Robert Menendez Broke the ‘Goldilocks Rule’ of Corruption

Below is my column in The Hill on the indictment of Senator Robert Menendez for bribery, again. As predicted in this column, his colleagues are now expressing disgust at his corruption. However, make no mistake about it, Menendez is not being abandoned due to his corrupt inclination but his conspicuous consumption.

Here is the column:

The massive indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and his wife has shaken Washington.

As Senate Foreign Relations chairman, Menendez is one of the most powerful Democratic members of Congress, and someone who has long been a kingmaker in the party. He has also long been accused of open and insatiable corruption.

What made Menendez a standout in Washington was not his corrupt inclinations, but his utter audacity in following them. I was able to witness that signature conduct personally on the floor of the Senate.

In 2010, I defended a federal judge, Thomas Porteous, in his impeachment trial, against charges that he had taken gifts and misused his office for personal gain. The curious thing about Senate trials is that you have a jury composed of people you could strike for cause in a real court. Menendez was among those sitting in judgment of Porteous, but he wasn’t just another face in the Senate crowd — he stood out. It was like arguing a piracy case with Captain Jack Sparrow sitting on the jury.

Menendez himself would later go on trial in 2017 in a major bribery and fraud case involving luxury gifts allegedly exchanged for official favors. Most of us expected the worst when, during jury deliberations, one juror asked the court, “What is a senator?” Menendez dodged the bullet. The jury hung and the Justice Department dropped all charges.

Now Menendez has been slapped with a massive new bribery indictment. The facts are all too familiar, with a long list of lavish gifts allegedly made in exchange for favors.

The indictment details gold bars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, furnishings and other gifts.  His wife was allegedly actively involved in this corruption conspiracy and is also facing criminal charges.

During the Porteous trial, I noted that, at the time of the underlying acts, the senators themselves were accepting free lunches. It was not until later that the rules changed on such gifts. Menendez now stands accused of accepting a host of gifts at that time, including an $8,000 free flight in October 2010, in addition to luxury trips to Paris and a Caribbean villa.

Yet Menendez still demanded the conviction of Porteous, even though the judge was never charged with bribery, and free lunches and the other gifts would not be enough to even register with Menendez.

The question is whether this level of corruption is now enough for Democrats. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently suggested a type of Goldilocks rule for corruption. He warned that people in Washington had better be careful if they want to crack down on the Biden family’s influence-peddling.

“If that’s the new criteria, there are a lot of folks in a lot of industries — not just in politics — where people have family members and relationships and they’re trying to parlay and get a little influence and benefit in that respect. That’s hardly unique.”

It would appear that the question is not corruption, but when a little corruption is “just right.”

If these allegations against Menendez are proven, then he violated Washington’s Goldilocks rule. It would mean that Menendez pursued gifts with a reckless abandon, endangering others whose corruption was more circumspect.

Consider the timeline: It would mean that during the Porteous trial, Menendez was allegedly accepting gifts while condemning and removing from office a judge accused of receiving gifts.

Later, after the jury hung in his first corruption trial, Menendez (according to the Justice Department) almost immediately started taking gifts from new sources.

In a town known for a certain finesse in influence peddling, Menendez broke with industry custom by allegedly accepting direct items like gold and a car. This is classic bribery stuff. There was no labyrinth of shell companies and accounts — just crude old-school corruption, with cash stuffed in clothing and gold bars squirreled away for a rainy day.

Where corrupt figures often refer to getting their beaks wet, Menendez allegedly took a headlong plunge into this pool of corruption. This city has not seen such low-grade alleged bribery since former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was found with $90,000 wrapped like a po boy in his freezer.

Like Jefferson, Menendez will need to be isolated as a pariah for his conspicuous consumption. Yet the public is still being played for chumps. This entire city floats on a sea of corruption as family members and associates sell influence and access to high-ranking officials. Menendez is notorious only for the size of his appetite and the extent of his audacity.

Newsom’s Goldilocks rule for graft is certainly compelling for many in this city. For most of us, it is the very source of the problem as politicians seek to get corruption “just right.”

So get ready for politicians to suddenly declare themselves “shocked, shocked” by the allegations against Menendez. These are the same people who made Menendez the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, twice. They gave him the power of leverage with countries where bribery is an accepted practice. It was like making a known arsonist the CEO of the International Paper Corporation.

In the end, the problem is not Menendez. It is the array of other politicians who enabled him while dismissing his reputation for corruption. To use Newsom’s words, Menendez is “hardly unique” for cashing in on his position. That is precisely the problem.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

295 thoughts on “Robert Menendez Broke the ‘Goldilocks Rule’ of Corruption”

  1. Nobody wants to accept the truth

    No one wants to shrink the Fed back to its enumerated powers. For example, The fed dept of education budget is 99% grift.

    DDE warned of the Industrial Military Complex. Open your eyes and witness 100’s of Billions funneled into one of the most notorious corrupt Nations in Europ

    Aid to foriegn nations? Funneled through NGO’s rife with sincures filled with politicians family and friends

    Nobody will address the problem. It can’t be policed. Impossible to police. The only solution is eliminate all spending (the pot of gold being split up) that is not enumerated in the Constitution.

    1. Did you say, “enumerated powers?”!!!

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

    2. “…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please;…”

      “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general [all, or the whole] welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

      – Thomas Jefferson

    3. “…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please;…”

      “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

      – Thomas Jefferson

  2. We should allow capital punishment for crooked elected officials, including Menendez. It might not be much of a deterrent for some criminals, but I’d bet it would deter the Bob Menendez’s in our society in about a nanosecond.

  3. What Menendez did was to be the easiest means of diverting attention away from the conception that the DOJ only goes after the right and not after such blatant crimes as those coming from the biden crime family. The can hold up Menendez’s head and claim “See, we go after the bad guys on the left too!!!” Pay no attention to the laptop and ALL that money in fake corporations linked to family members of old joe. LOL. They must think we are totally unaware.

  4. It’s getting to be no longer a government of the people by the people and for the people, it’s them and us

  5. A young girl asks her father, “Daddy what does the word ‘corruption’ mean?”
    – “Bring me a beer and I’ll tell you.”
    – “But mummy says you shouldn’t drink!”
    – “Get a nice ice cream as well while you bring me beer.”
    – “Oh, okay!”

  6. Screw the alleged bribery and the gold bars and the $500,000. Isn’t the real issue in all this:
    Why did a guy have to have his name sewn on (or whatever) his own suit in his own closet? Did multiple people have suits hanging in his closet? Was he renting a foot or two of it out?

  7. ‘Member when hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and was getting corporate and union and hedge fund and general wall st money and she lost? I do.

    Citizen’s united antipathy from the left is crocodile tears.

    1. Obama agreed to public financing…until he saw he could out spend McCain by millions and millions of dollars and then he reneged.

      Obama easily outspent Romney.

      Hilary easily outspent Trump.

      Biden easily outspent Trump.


  8. “…a major bribery and fraud case involving luxury gifts allegedly exchanged for official favors.”

    Professor, thank you for saying it, bribery instead of “influence peddling.” Calling bribery “influence peddling” is like saying a person who is broke “has a little cash flow challenge.”

  9. There are no facts, only interpretations.
    —Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

    If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and [for] men who claim to be bearers of an external objective truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascist attitudes.
    —Benito Mussolini

    As a rule, only very learned and clever men deny what is obviously true. Common men have less brains, but more sense.
    —William T. Stace

    Be whitey does it and so do Republicans!
    — Enigmainblack (aka Misery Loves Company)

    Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.
    — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

    1. “Whereas relativism . . .”

      And to counter that relativism (which is a scourge), the religious right pushed moral dogmatism — which is the foundation of theocracy.

      1. Sam, there are extremes on both sides. Religious folk have added order and morality to their congregations. Like good citizens, they may opt for specific behavior outside their group but are an asset to a morally functioning society. Too much of the left-wing adds little but hatred and violent action.

        You have your right to stay clear of religion, which is fine with me, but you are pushing immorality and violent actions. I know you think you are not and don’t want to, but in reality, you are.

        I hope you understand that I am on the libertarian side, like you, but we live in a crowded society where moral codes and laws must exist.

  10. All campaign gifts must go to the candidates official campaign. No non-profits that just educate the voters. All campaign giving must be listed down to the original source. No longer hiding in foundations.

  11. The only way you deal with corruption , especially of this scale, is constitutionally. Term limits are part of the answer. But you have to be careful. Once elected to the House or Senate the clock starts running for 12 years. At the end of 12 years your tour in the senate or House is over, whether you have been re-elected on not. You can go to the other house for a new clock but no more. Also no 1st degree family member is allowed to run for your seat for 12 years, House or Senate. Once you complete your tour, You must no longer live in DC or within 250 miles. No further offices in the federal government, unless appointed. Also 12 years is the term limit total for appointed offices. People must make a decision to either accept a job in the civil service or elected. No crossover. Raise the age of eligibility to 35 in the House and 40 in the Seante. Total disclosure of all assets whether running for House, Senate, or President. It’s a start but there needs to be more. No exceptions and no waivers.

    1. Term limits destroy institutional memory within the institution itself. Or rather, it would hand the institutional memory over to lobbyists and professional staffers.

      If you believe that your representatives have been in office too long, vote against them in the primary or general election.

      1. Excellent idea, though the Trump tax cut limited the amount one could deduct on one or both homes, making a deduction for these second homes less likely. With that, there is a cap on state and local property tax deductions. These provisions reduce benefits to high-asset individuals, contrary to what many on the left believe.

        My question is, why should there be any property tax deduction? Job mobility has increased, so many rent rather than buy. There is no renters deduction, so they are ”discriminated” against.

    2. GEB,
      I like the overall idea.
      But I would limit terms to three for the House, two for the Senate.
      And no running for any public office after serving, be it Federal, State or local for 10 years.
      All communications are subject to an FBI/DOJ investigation, no warrant required. Just assume all phone calls, texts, emails etc. are being monitored by the FBI and NSA. Part of being a public servant.
      Revisit the good professor’s idea about expanding the SC.
      And age limits on everyone, no exceptions.

  12. Notice how no one on the left is calling this a political persecution, or election interference, or threatening violence over this. There is no 24 hr news network dedicated to spreading lies about this.

    1. It is an open secrete in DC that Menendez is corrupt.
      Everyone knows it on both sides.
      Just this time the evidence is so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored.
      Would not be surprised if many on both sides thought or said, “It is about time.”

  13. “make no mistake about it, Menendez is not being abandoned due to his corrupt inclination but his conspicuous consumption.”

    So George Santos, who is also corrupt, wasn’t abandoned by the GOP because he didn’t consume enough?

  14. I once had a lapel button, you know, those kind that read things like “I heart New York”=== and it read “Hudson County: the nation’s most corrupt” Hudson County is where Jersey City, NJ is located and is well-within Menendez’s jurisdiction — and oh, by the way, I first got this lapel button in 1969 — so none of this is new — but Professor T is right — the audacity of the corruption is what’s on display here.

  15. Since Turley was unable to think of a single corrupt Republican who met his standard of accepting direct gifts, I’ll remind you all of Clarence Thomas driving his $267,000 motor home, Brett Kavanaugh’s hundreds of thousands of debt paid off, Ginni Thomas’s hundreds of thousands in undisclosed income, and Gov. Bob McDonnell receiving $165K in cash and gifts from Star Scientific for helping them get business. When the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, they must have been thinking, “There but for the grace of God (and lack of an ethics code) go I.”

    Yes Menendez is likely guilty and should resign and be prosecuted, but Rick Scott is a US Senator after the largest fraud case in American healthcare history. George Santos is still a Congressman and Lauren Boebert is dictating morality to the rest of us. It’s okay for Turley (and the rest of you) to call out corruption when Democrats do it, but don’t limit your examples to Democrats while the former President faces 91 counts in four current distriction not to mention the civil trials, some of which he’s already been found guilty for.

    1. You have been told ad nauseum that a person is not found “guilty” in a civil trial. Therefore You are no longer ignorant, you’re an idiot.

      Also, the judges and justices you referred to dont have a D or R after their names. They are not politicians.

      And Joe Biden is still President.

      1. Those right-wing justices were appointed by Republicans to remember them when needed. Are you suggesting they are neutral?

        Since you are all concerned about semantics. Trump has been found liable (twice) for defamation and sexual abuse and the Trump Organization guilty of 15 counts of criminal tax fraud. That reeks of innocence, yes?

        1. I’m suggesting that you constantly engage in hyperbole to craft a narrative because you are not adept at making an argument.
          I also suggest that terminology is not semantics, the latter only an excuse for being less that truthful or accurate.
          Oh and whataboutism is your super power.

          1. I’m suggesting you’re avoiding the whole point and are ignoring the misconduct, unethical, and criminal behavior of those named becaue it doesn’t fit your needs. You’re not defending their behavior, or at least I hope not,

            1. Now do Pelosi and insider stock trading by her husband and other family members, and Sotomayer book deals.

              1. You will always be able to point to Democrats you believe are corrupt and in the cases of some like Memendez I’m apt to agree with you. My point is the one-sided reporting of Turley and the commenters here is that only talking about Democrats while ignoring the Republicans in the headlines is uncalled for bias.

                1. What’s published here is a column that was first published at The Hill. I’m sure The Hill has a word count limit for its contributor essays. Menendez is currently topical. Turley chose to focus on him.

                  Sorry Turley doesn’t frame stories how you wish he did.

                  Maybe you should start your own blog and do the frame up jobs your party excels at. Oh, that’s right. You have a blog. You just prefer polluting this one.

                  1. That’s what you’re going with? Mentioning a single Republican or right-wing Justice would have exceeded the word count? Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump aren’t topical enough to be of interest. You need to try a little harder than that. If Turley could go back to Congressman Jefferson who was convicted 14 years ago, I think he could have mentioned a recent Republican’Justice from the current headlines.

                2. Menendez is a whore, as is biden, and feinstein, and swawell, and nearly all of the leftist infrastructure.

                  You have a couple rightist whores, sure, and they should be punished, but at least they are not selling-out the nation, as the left is. Deal with it.

                3. No.
                  What the good professor is doing is pointing out how far the Democrat party has fallen from what it once was.
                  People like you would call JFK right-wing.
                  Many life long Democrats look and see what has happened and are saying, “WTF?”
                  As they should.
                  The far left woke crazies have taken over.
                  As Bill Maher put it, “I did not leave the party, the party left me.”

                  1. And Republicans are The Party of Lincoln, Democrats are thankfully a far cry from what they once were. They are hardly perfect in fact deeply flawed. It’s just that the bar is so low to be better than Republicans that they can’t help but exceed it.

                    1. Low bar?
                      Most people with a degree of common sense, logic, decency can define what a woman is, know there are two sexes, think pornography in elementary schools is wrong, know removing healthy organs from teens and puberty blockers are wrong, the sexualization of children is wrong.
                      That is the low bar woke leftist Democrats have set.
                      JFK Democrats want nothing to do with any of that, thankfully. They still have a sense of decency.

                    2. “Democrats are thankfully a far cry from what they once were.”

                      Are they really? I guess you didnt read any of the hacked DNC emails during the runup to 2016.

                      “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”—-joe biden 2007

                      What year did Obama, Clinton, and Biden change and were no longer opposed to gay marriage?

                      No e of this seems that long ago…

                    3. Oh the Democrats were far worse than the examples you provided and are now better though far from perfect. The Republicans began with high ideals but have devolved into something unrecognizable. The Party leader is Trump and they went their last term in power with no Party platform. Democrats have much for which they shouldn’t be proud of, Republicans have forsaken morality and have no shame.

                    4. “The Republicans began with high ideals but have devolved into something unrecognizable. ”

                      Tell us what those ideas are and when Republicans had them. Did the Democrats take up those ideas?

                    5. Through self-promotion using a link, you are telling everyone that what you write on the blog is trash, so see my blog. The problem is your blog article is also trash, inaccurate, and doesn’t answer the question.

                    6. This is your first sentence, “In my Internet travels, I run across many Republicans who hope to shock me with tidbits of history about the good things Republicans have done and the bad things Democrats have done in their past. “

                      A bunch of self-serving words without any content. That makes your reply to me ignorance dressed up in BS.

                      Here is the original unanswered question:
                      “Tell us what those ideas are and when Republicans had them. Did the Democrats take up those ideas?”

                    7. You lied. Your first sentence said nothing. In fact the entire article was rubbish. You are OK at spelling but a failure when it comes to facts.

                    8. Much of the article was about thee aspirations and good intentions of the Republican Party, then they changed. Perhaps you can point out something specific to be a lie?

            2. I’m avoiding your point, or mine? Because my point is that your point was rendered less than astute because of your use of incorrect and inaccurate terms.
              I don’t “defend” Republican justices because there is no such thing. Furthermore, I have no “needs”, other than for the conversation, if there is going to be one, to be legitimate.

                1. Confederates…democrats
                  Jim crow…democrats
                  Woodrow wilson…racist democrat
                  FDR…racist democrat
                  Lyndon johnson…racist democrat
                  Robert byrd….racist democrat
                  Joe biden…segregationist and racist democrat
                  Filibuster 1957 and 1964 civil rights acts…democrats
                  Interned japanese americans…democrats
                  Superpredators crime bill…democrats
                  Margaret Sanger…apartheid genocidal democrat
                  Created the unconstitutional 4th branch of govt…democrats
                  Redistribution of wealth…democrats
                  One party rule pack the SC…democrats
                  One party rule abolish the filibuster…democrats
                  One party rule add 2 more states…democrats
                  One party rule abolish electoral ccllege…democrats
                  Intimidate SC justices…democrats
                  Call for intimidating officials…democrats

                  But here is a perfect example of how the American Marxists of today have used their new versions of racism and segregation to alter the narrative…
                  Joe Biden signed an anti-lynching law in 2020, and the Democrats took a victory lap and patted themselves on the back. For what? Being 100 years late? Democrats in the Senate blocked it for 27 years. When the Senate finally passed the anti-lynching bill in 1935, FDR refused to sign it.

                  Ask a black voter today who signed the bill making MLK a holiday.

                  Ask a black voter today who signed the superpredator crime bill.

                  Ask a black voter today who said we have predators on our streets…beyond the pale.

                  Ask a black voter today who coined the term super-predator.

                  Ask a black voter who signed the legislation undoing the damage done by the Clinton/Biden crime bill. Dont tell them it was 6 years ago.

                  Go look at CNN’s fact check of Trump accusing biden of calling people superpredators. They say he didnt support the theory. Their support for that claim was biden saying that “most youth in the juvenile system are not super-predators”. In what moron’s mind is that not an acknowledgement that super predators exist???

                  1. “Lyndon johnson…racist democrat” hold on there bucko

                    Civil Rights belongs to him and hundreds of millions dedicated to building affordable housing for those left with nuthing was his doing

                    1. Snopes—

                      There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “n——— bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a n———- to the court, I want everyone to know he’s
                      A n-——-.”

                      Get a load of that though. They say he was a “sometimes racist”.

                      Thanks for playing though.

        2. If there is such a thing as a right-wing Justice, how the —- did America get here?

          Why wasn’t Lincoln immediately impeached and prosecuted for denying not-prohibited and fully-constitutional secession, and for failing to do his constitutional duty and enforce extant immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802 which compelled compassionate repatriation or “colonization,” on January 1, 1863?

            1. The status of slaves changed from that of “property” to “illegal alien” on Jan. 1, 1863.

              Illegal aliens, by definition, must be deported, or, as is preferable, compassionately repatriated, or “colonized” per Lincoln et al. in that era.

              1. George, are you saying all the black people in the North were illegal aliens even though many came from the South either as freed slaves or runaways? What about those black people who owned slaves? Were they illegal aliens? How about the blacks that fought in the Revolutionary War?

              2. I’m not finding the creation of “illegal aliens” in either the Naturalization Act of 1802 or the Emancipation Proclamation, perhaps you have another source, or is it wishful thinking?

      2. Judges accepting bribes is worse then politicians, not a defense. They are supposed to be impartial. And judges are politicians.

        1. Nay, trolls using multiple sock puppets whilst pretending to be una voce are worse than politicians accepting bribes. They are catfish

        2. I wasnt defending anyone. Did you really get that impression???
          Just trying to ascertain how serious a person you are.

          1. “Sometimes the glaring omission leaves that impression.”

            The yellow cat walked across the bedroom floor.

      1. Do you really want to go down the failure to recuse path? John Roberts wife got millions from her ties to lwayers with cases before the court. How is Thomas’s record on recusals?
        I have unanswered questions about the structure of something your article doesn’t mention but has been reported elsewhere. The reporting suggests Sotomayor’s staff required colleges to purchase copies of her book to make them available for sale surrounding her speeches, I think that would be wrong. What happens commonly in the industry is that the publisher brovides books on consignment and accepts the return of all unsold books which is what I suspect happened and is common practice. Those trying to tarnish her would never mislead us would they?

    2. Imagine a soldier addressing his commanding officer as “Smith,” “Jones,” or Williams.

      Yo, Smiff, wassup?

      I envision that troop receiving an immediate Article 15, including a reduction in rank and loss of pay, for gross insubordination.

      And you, G, address the celebrated and gracious host here as simply, emphasis on rude and insolent, Turley.

      Would you be surprised at being disrespected after disrespecting the eminent constitutional scholar and prolific author herein?

      You have become irrelevant “Readover Country.”

      Oh, and why is the industrious and fully engaged purveyor of such an obviously successful blog continually and incoherently caterwauling on this one anyway?

  16. Clarence Thomas, too, has broken the Goldilocks rule of corruption. While Turley often writes about the Supreme Court and also writes about corruption, somehow this story regarding blatant corruption by a Conservative Justice has escaped his attention.

  17. I guess you hate Citizens United but love the teacher’s unions???? Giving corporations the right to donate to candidates does not give them the right to pay a VP’s son $45,000 A MONTH to get a prosecutor fired.

    Fools like Anonymous hate Citizens United but have no issue with the Bidens. Remember that.

    1. Citizens United didn’t give the Biden the right to have a guy prosecuting his son’s company being fired! How can you not make out the difference between campaign contributions, which you have no quarrel with when done by PUBLIC UNIONS, and having a corrupt entity receive a quid pro quo of obvious dimensions.

      Having an oil company lobby a politician is not great, but having a PUBLIC UNION that launders money through campaign contributions is even worse. Even FRANKLIN DELENO ROOSEVELT, you remember him, said PUBLIC UNIONS should not exist.

      1. I always understood the Roosevelt/Reagan position as opposition to public employees going on a labor strike, not against collective bargaining.

  18. Menedez must have skipped Joe Biden’s Bribery 101 class the day they discussed gold bars. He should have taken large diamonds instead. They’re much easier to hide (just ask Hunter).

    1. Your’e probably right. Menendez was probably taking the Clarence Thomas bribery class as well as the trump grifting class. Good point.

      1. Bob, bribery must involve at least two parties. You claim Thomas is one of them. Who is the other? If you name the other, you have to state what benefit he obtained. That, like with all your ideas, is something you cannot do. That means you do not know what you are talking about.

Leave a Reply