a federal judge has denied the request to delay US senator Bob Menendez trial start date the Senator's legal team requested that they be given two extra months to sort through the millions of pages of evidence provided by the prosecution Menendez is charged with bribery accepting gold bars and cash from Egyptian businessmen in exchange for political favors as well as a charge of acting as a foreign agent on behalf of Egypt in his role as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee now Menendez has denied the claims and his legal team sought to delay the start of his trial from May to July but US District Court Judge Sydney Stein said that while the amount of evidence certainly is voluminous it's significantly less than the defense claimed so what if anything does this denial indicate about the judges attitudes around this case I'm joined Now by former assistant us attorney for New Jersey Chris Grammicioni who can offer some insight Chris great to have you back on now when we last spoke um we had you had indicated that this was a pretty common practice to request a delay even by two months um that this seemed like a fair request considering all of the evidence that the defense had to work through were you surprised to see judge Stein deny this request kly yeah it was I mean two months is not much of a delay and considering the amount of documents and discovery which I think were in the millions I was surpris that the continuance wasn't granted um so I yeah but I at the same time I'm told that the Menendez team and the other defendants were on notice and provided Discovery fairly early so the government must have a strong position of wanting to go forward at the earliest possible date in the court agreed judge Stein um really kind of shot a hole through the defense's claim they say they had 735 terabytes worth of documents that does equate to 15 million pages I believe that 15 million stands but it ends up it was only three terabytes as the judge pointed out in her response does do that change anything substantively in terms of what the defense still has to accomplish in order to be ready for trial no I mean it's it's always when you're defending a case you want to go in and not be surprised or you want to be completely familiar with the materials turned over by the government but that said these teams it's not just one or two lawyers it's probably a team of lawyers within each Law Firm that's working on reviewing it and they kind of crystallize what might be relevant what isn't um so but the fact that the it wasn't as as great of a discovery dump as initially the the defense stated probably made a difference in the Court's ruling and I also think although I'll never know I think there's just the general interest especially on the part of doj of wanting to try a case uh closer towards the election time frame so I bet you there's an interest in in resolving it sooner rather than later yeah you can't deny that there is some political implication Here If This Were postponed it would be after the primaries starting in May versus July puts this trial squarely within that election season do you think that there was a political play here and do you think the Judge sees this as a political play well I I know that doj has an internal policy of of trying to avoid the the bringing of charges or the announcement of charges within you know it's usually like 90 or 120 days of a of an election um but obviously these charges are pending so I don't know if it entered the equation in in in the Court's assessment on whether or not to to go forward I'd be speculating if I tried to guess but um I do know that it it's probably in the interest of all parties not to have an election I'm sorry a prosecution going on for a sitting incumbent Senator uh right around the time of the primary and certainly at the general um we we don't know yet what Senator Mendez is going to do if he's going to announce his run for re-election who knows but um it's full steam ahead it appears at least from the government's position the judge did point out that both parties agreed to this start date when they first uh when they initially met and they did know how much evidence there was at that time I'm just curious though from your perspective does this indicate at all how the judge perceives this case do you read anything more from her denial no I I don't I can't I don't personally read anything into it other than you bring up a very good point that the parties were on noticed at the time of scheduling and at that time if there was going to be objection it was to be raised he might have done it back then before agreeing to that initial trial schedule um but no I don't read anything any in particular I think every federal judge has an interest in ensuring that their docket is expeditious and the balance there is ensuring that you know speedy trial rights are are honored which is a it's just as much as a citizen's right as it is a defendant's right but also at the same time ensuring that the defense can allow to prepare an effective defense and and be able to go forward so judge is trying to balance that and it seems that she struck back balance and we'll see where it takes us Chris Grammicioni on great insight as always thank you thank you Happy New Year same to you [Music]