The recent mistrial declared in the Senator Bob Menendez corruption trial and the double standards being selectively applied to the current sordid sexual abuse revelations bring to mind how far this country has gone in politicizing the rule of law.
It has long been the conventional wisdom among a broad array of observers that President Obama’s Justice Department went after the New Jersey senator – who, by 2013, had emerged as perhaps the most outspoken congressional critic of the much discussed nuclear arms deal with Iran – as a way of clearing the decks in anticipation of critical Senate votes on the proposal.
At the time of his indictment, Democrats had control of the Senate and Mr. Menendez was the chairman of the all-important Foreign Relations Committee. Also, as Mr. Menendez was a Democrat, he presented a special problem for President Obama in that he could no longer make the argument that opposition to the Iran deal was largely based on Republican partisanship.
In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and Sen. Menendez became the ranking member of the committee, but in short order he was forced to give up even that less important but still influential leadership position.
From the start the charges against Sen. Menendez – that he made official decisions that benefited a friend of very long standing in return for a series of very expensive gifts – seemed rather wobbly. He was charged with taking a bribe in violation of the federal so-called “honest services” law. He did not deny that his actions favored the friend who gave him gifts. But he argued that the actions he took and the gifts he was given were a function only of the longtime relationship and not of an unlawful quid pro quo bribery arrangement.
What tends to support the view of those who feel the Menendez prosecution would never have happened had there been no Iran nuclear controversy is the revelation of a juror, after the mistrial was declared, that from the outset of the jury deliberations there never were more than two out of twelve votes for conviction.
The New York Times quoted that juror as saying, “We were deadlocked right out of the gate…. [We] just didn’t see a smoking gun. They just didn’t prove it to us.”
Consider also the differing reactions to the abuse accusations that have been made against the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Alabama on the one hand and, on the other, a Democratic senator from Minnesota and a Democratic congressman from Michigan. All one hears from the liberal establishment and its amen corner in the media is that the Alabama Republican – who has categorically denied the claims – should withdraw forthwith on the strength of the allegations alone and that if elected he should be expelled from the Senate. But the accused Democrats – who have apologized for any wrongdoing – are entitled to “due process” before any adverse conclusions may be drawn against them.
Of course, all are entitled to the due process of law. Woe to our electoral system if, based on our political preferences, we credit mere allegations in the heat of a political campaign.