this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
228 points (98.7% liked)

politics

23461 readers
3685 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Attorney General Pam Bondi gave Donald Trump the green light to accept a $400 million “flying palace” as a gift from Qatar.

ABC News reported that the Qatar royal family is expected to gift Trump a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet ahead of his big trip to the Middle East, where he is expected to visit Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to secure “economic agreements.”

Bondi and Trump’s top White House lawyer, David Warrington, have already smoothed the legal details. They concluded that the gift is “legally permissible” because it is being handed to the United States Air Force and then will be transferred to Trump’s presidential library foundation. They also determined it does not constitute a bribe because the gift does not hinge on an official act.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 85 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is really one step away from, "It's not embezzling if you award money to a non-profit you have full control over."

Didn't DeSantis just do that in Florida?

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 67 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Bondi:

They also determined it does not constitute a bribe because the gift does not hinge on an official act.

Emoluments clause:

...no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Bondi, we're not talking about bribes, we're talking about explicit violations of the Constitution. So where's the Congressional consent?

Oh, because Qatar gives it to USAF, and USAF gives it to Trump, it's "legally permissible." Gosh, what a novel idea. Definitely not something a first year law student would see as a strawperson introduced in a transaction specifically to evade illegal conduct.

[–] toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

what don't y'all understand about the transitive property of emoluments?

[–] JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

SCOTUS has ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution.

[–] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hope that shit fucking crashes.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean there's a good chance. Air traffic control in the US is hanging by a thread.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 19 points 1 day ago

And it's current-day Boeing. So there's actually a really good chance.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They can just have Congress give the nod, and it would all be legal and correct. But for some reason, they don't seem to want to do that.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

So much of what the courts are ruling Trump can't do could simply be legalized by Congress.

Almost as if the GOP wants to treat Trump like a king, and cry about it when the courts don't acquiesce.

Or they're a bunch of cowardly bitches who don't want to take the blame for doing the unpopular things they actually want done, and are happy to let Trump be the face of shitty GOP policy.

Or, most likely... Both.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They rule by executive decree now.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 18 points 1 day ago

She didn't. She defied the Constitution. Those aren't the same thing.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is the rule really written that it needs to be a bribe? I'm a state employee and we can't even accept food from vendors under conflict of interest rules for gifts, there's no need for any bribe to occur for it to count.

[–] MagosInformaticus@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
US Constitution section 9 clause 8.

I'd say that's pretty clear an official act to the giver's benefit is not a necessary element of the prohibited conduct. If something is offered, both houses of congress must vote to allow it or the gift must be declined.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, but, you see, it's the air force that's getting the gift, it's just meant for orange Hitler's exclusive use. That's clearly not a gift to him personally. /wink

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago

And they've stated in advance that the Air Force won't continue to own it after Trump to benefit the United States.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Clearly if the Founders didn't want ~~SCOTUS~~ the President to be given an ~~RV~~ airplane, they would have said as much!

-Clearance Thomas

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

You see you low born can't get anything but higher ups.

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 19 points 1 day ago

You can’t buy me new dresses, that would be unethical. But, I bet my husband would appreciate some new dresses. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Corruption abound

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

Eat the rich

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Constitution? What's that?

Is it that piece of paper hanging in the bathroom in Mar-a-Lago that the orange utang wipes his ass with every day?

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I hope it’s a Boeing

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How are those checks and balances working?

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 day ago

Blank checks and no balance.

[–] KMAMURI@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fight back already. Damn. Dude is just rubbing it in your face now.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Very useful advice thanks.

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, I'll just quit my job and travel the 4500 km to Washington DC, then I will stand outside and yell across the lawn to him that "I demand satisfaction!", and when he walks down to the fence to talk to me I'll challenge hin to a duel.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They also determined it does not constitute a bribe because the gift does not hinge on an official act.

Right. Just out of the goodness of their hearts then. A belated housewarming gift.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

This claim is non-sensical.

Is a bribe really a bribe if it's provided in exchange for an official act? That sounds more like a contractual arrangement, which is obviously not a bribe.

Additionally, it's obviously worse if the reciprocation is undocumented. The money is provided in exchange for various favors of an undisclosed nature.

Their ruling is a non-sequitur. They're basically just saying "it's a bribe, deal with it".

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Oh, we should probably let all of the low-level government workers know that they don't have to worry about eating that muffin at next month's meeting.

America is dead and I am sad about it.

[–] mister_flibble@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

Bowel's moving castle

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

What's stopping them from hiding a kill switch in that plane? I'm worried about our president. Imagine the outrage if the plane went down with him in it? Let's pray to Krasnov, let his mercy protect Mr. President.

[–] Jimbabwe@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also probably got a million hidden recording devices. Lol, that idiot is gonna get hisself blackmailed by everyone. Russia and UAE can take turns pulling the strings!

[–] LumpyPancakes@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

Naah. They'll be in flight mode.

[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't worry, if the US ever gets a real president again I doubt they'll set foot on this middle finger to the country.

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

trump gets to keep the jet after he leaves (assuming he leaves). The jet goes with him. By way of his “presidential library fund.”

[–] jimjam5@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Hope he leaves in a pine box, and soon.

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Such bullshit. The dude is the swamp

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You know it’s got loads of gold decor

[–] Zier@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

He loves the look of a trashy bordello. Now to be known as, AirForce Bordello.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago