Convicted U.S. Senator Robert Menendez and two top aides are asking a federal judge in New York to discard their guilty verdicts, on the grounds that the government failed to prove he used his political influence so people who gave him gifts received something back from it. On Monday, Menendez also filed a separate set of motions along with real estate developer Fred Daibes and halal meat entrepreneur Wael Hana that sought either an acquittal or for a new trial.

Menendez was found guilty July 16 after a nearly two-month trial that included charges he accepted gold bars, cash and other valuables as bribes in exchange for helping Daibes' business interests along with Hana's personal dive into the real estate business.

Robert Menendez Acquittal : Legal challenge over bribery conviction

In his own defense brief, Menendez argued that the government offered no proof or even a charge of any explicit deal to exchange official acts for bribes. The government has indicated that it "intends to prove at trial that Senator Menendez entered into several quid pro quo agreements to sell his US Senate office and take official acts" on behalf of Dr. But for all its 10-week trial, the government put up nothing to show evidence of an agreement — just speculation masquerading as inference.

The defense maintained Menendez is guilty of nothing more than being a U.S. senator and said if the convictions against him are allowed to stand it would create an “absurd, never-ending prosecution” on circumstantial evidence. They argued no rational jury would have reached a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Like with the text messages, Daibes and Hana also contended during their trial that they were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scheme of Bribery and Outcome of Trial

The government claimed that Menendez, who has been a senator from New Jersey for 11 years, tried to help Daibes and Hana with their personal and business affairs in his public capacity as a politician from New Jersey in return of expensive presents such as gold bars, cash and other valuable items. Uribe, also a purported actor in the scheme, pleaded guilty prior to trial and testified for the government but Menendez was convicted at felony bribery trial along with Daibes and Hana.

If convicted, Menendez's wife, Nadine, could be sentenced to life in prison. Her trial has been severed and remained postponed indefinitely because she was diagnosed with breast cancer while the couple went on trial; Madeleine LISTEN LIVE NOW! You have been convicted of other charges connected to her husbands suspected bribery scheme.

The Defendants Say They Should Not Be Convicted

In its filings, both Daibes and Hana argued that the government had offered no proof of any quid pro quo. In her brief, Daibes' lawyer wrote: "At most, the government proved that over a two-year period of time Mr. Daibes gave the Menendez's some sort of benefits." Hana's attorneys have also argued that the jury was tainted by prejudicial evidence introduced by prosecutors, leading to an "inequitable verdict."

Resignation and succession of Menendez

Menendez is anticipated to resign Tuesday when he submits his letter of resignation to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy. Swenson's resignation will be effective August 20. Murphy later chose his former chief of staff, George Helmy, to serve in the Senate seat for the balance Menendez term.

Robert Menendez Acquittal : Legal Representation

The government is represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Emil Bove III, Amanda L. Houle and Benet J.Pavail from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Trial Attorney Sarah Chang off from DOJ's National Security Division. Menendez, who is represented by Paul Hastings LLP and Jones Day, while Nadine Menendez counsel includes Coburn GCreenbaum & Eisenstein PLLC. Attorneys for Hana are with Gibbons PC and attorneys for Daibes are The Law Firm of Cesar de Castro PC and Gotlib Law PLLC.

Two years into a legal battle over his conviction, the case against Robert Menendez remains a lens through which to view debates around political corruption and minimum standards of evidence for politicians.