Thread: Federal Court lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez’s alleged crimes

.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been INDICTED by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, for alleged criminal Acts - accepting bribes as a Senator of the United States, and illegally acting as a foreign agent, on behalf of Egypt and Qatar – which violate his office of public trust. His trial begins today 9/15/2024 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

But, the fact is, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez because the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to try a federal officer who is accused of criminal conduct affecting his office of public trust, was intentionally placed in the Senate's hands and not a federal district court, unless being first convicted by the Senate.

Hamilton confirms the above in Federalist 65:

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."


Some provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be ... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."


Why are so many determined to subvert the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution, to deal with a federal office holder who is accused of criminal acts which violate their office of public trust?

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

.

Sen. Menendez is being prosecuted in federal district court for a number of acts, including bribery, engaged in and tied to his office of public trust LINK TO THE INDICTMENT, and that is exactly what our founders adopted the impeachment process for.

Why has the House avoided impeaching Menendez and starting the due process procedure to having Menendez removed from his office of public trust, which is what our Constitution commands for those holding a federal office of public and engage in bribery?

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

.
From what I have researched, I am confident in saying our founders provided a special due process procedure for one exercising authority over a federal public trust, who is accused of violating that trust by engaging in acts connected to that office of public trust.

See the INDICTMENT for what is being charged. Are the charges not connected to Menendez's office of public trust?

Now, compare his actions to the very reasons for which the impeachment due process procedure was adopted by our founders:

“While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74” , Impeachment and the Constitution 1


Additionally see:

the South Carolina ratification debates, Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY notes: “If the President or the senators abused their trust, they were liable to impeachment and punishment; and the fewer that were concerned in the abuse of the trust, the more certain would be the punishment”.

Moving on to the Massachusetts ratification debates, Gen. BROOKS, (of Medford.) points out, . “The Senate can frame no law but by consent of the Representatives, and is answerable to that house for its conduct. If that conduct excites suspicion, they are to be impeached, punished, (or prevented from holding any office, which is great punishment.)”

Later on, Mr. Stillman confirms: “Another check in favor of the people is this – that the Constitution provides for the impeachment, trial, and punishment of every officer in Congress, who shall be guilty of malconduct. With such a prospect, who will dare to abuse the powers vested in him by the people”?

And in the Virginia ratification debates, Randolph in defending the proposed constitution askes: “Who are your senators? They are chosen by the legislatures, and a third of them go out of the Senate at the end of every second year. They may also be impeached. There are no better checks upon earth”.


So, my question is, how does a federal district court by-pass our Constitution’s due process procedure for one holding an office of public trust who is accused of violating that trust?

JWK



Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

.

As much as I think Sen. Menendez probably was involved in some criminal and unethical activity connected to his office of public trust, he still is entitled to the unique due process procedure adopted into our Constitution for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust. And that procedure requires the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, before he can be made “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But that Senator is entitled to the special due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution for those who violate their federal office of public trust.

The problem is, our entire Congress, House and Senate, has become one big happy family and den of thieves behind closed doors, and they protect each other’s rear end.

As a matter of fact, when one carefully studies the bills they vote on, almost all use their vote to plunder our federal treasury for objects not authorized by our Constitution, and this is the first step in their massive money laundering operation by which, in the end, redistributes $ BILLIONS, even $ TRILLIONS, from our federal treasury, and fattens their own fortunes and the fortunes of their major donors.

So why would they want to hold one of their own accountable, and impeach them for using their office of public trust for personal gain? Almost every one of these scoundrels are in on the act and doing it. The plundering of our federal treasury has become so common these days, members of Congress begin re-balancing their checkbooks after bills are passed and the President signs them, who is also in on the act along with his staff.

JWK

Under today’s authoritarian democrat party leadership, our government doesn’t help to fix the nation’s problems. It fixes the people, like Trump, who dare to point to the nation’s problems.

.
See:



Judge rules Menendez’s prosecutors can’t show ‘critical’ evidence

05/24/2024

Jurors in Sen. Bob Menendez’s corruption case cannot see evidence prosecutors have called “critical” to part of their case, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The decision puts a hole in prosecutors’ ability to prove their central claim: that the New Jersey Democrat took bribes to help send billions of dollars of American military aid to Egypt.

The most sophisticated thieves seem to gravitate to Congress where they use their votes to plunder our federal treasury for objects not authorized by our Constitution, and this is the first step in their massive money laundering operation by which, in the end, redistributes $ BILLIONS, even $ TRILLIONS, from our federal treasury, into their own pockets while also fattening the fortunes of their major donors.


So why would these scoundrels want to hold one of their own accountable, and impeach them for using their office of public trust for personal gain? Almost every one of our Congress critters are in on the act and doing it.

As I have said for many years now, the plundering of our federal treasury has become so common these days, members of Congress begin re-balancing their checkbooks after almost every bill is passed and signed into law by the President, who is also in on the act.



JWK


The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Nixon v. Fitzgerald :: 457 U.S. 731 (1982)