New York — In a pivotal testimony on Friday, Ted McKinney, a senior USDA official, recounted a significant call he received from Sen. Bob Menendez in May 2019. The call is a crucial piece of evidence in the corruption trial against Menendez, who is accused of accepting bribes to favor New Jersey businesspeople and the Egyptian government.
Background of the Case
McKinney testified about his efforts to challenge a controversial decision by Egyptian officials to grant IS EG Halal, a New Jersey-based company, a monopoly on certifying halal meat exported to Egypt. This monopoly threatened American beef exports, particularly beef livers, which were a significant profit source. The decision could raise costs for Egyptian consumers, potentially reducing American meat purchases.
The Call from Menendez
McKinney recalled that Menendez’s call was brief but impactful. The senator reportedly told him to “stop interfering with my constituent,” a phrase McKinney said he would “never forget.” McKinney described Menendez as “serious” and “curt,” indicating that the senator wanted him to cease his efforts against the halal certification monopoly. McKinney’s attempts to explain his concerns were cut short by Menendez.
Prosecution’s Argument
Federal prosecutors allege that the monopoly granted to IS EG Halal, led by Wael “Will” Hana, facilitated funds used to bribe Menendez. McKinney’s testimony supports the prosecution’s claim that Menendez was leveraging his influence to benefit the New Jersey company and, by extension, the Egyptian government.
Defense’s Argument
Menendez’s defense attorneys argue that the senator’s actions were within the bounds of his duties. They characterized the call as a form of constituent services, asserting that Menendez was advocating on behalf of a constituent company, which is not illegal.
“He’s allowed to advocate to a federal agency on behalf of a company that is a constituent,” said Menendez attorney Avi Weitzman. “And he’s even allowed to yell at a federal employee. None of that is illegal. It’s his constitutionally protected role.”
Points of Contention
During the trial, discrepancies in the number of halal certifiers affected by Egypt’s decision were highlighted. One USDA document indicated seven impacted certifiers, while another mentioned four. Additionally, there was a circulating claim that some certifiers were falsely labeling non-halal meat as halal, which McKinney expressed skepticism about.
Continuing Testimony
McKinney’s team at the USDA ceased further inquiries into the halal certification monopoly after learning about the FBI’s investigation. McKinney’s testimony, which includes the claim that he suspected “something nefarious” was occurring with the monopoly, has been pivotal, though defense attorneys objected to this characterization, and the judge instructed the jury to disregard it.
Ongoing Proceedings
McKinney will face continued questioning from defense attorneys on Monday. The trial is expected to explore further the interactions between Menendez, Hana, and their connections to the halal certification monopoly.
Conclusion
The testimony of Ted McKinney has added a critical dimension to the case against Sen. Bob Menendez, shedding light on the senator’s alleged misuse of influence in favor of a New Jersey company. As the trial proceeds, the defense will continue to argue the legality and normalcy of Menendez’s actions, while the prosecution will aim to establish the corrupt nature of his involvement.
COMMENTS