Democratic Senator Robert Menendez has been the focus of corruption charges several times in the last decade. One was spearheaded by Republicans in 2006 (it was closed in 2011 with no charges filed). Another involved an accusation from the right that he dealt with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, charges that were never substantiated. The present charges first emerged in a federal court in 2013:

It was reported on March 14, 2013, that a federal grand jury in Miami is investigating Menendez regarding his role in advocating for the business interests of ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen. Menendez’s efforts to push U.S. government officials to enforce a lucrative port security contract would benefit one of his major donors, Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, as well as Pedro Pablo Permuy, a former national security adviser and senior legislative aide to Mr. Menendez.

More about that original investigation here.

This case has been smoldering for quite some time. So the timing of the following announcement could be just a coincidence. But it’s certainly “interesting” that it has come right after the Iran deal controversy in which Menendez featured so prominently as a leading Democrat who joined with Republicans to vociferously criticize Obama:

The Justice Department reportedly plans to charge Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey with corruption for doing political favors for a donor and friend. “People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosectors’ request to proceed with charges,” CNN reports. The FBI has been investigating Menendez’s relationship with Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, on whose plane the senator flew to the Dominican Republic in 2010. In 2013, Menendez paid back Melgen $58,000 after not disclosing the flight. Menendez has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Menendez, a Democrat, was reelected in 2012 and is considered a leading hawk on Iran and Russia in the Senate.

The grand jury investigation began in March of 2013, but Holder just signed off on proceeding with actual charges. Again, perhaps a coincidence. But it’s also interesting that by March of 2013 Menendez had been opposing President Obama’s policies on Iran and Russia for several years. I have no idea whether he was the only Democrat to do so, but he was certainly the most influential in terms of foreign policy, having risen to the post of chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2013, replacing Kerry when the latter became SOS. Menendez in turn was replaced in January of 2015 after the Senate was taken over by Republicans in the 2014 election. He’s been vigorously going after Obama on Iran ever since.

Getting rid of Menendez would have its down side for Obama, since Christie would get to appoint his replacement. But since Menendez seems to oppose Obama on foreign policy anyway, and since even with one more Republican in the Senate it still will be plenty hard to override any of the vetoes Obama has planned, Menendez’s loss probably doesn’t really present that much of a problem for Obama. Silencing and/or discrediting his voice is probably much more important. Nor could one more Republican in the Senate do much about Obama’s busy phone and pen.

[Hat tip: Ace.]

[ADDENDUM: Commenter “expat” calls my attention to this article, which offers a theory about timing that links the timing of the Clinton email revelations with the timing of the Menendez prosecution sign-off. The idea is that they both offer timely warnings to any Democrat who would dare oppose Obama on Iran:

The answer is that the two are related: This week’s tarring of Hillary Clinton is part of the White House’s political campaign to shut off debate about its hoped-for deal. It’s not hard to see why they’re anxious. With Netanyahu’s speech forcing lawmakers and editorial writers to face up to the proposed agreement’s manifest problems, the administration fears the prospect of Democrats jumping ship and signing on to Kirk-Menendez sanctions legislation that also would give Congress oversight on the deal. So far, the White House has managed to keep Democratic lawmakers in line, no matter how much they seem to question the wisdom of the proposed deal. Hillary Clinton, gearing up for a 2016 run in which she is likely to put some distance between herself and Obama’s dubious Middle East policies, is the one major national Democratic figure who can give Democrats in Congress cover.

Makes sense to me.]