PoliticusUSA can solely keep unbiased by means of the assist of our readers. You’ll be able to assist us by turning into a subscriber.
Trump all the time manages to flee accountability as a result of he finds others to do his soiled work. Within the case of Trump accepting a $400 million airplane from Qatar, the autumn man seems to be Secretary of Protection Pete Hegseth.
Home Judiciary Committee Rating Member Jamie Raskin wrote to Hegseth to inform him that by accepting the airplane, he’s breaking the legislation.
Raskin wrote partly:
Having executed such an impressive job coercing a international authorities into making an unconstitutional and illegal reward, you had been rewarded by the President on your work when he assigned you to be the official to formally settle for the “flying palace” from the Qatari royals.
Your personal spokesperson on the Division of Protection (DOD) acknowledged: “The secretary of protection has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar.”
Alas for you, which means that, as of at this time, you are actually the one in violation of the Overseas Emoluments Clause of the Structure, as a result of it’s plainly simply as unconstitutional for you—one other “individual holding [an] Workplace of Revenue or Belief” 8 of the US—to just accept this luxurious airplane from the monarchical authorities of Qatar as it’s for President Trump to take action. You’re additionally in violation of the Overseas Presents and Decorations Act.
That legislation offers congressional consent for presidency officers to just accept sure presents of as much as $480 in worth— although not $400 million jumbo jets—from international governments. The Act expressly prohibits an worker of the US—which incorporates you—from “request[ing] or in any other case encourag[ing] the tender of a present” as President Trump had evidently executed together with your assist and that of Ambassador Witkoff.
Even worse for you, the Act offers that, to handle violations, “the Lawyer Normal could convey a civil motion … towards any worker who knowingly solicits or accepts a present from a international authorities” not in accordance with the Act—which this “reward” shouldn’t be—and permits a court docket to evaluate a penalty “to not exceed the retail worth of the reward improperly solicited or obtained plus $5,000.”
