The Plain Truth About the Qatari Plane

Courtesy AP

As practicing lawyer, prior to 2017, I never had occasion to even reference the Emoluments Clause of Article I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution, which reads:

And no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, Without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The Constitution could not be any clearer: we don’t want any of our government officials, certainly not the President, being subject to bribery, or even the appearance of bribery which would undermine faith in the integrity of our government at home and abroad. (The term “Emoluments” refers to any fee paid by a foreign entity, as opposed to a gift, also barred by the Constitution.) We don’t want even lingering suspicions that a President acted out of gratitude for a personal gain, not in the best interests of America.

One reason why I never had occasion to look at the Emoluments Clause until Donald Trump became President in 2017 is because there have not been other instances where Presidents were shown to have accepted lavish gifts or accepted fees from foreign governments. In Trump’s first term, questions were raised about violating the Clause by charging the Secret Service for staying at Trump’s own hotels; those cases were never decided because of a variety of reasons: plaintiffs who lacked standing, questions about whether the funds were “gifts” or “emoluments” as described in the Clause, and mostly because aside from the Emoluments Clause, there are no legal ethical rules or restrictions on the Presidents. The only available option is impeachment, and with these Republicans in charge of the House and Senate, forget it.

Just last week I posted on the blatant conflict of interest and Emoluments Clause violation triggered by Trump’s entry into the cryptocurrency market.. *Click Here to Read Conman Don’s Crypto Scam.***

It didn’t take long for another, equally dangerous conflict to emerge from the shadows.

Trump plans to accept from Qatar a gift of a “luxury” jet airplane worth 400 million dollars, which he will use as Air Force One through the remainder of his term. This is not a gift to the United States government; it is a gift to Donald Trump personally, during his Presidency. Once Trump leaves office, the latest being January 20, 2029, ownership of the plane transfers from Trump as President to the Donald Trump Library, which at this point is merely a government website, not a functioning private institution.

Trump claims this is just in recognition for the friendship between the two nations and their appreciation for his great leadership, but many, including many in Trump’s party, aren’t buying. America has economic and strategic ties to Qatar, and having this kind of influence and leverage over the President gives Qatar, let us say, a leg up in any dealings.

We don’t have to be Constitutional scholars to understand this is exactly what the Founding Father wanted to prevent when they wrote the Emoluments Clause into the Constitution. Do any of us believe that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay or any other Founding Father sat around dreaming up ways for future Presidential grifters to make an easy and blatantly transparent end run against the Emoluments Clause they themselves wrote?

Were the Founding Fathers open to technical loopholes allowing emoluments and fees from foreign governments?

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Or maybe some worthless Trump cryptocurrency, or a diploma from Trump University.

There is absolutely no need for Trump to accept a gifted airplane from a Gulf State Monarchy. The US government by law pays the hourly cost of operating Air Force One, as well as the salaries of the crew and the Secret Service protection. Does Trump plan to charge the US government for the hourly costs of operating a plane he owns? Shades of his hotel rip-off scam!

Trump is trying to be too clever by half in arguing he is only using the plane as President and then when he leaves he no longer has personal control over it. It’s a scam, and the sheer arrogance of this Grifter-in-Chief has him boldly showing us that it’s a ruse to maintain ownership and control. There’s a legal principle called “piercing the veil,” where the fact-finding process goes beyond what the ownership documents say, and determines who is really the owner in fact.

Concerns have been raised by Senators in both parties, raising questions of conflict of interest, with or without a prohibitive code of ethics to bar it. The Emoluments Clause, national security, safety of the aircraft, alleged Qatari support for Hamas, and a general angst about “Greeks bearing gifts,” as per the “Trojan Horse” chapter of Homer’s Iliad, have all been cited as reasons to stop this bribery scheme from coming to fruition.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has announced a hold on all Trump appointees until this deal is stopped. It’s about time Chuck started using whatever leverage he has at his disposal.

Florida Senator Rick Scott, a Republican, calls the Qatari safety record subpar, says he wouldn’t fly on one and neither should our President. Besides, Scott says, Qatar supports Hamas terrorists.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz of the GOP raises the same concerns, adding more emphasis on potential threats to our national security as well as Qatar’s terrible human rights records. Senator Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky also raised his voice in opposition, citing Qatar’s human rights violations and national security.

I’m no expert in aviation safety, but there’s a reason all these GOP Senators are worried about it. As for national security, we ought to assume the plane is loaded with eavesdropping and recording capabilities for the Qataris to listen in and hack at will. How certain can we be that these bugging and hacking devices are found, with a Defense Department headed by Pete Hegseth, Homeland Security by Kristi Noem, and the FBI by Kash Patel?

I’ve no more faith in those clowns doing their jobs well than I do in Attorney General Pam Bondi or Secretary of State/ National Security Advisor Marco Rubio giving the President the correct law, because they know that’s not what he wants to hear.

It sure sounds like this is the kind of gift or Emolument that needs Congressional approval. It also sounds almost certain that approval would never be granted.

Will Trump attempt to carry out the deal in the face of loud Congressional outcries?

My guess is he will, unless Congress acts to block this “gift.”

I doubt Republican lapdogs will muster the votes in either the House or Senate to stop Trump. Even if enough Republicans joined with Democrats to pass legislation preventing the gift, Trump could veto it, and it is extremely unlikely there would be 2/3 in each house of Congress to override the veto.

That means it is up to the federal courts. They have the Constitutional authority to hear cases arising out of the Constitution, (Article III, Section 2), and for the past 222 years they have the power to strike down executive actions. ( Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Will Trump abide by either a law or court decision?

As noted, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about a law being passed, and if one were to survive his veto, Trump would appeal to the federal courts, claiming separation of powers and his role as Chief Diplomat and Head of State. Nevertheless, the matter will come before the Court because some party with legal standing will bring a suit. (However absurd Trump’s arguments may be, Justices Alito and Thomas will endorse them.) So far, while it appears some Trump DOJ lawyers have played footloose and fancy free in interpreting judicial orders, there has not yet been a blatant and open statement of defiance. (Trump has instead preferred to attempt to intimidate judges with threats of impeachment.) The question is what would happen if Trump runs out the string, and the Supreme Court rules against him, finding that this arrangement violates the Emoluments Clause; in effect, the Court would “pierce the veil,” reject the straw man ownership charade, and determine this is precisely what the Founders were out to prevent.

Would Trump abide by the decision and reject the plane? My guess is that so much pressure would be put on him from Republicans in the House snd Senate, not to mention his own political advisors, that he would grudgingly, ungraciously, and bombastically accept the decision of the Court.

If I’m wrong, and he accepts the plane and uses it when the Court says no, we will be in the midst of a genuine Constitutional crisis. The only way out would be to elect a Dem House in 2026, so they can engage in real oversight of the deal and open an investigation into possible impeachment. Do Republicans really want to have to defend this deal? From the words of Senators Scott, Cruz and Paul, definitely not. Even if the matter did not result in conviction, even if a Republican Senate blocked the trial, the pressure that a Democratic House could apply is far greater than even Schumer’s holding up appointments.

For Democrats, indeed, for democracy, all roads lead to the 2026 midterms.

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar.

THE TRUTH WILL WIN IF IT IS TOLD!

Stephen Shaiken is an attorney and author. He has written extensively on Constitutional issues. He has litigated scores of Constitutional questions in federal appellate courts and is a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar.

And please check out my fiction. You can visit the Amazon Series Page for the acclaimed NJA Club Series: CLICK HERE

You can visit the Amazon page for Queensborough Rock, set amidst the NYC rock ’n’ roll world circa 1970. CLICK HERE

Check out my author’s website at: www.stephenshaiken.com

Originally published at https://stephenshaiken.substack.com.