Ex-senator's wife, convicted in bribery scheme, seeks new trial
The wife of former Sen. Bob Menendez has asked a federal judge to overturn her bribery conviction, saying prosecutors wrongly forced her to change lawyers less than a year before her trial over a 'manufactured' conflict of interest.
Nadine Arslanian Menendez had to hire new attorneys in a hurry last year after prosecutors said they might call attorney David Schertler, who had represented her for nearly two years, as a trial witness to testify about information he'd shared with the prosecution during pre-indictment negotiations.
But prosecutors never called Schertler to the stand during a three-week trial in Manhattan that ended in April, when jurors found Nadine Menendez guilty of accepting bribes including gold bars, cash, and a luxury car in exchange for power and political influence and of trying to hide her actions from federal investigators.
Prosecutors' 'improper government interference' with her legal representation violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of her choice, her new attorneys, Sarah R. Krissoff and Andrew Vazquez, wrote in a motion filed Friday.
'To be clear — the Government has broad discretion to choose which witnesses to call and which evidence to offer in proving its case. But the Government cannot create a conflict, forcing Mr. Schertler to be a witness against his own client and to withdraw from the case, and then secretly decide not to call Mr. Schertler or offer any evidence regarding the Government's allegations that created the conflict in the first place,' the attorneys wrote.
Prosecutors also never bothered to alert Barry Coburn, the defense attorney who replaced Schertler, that they decided against putting Schertler on the stand, preventing her from rehiring him, Krissoff and Vazquez wrote.
'If Mrs. Menendez had known that there was no longer any conflict, Mrs. Menendez would have elected to bring Mr. Schertler and his firm back into the case at any point, up until the last day of trial. Whether the Government's conduct was careless or intentional, the result is the same: Mrs. Menendez's fundamental constitutional rights were violated,' the attorneys wrote.
Such a constitutional infringement created a structural error in the case and necessitates an acquittal or new trial, they argued.
The conflict dates back to August 2023, about a month before the indictment, when Schertler met with prosecutors and claimed that mortgage and car payments totaling more than $50,000 that businessmen Wael Hana and Jose Uribe paid toward Nadine Menendez's Englewood Cliffs home and Mercedes-Benz convertible were loans — not bribes, according to court documents. Prosecutors used that information to file new obstruction of justice charges against the Menendezes, and they told the couple they planned to question Schertler before a jury on the matter, creating a conflict between Nadine Menendez and her lawyer.
Besides their objections about Schertler's withdrawal, Krissoff and Vazquez repeated the former senator's oft-repeated complaint that the case should have been tried in New Jersey and not Manhattan. They also contend prosecutors improperly used summary exhibits and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bribery and obstruction of justice occurred.
Nadine Menendez, who was tried after her husband and co-defendants to accommodate her medical treatment for breast cancer, is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 11.
In an earlier trial that started in May 2024, a jury convicted Hana, real estate developer Fred Daibes, and the former senator last July. Last August, Judge Sidney H. Stein slapped Bob Menendez with an 11-year sentence; he's now scheduled to report to prison on June 17.
Hana and Daibes reported to prison last month to begin serving their sentences — just over eight years and seven years, respectively.
Sentencing for Uribe has been repeatedly postponed and is now set for Oct. 9 because he testified against his co-defendants in a cooperation deal with prosecutors.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Channel crossings by migrants pass 20,000 in record time
The number of migrants crossing the English Channel in a single year has passed 20,000 in record time. Some 440 people made the journey in eight boats on Tuesday, bringing the total for 2025 so far to 20,422, Home Office figures confirmed. This is up 50% on this point last year (13,574) and 79% higher than at this stage in 2023 (11,433), according to PA news agency analysis. It is the earliest point in a calendar year at which the 20,000 mark has been passed since data on Channel crossings was first reported in 2018. Last year the figure was passed on August 28, and in 2023 it was August 29. The first year in which at least 20,000 arrivals were recorded was 2022, when the milestone was passed on August 14, and the total went on to hit a record 45,774 by the end of December. The figures come as ministers continue to grapple with Channel crossings. The Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is continuing through Parliament, and will hand counterterror-style powers to police and introduce new criminal offences to crack down on people-smuggling gangs. It has been reported that the UK and France are agreeing a one in, one out migrant returns deal, under which migrants who arrive in the UK by small boats are returned to France, in exchange for the UK accepting those with legitimate claims to join family already in the country. French officials have also agreed to changes that would allow police patrolling the coast to take action in the sea when migrants climb into boats from the water, which is yet to come into effect.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk vows to start a new political party. Here's why that's harder than it sounds.
As billionaire Elon Musk feuds with President Trump over his signature tax and domestic policy legislation, Musk has reupped his calls to launch a new political party — a daunting task even for the wealthiest person on Earth. Musk first floated launching a third party, dubbed the "America Party," earlier this month, part of a nasty back-and-forth between the president and the Tesla CEO that marked the likely end of their political alliance. Musk raised the idea again this week as lawmakers raced to send the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to Mr. Trump's desk — and this time, Musk put a time limit on the plan. "If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day," Musk wrote in a post on X Monday evening, hours before the bill passed the Senate on Tuesday and headed back to the House. "Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE." It remains unclear if Musk will follow through on his pledge, but the idea could be easier said than done. If Musk decides to launch a new political party, he'll need to contend with a thicket of complicated state laws, time-consuming ballot access rules and intense litigation. "Only the richest person in the world could make a serious effort at creating a new American political party," Brett Kappel, a veteran election lawyer, told CBS News. Navigating 50 different state laws — and federal rules "Political parties are creatures of the states," Kappel said. Each state has different legal rules for recognizing which political parties can appear on the ballot, and those hurdles "range from high to extraordinarily difficult to overcome," he noted. In some cases, a nascent state party may need to get candidates onto the ballot by submitting large numbers of signatures, and then win a certain percentage of the vote across election cycles. For example, to qualify in California, a new political party needs to either sign up 0.33% of the state's voters — or about 75,000 people — as registered members, or submit signatures from 1.1 million voters. After that, in order to remain qualified, parties have to either maintain that 0.33% registration threshold or win at least 2% of the vote in a statewide race. And to gain recognition at the national level, each state-level political party would need to seek an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission. These efforts would almost certainly face intense pushback from the Democratic and Republican parties, including legal challenges over signatures in each state, requiring Musk — or any other aspiring third-party founder — to spend scores of money on litigation. "The state laws in all of the states are biased towards the two major political parties, and make it as difficult as possible for the emergence of a third political party," Kappel told CBS News. The process of creating a political party with national ambitions would be time-consuming, too. Kappel says it might be doable — albeit difficult — for Musk to get a few favored candidates onto the ballot in certain states, but building an entirely new national party would likely take years, and would not be possible by the 2026 midterm elections. For evidence of how challenging the process is, look no further than the struggles that existing third parties have faced. The Green Party and Libertarian Party were each founded decades ago, and still engage in state-by-state pushes for ballot access and party recognition. "The hurdles for creating a new party and getting it on the ballot are extremely high. It can be done if you have endless amounts of money, but it's a multi-year project and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars," Kappel said. Musk's campaign cash The high cost of launching a political party may not be a big stumbling block for Musk, whose net worth exceeds $350 billion according to Forbes and Bloomberg's valuations. The Tesla and SpaceX leader spent a staggering $277 million to aid Mr. Trump and other Republican candidates in the 2024 election cycle. The bulk of that spending, roughly $239 million, was routed through America PAC, a political action committee founded by Musk that underwrote a sprawling get-out-the-vote effort across the swing states. Since then, Musk has hinted that he plans to dial back his involvement in politics. His tenure leading the Trump administration's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency ended in May, a month after telling Tesla shareholders his work with the federal government will "drop significantly." He also said at the Qatar Economic Forum in May that he will "do a lot less" political spending moving forward, noting he doesn't "currently see a reason" to keep opening his wallet. If Musk follows through on his proposal to launch a competitor to the two mainstream parties, it would mark an expensive return to the fray — and the laws around how to finance it are complex. Before new political parties are formally recognized, they are typically organized as not-for-profit groups, and their financial backers do not face any dollar limits to their donations, Kappel says. But once a party gains national recognition, donors like Musk would be subject to the FEC's caps on political contributions. Currently, individuals can only give $10,000 a year to a state political party, or $44,300 a year to a national party committee, the FEC says. The rules governing when organizations are subject to those limits are byzantine. Almost two decades ago, the FEC said a group called Unity08 — which aimed to create a bipartisan presidential ticket — must register as a political committee if it spends over $1,000 trying to get ballot access. After a lengthy legal battle, an appeals court reversed that decision. Another way for Musk to keep wielding political influence would be through America PAC. The group is organized as a super PAC, which allows Musk to donate unlimited sums of money, but requires the group to remain officially independent from candidates or political parties. Even as he mused about launching a third party, Musk implied this week he could remain engaged in Republican politics. The billionaire suggested he will back primary challenges against GOP lawmakers who voted for the Trump-endorsed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He also vowed to lend support to Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who voted against the bill and is facing a Trump-backed primary contest. The president, for his part, has said in recent days that Musk appears to be "upset" that his signature tax and domestic policy bill would phase out electric vehicle tax credits — which could cost Tesla billions. Some of Musk's criticisms of the bill have focused on its steep cuts to green energy incentives, though he has also argued the bill is too expensive. "I think Elon is a wonderful guy, and I know he's going to do well always," Mr. Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo in an interview that aired Sunday. "But he got a little bit upset, and that wasn't appropriate." Robots on verge of outnumbering humans at Amazon warehouses, Wall Street Journal reports Next steps in Sean "Diddy" Combs trial after partial verdict Reporter's Notebook: When politicians cry wolf on fiscal restraint
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Watch live: Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs after Labour's welfare bill passes second reading
Watch live as Sir Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs on Wednesday (2 July), hours after MPs voted to pass the prime minister's watered-down welfare bill. The bill, which would see changes made to personal independence payment (PIP) and the health-related element of universal credit, went to a crunch vote on Tuesday evening. It passed its second reading by 335 ayes to 260 noes, a majority of 75, with 49 Labour MPs voting against the welfare cuts, which they believe could push people further into poverty. On Monday, in a bid to convince rebel MPs to back the changes, the PM watered down his original welfare plans to minimise the impact on existing claimants. He will likely take a grilling from the opposition leader, who slammed the bill as a 'total waste of time'. Writing on X, Ms Badenoch said: 'It effectively saves £0, helps no one into work, and does NOT control spending. It's pointless." Sir Keir, who is fresh off facing his largest Commons rebellion to date, could also see backlash from opposing Labour MPs. The bill fallout comes just days after Labour celebrates its one-year anniversary since entering government.
