« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Feds Probing Dem Sen. Relationship to Former Aide

As the feds are bearing down hard on Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), raiding his Alaska home and convening a grand jury in Washington, D.C., another investigation into a sitting senator has been proceeding quietly up in New Jersey.

Over the past several months, the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey has issued two grand jury subpoenas to former clients of Kay LiCausi, a lobbyist and former aide to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The investigation, of course, is no secret, but after a controversy raged over subpoenas issued shortly before the 2006 election, the investigation has shifted direction entirely. Now the focus seems to be whether Menendez steered lobbying contracts to his former girlfriend and then delivered government funds to those client once they'd hired her.

It's never been confirmed that LiCausi and Menendez, who's divorced, were in a romantic relationship. But the rumors were such that The New York Times didn't hesitate to report in 2005 on "the widespread belief" in New Jersey and among Menendez's former staffers that they were. And Menendez himself has never denied it, always answering queries with "that's strictly personal." Reports of the relationship have always been phrased in the past tense since 2005.

LiCausi started work for Menendez back when he was in the House in 1998. She was 26. Four years later she left with the title of chief of staff of his New Jersey office, a position that the Times called "midlevel" -- she supervised six people. But immediately she began raking in some hefty contracts, not only as a lobbyist, but also as a fundraiser for Menendez and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Menendez admitted to the Times that he'd "encouraged" the DCCC to hire her for the $10,000 a month spot. And no doubt he was responsible for the work on his political committees, where she was also making another $10,000 a month fundraising for both his political action committee and his campaign. And then there were the lobbying contracts which also rolled in.

The subpoenas issued in the past few months have been to two of LiCausi's clients. One, to Jersey City Medical Center, was originally reported by The Star-Ledger in late August. The other, to the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, was reported two weeks ago. The hospital signed up LiCausi in January, 2003, shortly after she left Menendez's office; the contract paid $280,000 through February of this year. An exec from the hospital has also testified before a grand jury.

Both subpoenas focused on the contracts with LiCausi. The Times cited "people familiar with the inquiry" as saying that investigators were trying to determine whether Mr. Menendez had "improperly" helped LiCausi "win the contract to represent [the center], and if her position was linked to the hospital’s successful efforts to win government-backed bonds."

Precisely what crime prosecutors might be looking to prove is unclear. Menendez has admitted that he gave "positive recommendations" of LiCausi to clients when asked, but has also insisted, "I have never steered a contract to anyone."

Criminal defense lawyer Stan Brand told me that generally such a case could be very hard to prosecute. "There's no magical statute," he said. "Unless you have some proof or evidence of personal financial gain by a public official, it’s very hard to make a case.... The typical political give and take isn't going to be enough."

The investigation certainly has taken a very public change in direction. When U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, a major GOP donor, issued subpoenas in September of last year, Menendez was locked in a tight reelection race (he was originally appointed to the Senate in January 2006 when then-Sen. Jon Corzine (D) won the governorship). And Menendez didn't hesitate to question the timing of the revelation:

"Suddenly 61 days before an election a prosecutor appointed by George Bush decides to take an interest, and not coincidentally, leaks to the press follow immediately. There are serious questions about the timing of this inquiry and I will not allow an orchestrated concerted effort to smear and personally destroy those who oppose this administration.”

And the nature of the inquiry related to the subpoenas was just plain confusing, as we wrote at the time. The subpoenas related to a community charity who rents out Menendez's former Union City home.

But prosecutors apparently have stopped pushing that angle. After nothing seemed to happen for such a very long while, Menendez's lawyers went so far as to request a letter from prosecutors in June that he was officially cleared. But that didn't happen. And in August of this year, the investigation showed life again.

If investigators were looking for muck on Menendez, his relationship with LiCausi is an obvious place to look. It's far from a new scandal. In fact, allegations date back to August 2004, when the scandal over then-Gov. Jim McGreevey was raging. When Menendez pushed publicly for McGreevey to step down sooner than he intended, a McGreevey aide hit back in a very public way, telling a local television station,

''How hypocritical it is for the congressman to call for the governor's immediate resignation over an illicit affair, when the congressman had an illicit affair and then set her up in business which he then referred clients to. Maybe it's the congressman who should be resigning.''

Menendez, who separated from his wife in 2002, backed off. But his relationship with LiCausi remained an issue throughout his 2006 reelection campaign, and he consistently denied doing anything wrong. Now with the U.S. attorney's office on the case, he and his lawyers are doing the same.


Comments (21)

moondancer wrote on November 1, 2007 1:59 PM:

Ten grand here, ten grand there, pretty soon you're talkin some serious money.

Gary wrote on November 1, 2007 2:14 PM:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Chris Christie, the US Attorney for NJ is as big a political hack as they come, and don't think for a second he wouldn't file a politically motivated lawsuit.

AS for Menendez, it looks like he may have had an affair with his former staffer. That's no crime in NJ. And frankly, unless you're running on a "family values" platform, I don't care.

We'll see what happens with the investigation, but in light of the Siegelman prosecution and other indications of systematic political prosecutions under the Bush administration, this is all highly suspect.

chabuka wrote on November 1, 2007 2:41 PM:

I've said it before..it is not a right wing, left wing thing..its all the corruption in Government in either party against us, the people..we must reform this government..start over, what ever it takes, to get our country back from these governmental despots

Shoreline wrote on November 1, 2007 2:42 PM:

Oh, one of the "loyal Bushies" for sure. Check out this oldie and all the comments:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003212.php

cynicalgirl wrote on November 1, 2007 2:51 PM:

Chris Christie was on the list to be fired until he came up with the original witch hunt right before the election. He's as big a hack as they come.

bob wrote on November 1, 2007 2:59 PM:

I don't see anything remotely approaching wrongdoing here. Unless they got some seriously damning Grand Jury testimony, I don't think this one's going anywhere.

I agree that U.S. Attorney Christie reeks to the high heavens. He would love to take down a Dem Senator and kick off a political career.

Nathan wrote on November 1, 2007 3:02 PM:

Chris Christie may indeed be a typical Bush hack but that doesn't mean Menendez didn't do anything wrong or illegal. The person above who identified this not as a Republican or Democratic thing but rather a corruption thing is right on the money. We need to be able to trust that our politicans aren't trying to line either their own pockets or the pockets of friends, wives, children or lovers. It isn't a right/left issue. It is one of integrity & honor.

NM wrote on November 1, 2007 3:04 PM:

Christie has done a fine job in NJ. I would not say that he is free of political influence (he is admittedly a personal friend of GWB), but calling him a "hack" undermines your own credibility. He's very well regarded in New Jersey.

That said, it's still unclear whether what the senator did was illegal. It seems at best morally questionable, but not necessarily an Earth shaking event. In this state, the Democrats are no less corrupt than Republicans contrary to the national norm.

markg8 wrote on November 1, 2007 3:21 PM:

I found the financial numbers in an article or blog post I've long since lost on that original allegation from last September. Menendez rented his house to that non profit and supposedly made about $15,000 total above the mortgage payments over period of about 3 years if I remember correctly. In the skyrocketing NJ housing market.

What a joke. No wonder he dropped it. Now Christie thinks he's on to something here. It's no crime to give a former employee a good job recommendation. Unless he can show Menendez accepted bribes in return for earmarks on any of these deals Christie's once again playing arsonist and screaming he's found a fire.

skippy the flatfish wrote on November 1, 2007 4:06 PM:


...or they could just go straight for the patronage jobs Menendez arranged at UMDNJ.

Forest Street wrote on November 1, 2007 4:10 PM:

Christie's reputation in NJ has certainly suffered, in the wake of the transparently politically-motivated attack on Menendez just prior to the 2006 election, and in light of revelations about how much Bush and Company politicized DoJ. He no longer enjoys the presumption of prosecutorial independence, at least among those who've spent some time looking into the situation.

Marco Ross wrote on November 1, 2007 4:37 PM:

Dems defend hacks like Menendez (a whole owned subidiary of the far right Cuban lobby and Aipac) while the right defends uber-crook Stevens, owned by every special interest in town.
No one gives a damn about corruption. We defend our scumbags. They defend theits.
Menendez is a crook and everybody in NJ knows it.

cv wrote on November 1, 2007 4:47 PM:

The US attorneys serve at the discretion of the president, so by definition they are administration hacks.

NJSteve wrote on November 1, 2007 5:34 PM:

This loud-mouthed radical leftist whose main focus is on assuring America is subjected to a latino reconquista never should have been in the Senate in the first place. The partisan NJ supreme court allowed it to happen despite the express law.

Forest Street wrote on November 1, 2007 6:17 PM:

Marco Ross - the Republicans, working for Tom Kean, Junior, tried whatever they could think of to convince the NJ electorate that Menendez is crooked. They didn't convince a majority of NJ voters.

cv - nomination of US attorneys used to require Senate approval, then didn't, and now does again. So I don't think your definition works.


NJSteve - how much does anybody want to bet that "NJSteve" is talking about NJ's other senator?

cv wrote on November 1, 2007 6:21 PM:

Forest Street I'm sorry but the president can still dismiss them at any time.

Forest Street wrote on November 1, 2007 6:32 PM:

Yes, cv, he can still dismiss them at any time. He can't replace them so easily anymore, so they're less likely to be hacks. Or if they happen to be hacks, they're less likely to remain in office after an interim appointment.

Hoboken wrote on November 1, 2007 6:43 PM:

Christie has gone after elected officials from both parties. IIRC, none of them have been found not guilty. They are all either convicted or plead out.

JohnOh wrote on November 1, 2007 7:01 PM:

Hack or not. It doesn't matter as long as there is so much to investigate. And there is so much corruption in NJ that any US Attorney will never get around to his own party. Too many targets on the other side.

When he loses one of these let me know.

Forest Street wrote on November 1, 2007 7:33 PM:

Investigating only those from the other party could be the definition of a political hack, in the US attorney position.

hippyleftist wrote on November 1, 2007 8:47 PM:

Aren't we supposed to be against corruption, regardless of who's implicated? Geez.

Post a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address