The Trial No One Is Talking About: New Jersey Senator Accused of Accepting Bribes

September 29, 2017

WRITER

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has been accused of accepting $60,000 from a donor in return for political favors.

On Thursday, prosecutors built their case, saying that Salomon Melgen and his family in May 2012 gave the money to the New Jersey Democratic Party and Menendez’s legal defense fund as a bribe. The two men are on trial after being charged with “conspiracy, bribery, honest services fraud, and related charges,” Philly.com reported.

Among other things, Menendez reportedly helped Melgen obtain visas for his foreign mistresses. Melgen was convicted earlier this year on 67 charges related to health care fraud and his scheme stealing $105 million from Medicare.

Why isn’t this sordid political drama all over the news? Columnist Phil Kerpen joined radio Friday to share the details from a trial that seems to be flying under everyone’s radar.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We want to get Phil Kerpen on because the Menendez trial, this is a senator who is still a sitting senator and is a codefendant on 22 felony counts of fraud, bribery, and related offensive -- related offenses.

Nobody is covering this.

STU: That's incredible. I mean, I -- you would think this is a gigantic story. And I feel like, is it one of those stories where, you know, the media is just doing it out of bias? Is it that they think there really is nothing to this?

GLENN: Because this is not a -- this is a senator, a Democratic senator, and he's still a member of good standing on the Senate Democratic caucus.

He -- he's going through a trial, 22 felony accounts.

STU: And they won't even say they should -- they will ask him to resign if he's convicted.

GLENN: So Phil Kerpen has been following this. And we wanted to get him on. Phil, how are you?

PHIL: I'm doing great, Glenn. It's been a while. How are you?

GLENN: I know. It's been a while. It's great to talk to you.

You're covering this. You're following it. And break it down, because I have absolutely really no idea what this is about, because nobody is covering it.

PHIL: This trial has a little bit of everything. And there is a lot of print coverage. There are probably four or five print reporters that have been in the courtroom every day. There is close to zero national TV coverage of this. In fact, media research center did a study. They found that, I think, CBS has spent 22 seconds on this trial in the first three weeks and NBC has spent zero.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Jeez.

PHIL: And it's not because this trial wouldn't be an incredible ratings boon for them. Because this trial features multiple international supermodels. It features private it's just, luxury resorts in the Caribbean, and then Paris. I mean, it's got all these stunning visuals that should be a huge ratings boom. And yet, for whatever reason, TV has completely ignored it.

But here's the basic version of the facts in this case. An eye doctor from Palm Beach, Florida, Solamon Melgen, developed a very special relationship with Senator Menendez, where he gave the senator access to his private jet whenever he wanted it, to fly wherever he wanted, and access to his luxury resort villa at Casa de Campo, one of the most luxurious resorts in the Caribbean and the Dominican Republic. He paid for his hotel rooms in Paris when he wanted to go there.

GLENN: Jeez.

PHIL: And they basically lived -- together, they lived this massive international luxury lifestyle.

And all of it, by the way, was paid for with money stolen from me and you and everyone listening to this, through Medicare fraud. The doctor who was the senator's co-defendant, has already been convicted in a separate case of stealing $105 million for Medicare in one of the largest Medicare fraud schemes in history.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PHIL: So you have this massive international luxury lifestyle, all with money stolen from us.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: And you have -- you know, Medicare. This should be -- this is -- if -- if a Republican were doing this, any Republican, this would be everywhere. Non-stop.

PHIL: Well, they would have the day the indictment came down, if not before. I mean, this guy was indicted two years ago. He's only finally going to trial now. He stayed in the Senate the entire time. And the reason why there are bribery charges here is that in exchange for this international luxury lifestyle, the senator is accused of doing three things for Dr. Melgen. Number one, he got visas for all his supermodel girlfriends. Svitlana Buchyk from the Ukraine and Juliana Lopes from Brazil and a 22-year-old model named Roseal Polanco (phonetic) from the Dominican Republic. In the case of the model from the Dominican, she had already been rejected for her visa, when Menendez stepped in and said, "Do whatever it takes." And he got the visa approved. So there were the visas for the girl.

GLENN: Phil, Phil, Phil, America cannot have enough global supermodels.

PHIL: I know. A lot of people -- a lot of people look at it, and say, he did nothing wrong on that one.

GLENN: Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. Supermodels, they can all come in. At night. In a tunnel. I don't care.

PHIL: Yeah.

GLENN: Anyway, go ahead.

PHIL: The second thing was a port security contract in the Dominican Republic. And this is kind of amazing because this guy was an eye doctor. He had no background in security of any kind. But basically, he bought a disused -- a not-honored port security contract that the Dominican Republic had signed with a company and that said, we're not going to honor that contract for whatever reason.

This guy Melgen buys the contract and then has Menendez go to bat with the State Department and with Customs and Border Control and with the Commerce Department and tries to get the entire US government to pressure the Dominican, to honor this contract, which would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Melgen. There was testimony just yesterday from a customs and border control official, who said that Senator Menendez called her and said, do not allow any security equipment to go to the Dominican Republic, until they honor my buddy's contract.

And the official said, she thought it was very odd that a US senator was trying to undermine the law enforcement mission of customs and border patrol. So that was the second thing, was trying to steer this contract. And the third, and they've just started hearing testimony on this. I think this coming week is going to be really exclusive on this. The third thing and by far the worst in my judgment is that he actually tried to intervene with HHS to have the Medicare fraud investigation dropped.

Basically, he wanted them to say that it was okay for Melgen to massively overbill Medicare by millions and millions of dollars, and he went to extraordinary length on that. In fact, at one point, he had a meeting with the HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, with Harry Reid, in Harry Reid's US capitol office, asking her to intervene and to drop the overbilling dispute.

STU: This is insane. This is an insane story. And especially when you can put it up to the news kind of, of the day, where everybody in the media is talking about Tom Price taking flights that cost $1 million.

GLENN: I was just going to say.

STU: And I'm not excited about that story by any means. We're talking about over $100 million. We've got supermodels, private jet flights, all sorts of crazy government contract business.

GLENN: And a very powerful senator.

STU: Yeah. And 22 --

PHIL: He was chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, in fact. And, you know, that was one of the things.

You know, when he was pressuring the State Department to inter -- to intercede with the Dominican and push this port security contract to his friend, he told him, if you don't do it, I'm going to have hearings in my committee. So he was using his official position he pretty clearly. And that's, I think, going to make his defense -- his defense argument -- he's basically making two arguments in his defense, which I find very unpersuasive. We'll see what the jury thinks, of course. He doesn't dispute at all that these facts happened. But what he says is -- I call it the Biz Markie defense. He says, we were just friends. We were just friends. A friend lets a friend use his jet and his resort. And a friend helps his friend with visas and government contracts. It was all just friendship. It wasn't bribery.

To me, if being friends with the person who, you know, corrupts his official office so that you can both live an international high life together, if somehow friendship makes that legal, then the laws are very flawed in this country.

GLENN: Yeah.

PHIL: If that's legal, then the law is not sufficient. Because that should not be legal. It's not ethical. It's not acceptable. This friendship defense is sort of one of the central arguments. The other is based on the McDonald decision at the Supreme Court. The Bob McDonald decision, which was -- which really narrowed the definition of official acts. And they're trying to argue that, look, as -- as a senator, he's not -- he didn't take any official actions when he was pressing the executive branch to do things like approve visas or pressure port security contracts or drop a billing dispute. Because a senator can only vote on legislation as an official act. And the government's response to that argument is basically, you know, if that's right, then the bribery statute would allow putting a PayPal account up on a senator's website and saying give me $50,000 and I'll advocate whatever your issue is with the executive branch. That can't be the case.

But we'll find out. I mean, we'll see in this trial, whether the definition of official act is now so narrow, that a senator can take bribes in exchange for taking action, you know, with respect to the executive branch. And so the defense arguments here, in my judgment, don't dispute any of the corrupt facts. And therefore, even if somehow he's acquitted, which I consider unlikely, but even if somehow he's acquitted, if the Senate ethics committee is worthy of his name, he ought to be kicked out of the Senate anyway. Because he doesn't dispute that he did all these things.

GLENN: So, Phil, can you put this on a scale? Can you compare this to any other -- I mean, this is huge. Can you compare this to any other scandal that you've seen in --

PHIL: I mean, there's really no comparison to anything at least in our lifetimes. I mean, there was some -- there was a senator who was kicked out for corruption in the '40s. I think. I don't know too much of the details of that case. But we've never seen anything quite like this, just the scale and the scope and the brazenness of it. Here's something that's kind of interesting: You know, one of the things the prosecution keeps saying in their opening statement is he did all of this for a man who wasn't even a constituent. Because the doctor is from Palm Beach, Florida. Menendez is a senator from New Jersey. He basically was dedicating his office to the service of somebody who wasn't even a constituent. And Menendez's lawyers responded, well, no. US Senate is a national office, so everyone in America is his constituent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PHIL: And the judge said, no, I don't think so. And he actually ordered briefing on the definition of the word constituent. So...

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Are they -- that's amazing. Certainly if this was Republican, every media member would go to every Republican and ask them their opinion on Menendez.

GLENN: Yeah. To disavow him.

STU: Yeah. To disavow him. Will you step down? Has there been any attempt at that. And are the reason why the Democrats are sticking by them because they think Christie will -- you know, since he's still in office for a few more weeks, it seems, that he would just, you know, give a Republican the office if he has to step down and they would have an advantage in the Senate.

PHIL: You know, the media showed a little bit of interest a few weeks ago, right when the trial started. CNN did some questioning. CNN has actually done pretty good coverage of this trial on their website. But almost nothing on the TV.

GLENN: Well, you only have 24 hours.

PHIL: Right. You only have 24 hours. Some of the Democrats have been asked. Chuck Schumer has been asked. There have been some RNC trackers out asking sort of this -- the amazing thing to me is the -- the Democrats, a lot of Democrats have been asked this question: Do you think Menendez should resign if he's convicted? And they won't even say yes to that. They'll kind of say, oh, I don't know. He'll have appeals. A convicted felon in the Senate might be all right.

GLENN: What?

PHIL: No, no, no.

GLENN: So you're a convicted felon -- you're a convicted felon. You lose your right to vote, but not you lose your right to vote in the Senate?

PHIL: Correct.

GLENN: That's crazy.

PHIL: Under the constitution, you need a two-thirds vote. So if they do an expulsion vote and the Democrats want to rally behind him, they could cast one of the worst votes of their career and actually keep him there.

GLENN: He'll stay.

PHIL: But if you vote to let a convicted bribe-taking felon senator stay in there, I think that's a vote you'll have a problem with for the rest of your career, which may be brief.

Now, you're correct. The reason why they want to stall and run out the clock, is if a conviction comes down next month, they're going to be looking at the calendar and saying, hmm, Governor Christie is only in office until January 16th. All the polls show that Bill Murphy, the Democrat, is probably going to win that race in November. So if we can somehow stall and run out the clock and say, oh, he's pursuing appeals, and maybe he'll announce a leave of absence, which has no legal meaning. And get to January 16th, then he can resign, and we'll have a Democratic governor appointing a replacement instead of a Republican.

So they're just trying to run out the clock for political advantage, I think, is what's happening.

GLENN: Phil, thank you so much. We'll talk to you again in a couple of weeks, as this trial continues. I'd love to get some updates from you. Thank you so much.

STU: Phil Kerpen is the president of American Commitment. And you can probably read -- his -- he raised a lot of really great opinion pieces as well. They're all over the web.

GLENN: Great opinion pieces.

STU: AmericanCommitment.org is the site.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep