as embattled senior senator Bob Menendez inches closer to his May Federal corruption trial prosecutors now say they've got a trove of new details to prove he was part of an elaborate bribery scheme in a court filing this week prosecutors allege Menendez didn't just get cash gold bars and a luxury car but also a diamond engagement ring for his future wife all part of an extensive list of bribes he and naen Menendez allegedly took in exchange for his political influence according to the document it didn't end there the couple allegedly conspired to BU New Jersey towns during the pandemic in a scheme involving a covid-19 Testing Lab that was paying nen Menendez who according to the court filing used a phone the couple dubbed 007 in an apparent reference to the James Bond character there's also more details about the money investigators found during a raid on the Menendez home thousands of dollars of cash stuffed in Boots and in bags prosecutors say all of this is evidence in proving Menendez was aware of a corrupt quid pro quo it comes as the US senator's defense team is requesting for his indictment to be dismissed going so far as to invoke none other than Taylor Swift in their argument here to help us make sense of it all is former assistant us attorney Chris Gramiccioni Chris Gramiccioni, Chris thanks so much for giving us a few minutes of your time so these are not new charges but this is a new filing what's the difference there and why are we seeing prosecutors continually do this in the case well the most recent filing is a response to the various motions that have been brought by the the multiple defendants in the case and they basically cover the motion to sever the case that pertains to Senator Mrs Menendez a motion to dismiss the case for fail to State claims and the charges a motion to to suppress evidence that was seized in the various locations were searched by the government um a Frank's hearing motion which is basically an allegation that the government intentionally withheld material information from the Magistrate Judge that granted the warrant and then finally a change of venue motion so so the flurry of activity you see is the government's response their Omnibus response to all of that and then the various replies that the defendants have put in in in reply to that response so by divulging uh let's say the uh money involved with this uh alleged diamond engagement ring or cash that was found during the first uh raid of the home money in Boots and and in bags on top of uh coat hangers these are details that the prosecutors are saying are reasons for why there these shouldn't be dismissed yeah the of course the defense Council and the defendants they would love to have these charges thrown out um I think it's highly unlikely under these circumstances because the indictment is sufficiently detailed and pled um and that's a decision for a jury to determine they they want all of that thrown out because it is quite you know nefarious allegations that are made and the government came back and they and sprinkled in some additional facts that weren't in the in the indictment just to reinforce the fact that they had probable cause that there's no grounds to dismiss there's no grounds for a Frank's hearing and all of the other arguments that the defend through their Council are making um so you know it's an interesting tactic I guess often times defense Council will try to throw out get charges thrown out but in doing so what they're doing is they're really highlighting what the defense is going to be at trial in effect giving kind of a leg up to the government uh in advance before you even get to the point of presenting to a jury well and that was my next question what does this tell us about what we can expect for the trial in May well I guess what I can tell is the big centerpiece on the defenses arguments the multiple defendants is that the actions that were undertaken there's no sufficient quidd proquo in other words there wasn't something of value in received in exchange for taking official action or in action and they're basically saying there's there's no agreement that forms the basis of a corrupt bribe scheme and in the case of Senator mandez he's couching his defense under the speech and debate clause of the US Constitution saying this is all acts that that I'm immune from taking I I don't necessarily think that's the case if you can prove a corrupt Arrangement which is the whole purpose of the indictment then you could lose that immunity the other defendants can't bring those arguments but that's kind of the centerpiece is there's no specific quid pro quo um even though there might have been things of value received there's good reason for that and it wasn't because Senator Mendes and these conspirators were on the take okay and so finally and quickly help us understand why they are the defense team that is invok ining Taylor Swift in this latest defense filing she's everywhere you can't make it up um essentially equating that what they did was no different than asking a celebrity to intervene to help um in an outcome of a situation yeah I you know I don't have much to add to that other than obviously Taylor Swift didn't you know take an oath to support and defend the constitution in the United States and act in the best interest of constituents that elect you so I guess that's all I have to say about that it is cute you often see things like that in in filings um all of you know judges are trained to kind of see past that and really just study the objective criteria that's necessary to determine whether a motion ought to be granted or not so the next step will be oral argument and then you know I'm sure there'll be some extensive coverage in that regard and we'll see what the court does former assistant us attorney Chris Gramiccioni thanks so much thank you have a good afternoon [Music]