Menendez is not on trial for makign false statements. He's on trial for bribery. Bribery charges like those against Menendez require:

• Material benefit to the Federal official

• Substantive material benefit to the briber

• Evidence of both quid pro quo and nexus

• Corrupt acts or future acts that violate the official's duty

Menendez is accused of accepting donations, trips and gifts from an eye-doctor in exchange for pressuring officials in a general manner to benefit his friend. They have already established that he received the benefits, that there was a quid pro quo relationship and that he was seeking to benefit the briber. But they are having trouble establishing that the eye-doctor received corrupt benefits that violated his duty in office, because the supreme court has set a high bar for what are actual offenses- just setting up meetings or making phone calls on behalf of constituents, even if you're being bribed to do so, isn't illegal now under the McDonnell precedent, nor is a nebulous 'stream of benefits' where they could argue he is on retainer. They need to show substantive material benefit. They do have specific examples to go with, like getting visas for the eye-doctors girlfriend, or setting up meetings for his friend, or threatening officials at the commerce department. But the McDonnell precedent makes those doubtful.

That includes Jared, Sessions, Flynn, Mannafort, and Trump.

in the cases of Jared, Session & Trump, none of the elements required exist at all. In the cases of Flynn and Manafort, they may have been receiving money, but it would still require establishing all the other elements of the crime. For the allegations against someone like Flynn, you can't simply say that if he took money and opposed the Syrian war intervention, that the two are necessarily linked. You'd have to establish quid pro quo, you'd have to show the other party benefited, you'd have to show a significant act of corruption