Prostitute: Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, Incoming Democratic Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Liked the "Youngest," "Newest" Prostitutes

You don't say ...

In a little-noticed email published online Wednesday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime Menendez campaign donor.

“That Senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2002, according to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker.

“In the beginning he seemed so serious, because he never spoke to anyone, but he is just like the others and has just about the same tastes as the doctor, very refined. I think they were taking us more often to get us checked [medically] because of him.”

"The doctor," I assume, refers to one Melgen, a big Menendez donor. It was on this Melgen's private jet that Menendez swooped down on the Dominican Republic (rather like a fat bird of prey).

There's more tawdry details to the story. (I have a caveat about this I'm putting under the fold because my own caveat is based on an imperfect understanding.)

There's more to this story: Did Menendez reimburse Melgen for the flight costs, or disclose that he was accepting a gift from a "personal friend"? This is important, because not reimbursing someone, or disclosing the gift, would be a violation in its own right; and, further, if this trip was kept off-books, it suggests maybe there's a reason for a dark flight.

Now, Menendez did reimburse Melgen... "recently."

Senators may also accept travel on a plane owned by a personal friend, so long as the person is not a lobbyist, and report the travel as a gift on disclosure forms. A gift worth more than $250 also requires approval of the Ethics Committee and disclosure by the senator, notes Ken Gross, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Menendez does not appear to have reported such gifts on his disclosure documents in recent years.

...

Menendez Chief of Staff Danny O’Brien told NBC on Wednesday that the senator recently paid Melgen $58,000 as reimbursement for two trips on the doctor’s plane. O’Brien said Menendez’s staff discovered the error after an ethics complaint was filed by a New Jersey Republican official last November.

O’Brien said he was “chalking it up to an oversight.” A Menendez spokeswoman, who also spoke to NBC, added that the senator was not claiming the plane trips were a gift, which he would have needed pre-approval for from the Ethics Committee.

So, he didn't reimburse, until recently, when this started to become a problem. Menendez's own chief of staff says he's "chalking it up to an oversight."

Well, if you're satisfied it was an "oversight," certainly I'm satisfied then.

The actual trip was taken back around Easter 2012 (April?), was "overlooked" as late as November when a Republican filed a complaint, and only "recently," as emails trickle out, is reimbursement made.

Yeah, I'm going to say I don't like that.

Now remember this stuff in the context of the FBI raid, for as-of-yet unknown reasons, of the doctor's (Melgen's) offices, which just happened a few days ago.

Thanks to @johnekdahl for both pieces.

The Caveat:

I gotta tell you, there is one fact -- or rather allegation -- in these emails I don't like at all: That both accusing prostitutes (if I'm reading this right) say they both say (again, I think) that they think they had sex with him when they were underage (16), and they both think that because they remember having the sex before their birthdays.

Both of them? That seems convenient to me -- too convenient. Like the old "I know what time I was away from the murder scene because I distinctly remember Johnny Carson playing on the bar tv." Can happen once -- but twice?

Now, I don't know if I'm interpreting the DC correctly. I clicked on the actual emails but they're in Spanish and couldn't decipher them.

At any rate, I don't know if the DC meant that. They mention an encounter occurring around a birthday; I don't know if they mean to suggest that the second prostitute is saying she too was under 17 (and she knows because of the birthday connection) or if she's just mentioning that it happened near her birthday.

Further, of course, two things can be true simultaneously: It's both a shakedown and a case of serious scandal (which would have created the compromising situation for the shakedown).

I'll try to get clarification on the exact reason for the birthday mentions.

posted by Ace at 09:45 AM

| Access Comments