He believed he would be exonerated. Then he would revive his political career by continuing to try to run for and hold onto his seat. The judge accommodated him. Nadine Menendez, his wife, is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. She needed time to recover from surgery and wasn't going to be ready for the May 13th trial start date. The judge, instead of delaying the whole thing, he split her off from the trial. She will be tried later this summer, presumably. He has maintained his innocence, and not just that he's innocent, but that he intends to hold onto his seat.

David Furst: You mentioned what he was talking about in his defense. Can you sum up the argument from his team?

Nancy Solomon: Yes, of course. The cash and the gold, of course, it looks so bad. Let's just put it that way. It's obviously been the focus of so much of the media attention and the public perception of this case, is really the shocking amount of cash and gold that he had in his house. Menendez says he didn't testify, but they put his sister on the stand to testify that the Menendez parents, when they fled Cuba during the revolution and came to the United States, that they always had this belief that you couldn't put your money in the bank, that it wouldn't be safe, and that you needed to hide it at home.

The defense wanted to actually have a psychologist or psychiatrist testify about the post-traumatic stress that Senator Menendez has from his growing up being afraid of losing everything you had because you fled Cuba as a refugee. He didn't flee. He was born here, but that his parents had fled. They weren't allowed to put that testimony in, but his sister did testify that his parents hid their cash in a grandfather clock and that he basically did the same. His other part of his defense is that Nadine didn't tell him that she was in financial trouble and that she was accepting gifts, mortgage payments, gold bars from her friends.

This is where the separation of their case is so important because the defense was able to blame a lot of this on Nadine without imperiling her because she's not the one on trial at the moment. This jury isn't deciding anything about Nadine, so they could really put it all on her. Now, of course, there is a trail of texts between the couple that really chip away at that defense, because there was a lot of communication between them. Not specifically about gold bars, although Senator Menendez did Google how much is gold worth. At one point, that was in close proximity to one of his meetings--

David Furst: Famous Google search, for sure.

Nancy Solomon: [chuckles] Yes. You have the fingerprints and the tie of the gold bars to Fred Dabes, the real estate developer from Edgewater who is also charged in this case. Basically, the defense says he's a wealthy man who's very successful and he's very generous. Gold bars are something that he collects and that he gives as gifts to everybody. He gives gifts. He goes to a wedding, he gives a gold bar. That he was 1 of 60 people-- I thought this was a good little detail that the defense brought up in their closing argument the other day.

That Fred Dabes was 1 of only 60 guests at the Menendez wedding a couple years ago. That is the argument. Let's just remind listeners that Bob Menendez was charged with bribery once before. In 2015 and in his 2017 trial, the cornerstone of his defense was that the Florida eye doctor that gave him gifts and trips, and all kinds of things, that they were very close friends and that they had been for 20 years. They were both Latino, and this was their connection, and that it went way back. Again, he's saying, I have these wealthy friends like me and give me stuff.

David Furst: I should have been rethinking my wedding registry back in the day. I want to get to some callers. A lot of people calling in right now, Nancy. I mentioned at the very top that deliberations are supposed to be getting underway this morning. What happens now? When might we hear a verdict?

Nancy Solomon: There's no telling how long the jury will be out. They're getting the case literally right about now. There's 18 counts that they've got to go through, and 3 defendants. Some defendants on some counts, some defendants on the others. That's a lot to go through all of those counts. It's a complicated case, and they've been through two months of testimony. I would be surprised if they came back today. They could. It's humanly possible, but I think next week seems a lot more likely.

David Furst: If you want to join the conversation, 212-433-WNYC, that's 212-433-9692. As we get to our first caller, I want to bring the Supreme Court into this conversation. Did the Supreme Court just make it harder to get a conviction in a case like this? Last month as reported by the Associated Press, the court overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor, a move that was seen as the latest in a series of decisions that narrow the scope of federal public corruption law. Do these rulings make it more difficult to win a case like this one against Senator Menendez? We have a caller joining us now. Tom from Sea Bright, New Jersey, good morning.

Tom: Good morning. I'm proud to be from what I think is one of the most corrupt states in the nation. I was going to ask about the Supreme Court case. They seem to be covering their own tales since the McDonnell case back in Virginia in 2015 and '16. They've been cutting back on the honest services charges that the prosecutors can bring against corrupt politicians. Now, they just did something.

I don't know how many people are aware of it. I forget the name of the case, but it was in the past week and a half where they said like, if you give somebody a bribe upfront, that could be a bribe, but if you give it to them after they do what you want them to do, it's just a gift. [laughs] I see this coming back after Menendez is convicted. I hope. They're saying how this changed the whole legal process and he should get a new trial. What does your guest think about that?

David Furst: Nancy, what's your take on that? Does it make it more difficult to win a case like this one?

Nancy Solomon: I think the description of that Indiana case is exactly right, that it now makes it much harder to charge someone with taking what's called a gratuity, which is after the fact, as opposed to a bribe which is before the fact. I think the most critical case is the Bob McDonnell case. He was a Virginia governor who was convicted of bribery. The Supreme Court overturned that case, I believe in 2016. Basically, they narrowed what an official act must be to be able to charge a public official with bribery.

If I understand it correctly, setting up a meeting, or talking to another official, or organizing an event without more action doesn't fit that definition of an official act. Definitely, this is the most central question in this case. I think whether or not, whatever the jury decides about it, I would be very surprised if Menendez is convicted. We will see an appeal, and I think the appeal will be precisely on this issue from the McDonald case.

His lawyers will argue that he didn't take enough of an official act to benefit the businessmen who bribed him, and that it is the quo in the quid pro quo. This came up during--the whole case really revolves around it as far as the defense is concerned and they brought it up with every witness, and they brought it up in their closing. Yes, to the caller's question, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for prosecutors to get bribery charges, some to get convictions on them.

David Furst: Let's hear now from Alan calling from Brooklyn. Alan, did you want to talk about the very same topic?

Alan: Yes. Another angle of it. It seems now in retrospect that the McDonell decision, which was around 2015 weakening bribery laws, was before we found out about the vast gifts going to Alito and Thomas, an several years after those gifts were beginning to be received by them. It looks to me like at least several of the justices on the court were deliberately recalibrating the bribery standards to make it more likely that their behavior would task muster, knowing that they were doing something that would've been convictable bribery when it began.

That's the real manipulation of the law that's supposed to be for all people in the country and not just for their own personal gain. Another angle here that I just heard the guest mentioning is that if you're going to narrow the scope of what's considered official act for purposes of getting people out of bribery charges, at the same time that the court is broadening the concept of official acts to allow president's immunity, that seems to be a paradox waiting to fall apart. I don't know how they'll handle that, but they're going in two directions at once.

Nancy Solomon: We're getting into territory here that is beyond the scope of my reporting personally. I can't weigh in legally on what constitutionally is going on and what that might bring in the future, but I think you raise very good points. I think there's a lot in the Menendez case that makes one wonder about Clarence Thomas and all the reporting and everything that's come out about the gifts that he took. I think it's a very fair question to raise.

David Furst: We're going to hear much more about the Bob Menendez trial with WNYC's Nancy Solomon here on the Brian Lehrer Show, and get to more of your calls. 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. A very short break. This is the Brian Lehrer Show here on WNYC.

[MUSIC]

David Furst: It is the Brian Lehrer Show here on WNYC. As the jury deliberations are expected to be getting underway this morning, we're talking about the Federal corruption trial of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. I'm David Furst. We're here with WNYC's Nancy Solomon. We are taking your calls, 212-433-9692. Let's hear from Paul in Montclair. Good morning and welcome to WNYC.

Paul: Hi. Good morning.

David Furst: Did you have a question about the trial?

Paul: Sure. Let me just give a quick context. We lived in Hudson County decades ago when Senator Menendez was Congressman Menendez. There were always rumors, suggestions that he may not have been the politician with the cleanest hands. My question simply is, why now? Was it just the evidence presented? was it the timing? Was it the closet full of gold bars? Just generally speaking, this is somebody that back to 2015 was charged but beforehand, there was a quiet understanding that he was not clean.

David Furst: That's the question. Why now? Nancy, and I'll expand on that just a little bit, Senator Menendez has been tried for corruption before. That ended in a mistrial. This was back in 2017 when--

Nancy Solomon: On jury.

David Furst: Thank you. They were unable to reach a verdict. Can you remind us about that case? Talk about what might be different this time. Why now?

Nancy Solomon: The indictment that occurred in 2015 and was tried in 2017 revolved around a very wealthy, successful Florida eye doctor and his gifts to Senator Menendez, and calls that Senator Menendez made on his behalf involving a couple different things. A problem that he was having with, I think it was either Medicare or Medicaid payments. I think maybe it was Medicare. Then calls on his behalf to get visas for, I think it was girlfriends to come from the Dominican Republic and live in the United States. The case was more complicated in some ways and less clear.

I think pretty much anyone would agree with the statement that that case was a weaker case than the one that's been brought now. As I said, Menendez's defense revolved around the fact that this was his friend and that traveling with him and getting trips to Paris and whatnot, that was just part of the friendship. That was the first case. I think this case seems to have risen up to the FBI and the US attorney's office largely because the USDA, the agricultural department, was concerned after Menendez made a call on behalf of Wael Hana, the guy who had the monopoly on Halal meat certification.

They were very unhappy about that decision. Then when Menendez made the call, I think that's what started to raise red flags. I will say one other thing. When the FBI agents were sent to the Nadine and Bob Menendez's home to search it and to look for cash and valuables, they were given directions by the investigative team. These are guys who just do the search.

They weren't investigating Menendez. They were given very specific instructions. We want you to take photos of any valuables that you see in the home, but leave everything in its place and don't make a big mess, and don't let anyone know that you're there because we don't want to embarrass the Senator. We're just investigating and we don't know what you're going to find. They go and they start finding stacks of cash and gold bars and--

David Furst: I would like to be on the other end of that conversation. Did you find anything?

Nancy Solomon: They're supposed to photograph it and leave everything. The agent in charge of the search made a game day call. Like, no, this is evidence of a crime, all of this cash and these gold bars, and so we are going to take it. We are going to log it and we're going to seize it. There was the Mercedes Benz also sitting in the driveway. They had to call in extra agents to help them with this because this is not what they were preparing to do. A lot of the case then derives from that search where they try to figure out, where did this money come from, and why would it be that someone would be giving this money to Nadine and Bob Menendez?

David Furst: The Wall Street Journal looked back to that first corruption trial this week. The article made the point that back then, people in Washington stuck by him in 2017, but not this time.

Nancy Solomon: That was a very different moment for Democrats in New Jersey. Chris Christie, a Republican was the governor. If Bob Menendez had stepped down anytime during that trial or after the indictment, then it would've been a Republican who would've taken his place until the next election could be held. Democrats really lined up behind him because I think it's fair to say they didn't really have a lot of choice in terms of the politics of the moment.

This time, there's a Democratic governor in office. These charges are a lot more serious, particularly since it involves doing favors for a foreign country when you're the sitting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Given the seriousness and the learned details that came out, I think it was both political and strategic for leadership in the Democratic Party in New Jersey to split from Menendez and call for him to resign.

David Furst: Nancy, as a seasoned New Jersey reporter, I just want to hear your thoughts on this. How wild is it that Senator Menendez is on his second major corruption trial? I want to be clear, he says he's not guilty, he says he hasn't been involved in any wrongdoing, but the fact that he's on his second major corruption trial itself, does that say something about how things are done in the state?

Nancy Solomon: Yes. Here, let me add to that question by also including the fact that the last time a sitting US Senator was convicted of bribery and corruption, now there was one conviction that was overturned, so I'm not including that one, goes back to Harrison Williams who was a New Jersey senator, and in 1981? I'm sorry, I can't remember what year it was.

David Furst: That's okay.

Nancy Solomon: It was something like 42 years ago he was convicted. There hasn't been one since. It's not like sitting senators get convicted of bribery and corruption on a regular basis. This is a huge case. It's not usual, it's unusual. If Menendez is convicted, you have to go back 42 years to find another one.

David Furst: Looking ahead to November, how will the specter of this trial hang over the election? I'm asking about the Senate race, but perhaps even beyond that.

Nancy Solomon: It's interesting because on the one hand, it's not good for Democrats in New Jersey to have one of their guys be convicted of such serious charges. On the other hand, you have Andy Kim, the Congressman who represents Burlington County, who is now the nominee for the Democrats to replace Menendez in the Senate. Andy Kim ran on a anti-corruption platform during the primary. He took on First Lady Tammy Murphy, and there was a lot of outrage in the state that the governor was trying to get his wife elected to the Senate.

He took her on and he won. He took on the system and he won, in terms of the machine power that was supporting her. I think that Democrats, they're rallying around Andy Kim. I think there's a very good chance he'll win in November, although if Menendez is acquitted, and that's certainly a possibility, he has filed to run as an Independent. I don't think anyone would predict that he could win that race, but he could certainly make it easier for the Republican, Curtis Bashaw, to win the election if he is able to siphon enough votes away from Andy Kim.

David Furst: As we have been covering here on WNYC, Nancy, New Jersey is having quite a year in political news. In other major legal news, there is the indictment of George Norcross, which you have been covering very closely. Long considered one of the most powerful men in New Jersey. You have been investigating and reporting on the South Jersey party boss for the past five years. Can you briefly, if possible, remind us about the details in this case and bring us any updates?

Nancy Solomon: It's so crazy that so much has happened this year in terms of New Jersey politics and corruption. George Norcross and the indictment of George Norcross hasn't gotten the kind of attention that Bob Menendez has gotten, largely because he's not elected to anything. His name, while well known in New Jersey, isn't as well known as Bob Menendez, and certainly not nationally and even not in New Jersey, not as well known. This case is, in some ways, it's more complicated, but it really could have a much larger impact on New Jersey politics.

Because what you have is you have a South Jersey political boss who runs the Democratic Party and has enormous influence over elected officials across from the smallest units of government, like little city councils, up to state senators and state assembly people, and influence with the governor. I won't say he controls the governor, but they started out fighting each other and now have become allies. He's been charged with a racketeering case, meaning that he ran a criminal enterprise. This is the allegation, that he ran a criminal enterprise that used his political power and influence to extort property and development rights from the rightful owners.

A nonprofit in Camden and a very large real estate developer who had the rights to develop residential property on the Camden Waterfront, and that he defrauded the state with the state tax breaks that he was able to get to build buildings on the Camden Waterfront. That's a huge case. You think $500,000 in cash and gold bars is a lot. This case represents $1 billion worth of state tax breaks that could have to be paid back. It involves his brother, who's a lawyer and a lobbyist, who is not known at all, and it brings him into the spotlight. All of this, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, number one.

At the very least, it shows that we've got a attorney general in office right now, Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is taking matters of political corruption very seriously. He's brought a case that we have not seen the likes of in 20 years in New Jersey, despite everyone knowing that this corruption basically existed in broad daylight, you could see it, and there were no criminal cases. Now, the Norcross defense says there were no criminal cases because there's no criminality. This guy just happens to be a tough negotiator and a tough political ballplayer.

David Furst: A lot to follow in the days and weeks and months ahead. As we're wrapping up, Nancy, is there any other New Jersey news you want to get to? What about Democrats in the New Jersey congressional delegation? Have any of them weighed in on the question of President Biden and whether he should or should not stay in the race?

Nancy Solomon: I found this pretty interesting and surprising. Representative Mikie Sherrill, who represents the 11th District, which is essentially-- it's Montclair, Maplewood, South Orange, which is the very dyed-in-wool blue, progressive side of the district and then out through much more moderate suburbs and into the rural parts of Western Jersey. She was elected in 2018. She's considered pretty moderate as far as Democrats go. She has called for Biden to drop out of the race, and it becomes the first member of the delegation to do so.

Andy Kim has taken a much more-- I don't know if it's-- I'll call it mealy mouthed because I think that's what it is. He says, , he's concerned, but he hasn't called for him to drop out. Everybody else is waiting and staying silent. I think it'll be very interesting to watch this. Certainly, Democrats are talking about this incessantly. It'll be interesting to see how the New Jersey delegation shakes down.

David Furst: We'll hear more about how Democrats are talking about that later this hour here on WNYC. Nancy Solomon, jury deliberations expected to be getting underway this morning in the trial of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. We will have updates here on WNYC as soon as there is news to report. In fact, we'll hear more tomorrow morning on This Week in Politics during Weekend Edition here on WNYC, with you, Nancy.

Nancy Solomon: Can't wait.

David Furst: WNYC's Nancy Solomon. Thanks for joining us.

Nancy Solomon: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.