As should be clear by now, grifting to Trump is second nature, much like how other people need food for sustenance.  The courts shut down his charity foundation over grifting, for goodness sake. Still, though, since coming into office, he’s turned it into an art form with money-raising deals that transcend mere grifting to reaching the rarified air of being prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.  Especially the part about getting money from foreign governments.  Y'know, the whole, pesky "Article 1, Section 9" emoluments clause of the Constitution.

It's one thing for a president to have a side hustle making outside money, but pulling scams with foreign governments to violate the pesky "Article 1, Section 9" emoluments clause meant to prohibit even just the appearance of conflicts of interest -- never mind actual crimes -- is the full grifter package.  But since Trump was elected the first time in 2016, there it all is, hiding in "plane view", like a late-night TV infomercial peddler:  Trump sneakers (the most appropriately-named grift), Trump watches, the Trump Hotel (a 100% perfect place for foreign officials to stay and dump money to Trump so that it looks with a wink like it's almost legitimate), Trump hats, Trump t-shirts, Trump bitcoin trading cards, and of course Trump crypto coins which is virtually an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord for inviting corruption, as the gullible MAGOP lackeys and clear-eyed foreign governments pour money into Trump, enriching him before our very eyes.
 
A million here, a million there, even tens of millions.  It's the grift that keeps on giving.
 
But that’s all chicken feed.
 
After all, it’s one thing for adoring Trump acolytes, willing to accept anything Trump does (from convictions of 34 felonies to rape  and fraud) to dismiss such paltry corruption. He says he's a billionaire, so, big deal, this is nothing, he doesn't need it, never mind the Constitution and ethics.  But -- those “few millions” that are so easy to dismiss with a blind eye is nothing compared to Trump accepting a $400 million plane from Qatar. 
 
Even for some of the most loyal Trump disciples, that’s a bridge too far.  For goodness sake, the lunatic, extreme-right Laura Loomer put out a tweet that began (and ended) by explaining she’d take a bullet for Trump, but in between said he can’t accept a $400 million airplane.

For perspective on the ethics of such a thing, attorney Marc Elias said on MSNBC that he was longtime friends with Sen. Jon Tester from even before Tester was elected, and "I couldn't buy him dinner when he was in the U.S. Senate."
 
My favorite though was Bernie Sanders describing this as “farcically corrupt.”  While adding that it’s also “blatantly unconstitutional.

Fun Fact:  there used to be around 30 lawyers in the Justice Department's anti-corruption division.  After Trump administration cutbacks, there are now four.
 
Oh, sure, Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi declared the half-a-billion dollar bribe as acceptable.  But then Bondi is the same person who, as Florida AG, shut down an investigation of Trump after he gave her a $20,000 campaign donation.  So, Ms. Bondi’s standard on what constitutes a bribe is somewhat suspect.  Along with that she's a former lobbyist for Qatar, paid $115,000 a month.  Yes, really.  So, that whole "Take Pam Bondi's word on it" concept is flexible.
 
Of course, being Trump, accepting a grifting bribe isn’t enough.  He has to lie about it, as well.  After all, Trump lies like most people breathe.  So, there was Trump, saying that Qatar gave its $400 million plane to the U.S., not him.  Well, of course, this is a lie.  Putting aside the question, why on earth would Qatar give a $400 million plane to the United States? -- the reality is that, according reports about the deal with Qatar, they didn't give the plane to "the U.S. government," they gave the plane to the current occupant of the White House…after which ownership switches to the Trump library foundation.
 
NOTE: a reminder, as mentioned above, that Trump's previous foundation, a charity, no less (a charity!), was shut down for, as the New York Attorney General described it, "a shocking pattern of illegality.”
 
And what – oh, what? – could Trump possibly do for Qatar, upon receiving a $400 million dollar air palace that he’s been salivating over since he first saw it?
 
As Robert Reich described actions by Trump and his family --

And add in that Eric Trump has announced plans for the family business to back a Trump-branded hotel and tower in Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates  And that Trump just signed a $1.4 billion weapons sale to the U.A.E. because, hey, what could go wrong there?  (No, these aren't related to Qatar.  But as long as we're talking about Trump and bribes, it's just too hard to pass up...)

The funniest part in all this, to me, is when Trump tried to justify accepting this $400 million bribe by telling a story about legendary golfer Sam Snead.  Because, hey, why not?  Trump quoted Snead as saying that when you're playing golf, and your ball is so close to the hole that your opponent "gives you" the putt, you don't then try to make the putt, you accept it and say "thank you."  For the record, a public official accepting a corrupt $400 million bribe is not the same as your golf opponent giving you a putt.  No, really!  Trump misses two really important things in his analogy.  First, a public official goes to prison for accepting a bribe, but no one does for giving a putt.  And second, golfers are not allowed to "give" a putt in a stroke play tournament.  If you picked up your ball before putting out, it's illegal, against the rules.  You'd not only get penalized if you picked up your ball without finishing the hole -- you'd be disqualified.

The second funniest part in all this (at least in a Trumpian way that's just so Trump it would be disturbing if he didn't go there) is that when Trump was asked at a press conference about the appropriateness of accepting the $400 million "gift" from Qatar, he slammed the ABC reporter relentlessly for being "shameful" by asking.  By the way, the reason this is funny is because, amusingly, Trump doesn't know the meaning of the word "shameful."

But oddly (or not oddly, since this is Trump, after all), the problem with Trump accepting a massively un-Constitutional and illegal $400 MILLION grift from Qatar transcends even the "farcical corruption".

That's because Trump says he wants to make this air palace become Air Force One.  Which would cause a massive security  issue.  Of course.

For starters, Air Force One isn't just a name, it's an official military transport.  And the amount of security provisions built into the plane are massive, but also so top secret that the public has any idea what they are.  Moreover, though, accepting from a foreign government (!!) a plane that is meant to be used in an emergency as the president's official security White House means that pretty much every aspect of the plane would have to be taken apart, inspected and refurbished -- at a cost that NBC News reports could cost over a billion dollars.  All the more problematic when you consider -- and I am not making this up --- that the foreign government in question is not only a U.S. ally, but also an ally of China, Iran...and Hamas!  Who Trump himself once charged with funding terrorism.  So, yeah, make that plane Air Force One.

The cost to the American public would likely be in the hundreds of millions.  Gee, where is "DOGE" when they could actually find a way to cut wasteful costs...?

But here's the thing.

I have no idea of a) accepting this grift will go through, and b) if it does, if it will ever become Air Force One.  It might be "no" to both.  Or to just the second issue.

I do think, though, that if Trump even just accepts the $400 million bribe without making it Air Force One, that alone will be too gargantuan a grift for anyone in the American public other than the most fanciful cultists to dismiss.  And it will be an albatross around his neck that can't and won't be ignored, tarring even the MAGOPs in Congress for supporting it.  And if Trump does insist on making it Air Force One, imagine the ongoing reaction by the public seeing it every single time that Trump flies, a swaggering "screw you" reminder of the grift smashed up against everyone's face. It's the elephant in the room, as if no one will notice it.  Ignoring that it's impossible not to notice.

But then, it seems probable that if Trump does accept the flying grift palace, there will be a truly major lawsuit that would ultimately reach the Supreme Court.  And AG Pam Bondi's total misunderstanding the U.S. Constitution aside (muddled by her Qatar perspective), a $400 million bribe would likely be far, far, overwhelmingly far too much for the High Court to miss and let slide.  Even for Clarence Thomas.

This story didn’t get much attention.  It’s not “news,” per se, but nonetheless very important, I think.  It did receive brief coverage Wednesday on CNN, and then the next morning some short mention on MSNBC and ABC's "Good Morning, America."
 
On Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts did a “fireside chat” with a NY judge.  It was a fairly freewheeling conversation, getting into some personal matters with the Chief Justice, and nothing overly substantive, since justices on the high court never want to be pinned down on anything specific.  However, at one point, Roberts was asked about the matter of judicial independence.  And among the things he said were –
 
“In our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law — and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the President. And that innovation doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.”  And he later added, “Its job is to obviously decide cases — but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive. And that does require a degree of independence.”
 
On CNN, their legal reporter commented about Roberts's response that as under-stated as his words may have sounded, the actual substance underneath them was anything but low-kay, saying – "He knows the weight of every word, Kristen. The words there carry a lot of weight — and come amid major tensions with Trump. So significant to come from the Chief Justice.”

While it's a shame that this didn't get covered more on the news, happily it’s one of those rare events where – even if it doesn’t get news coverage – it's a problem for Trump.  Because the point of the story isn’t that other people know about it, but that John Roberts and the SCOTUS justices actually feel this way. 

Well, at least some of the SCOTUS justices, I presume.  I don't hold out any great expectations for Justices Thomas and Alito -- they did vote as part of the 9-0 ruling against Trump on a recent deportation case, but I always look at things like that as a pleasant bonus surprise.  But still, when it comes to judicial independence, I've written here previously that I have to believe Supreme Court justices are among the understandably more arrogant people in the world, with lifetime appointments to determine what the law is.  And it's hard to imagine that most of them, let alone all of them, don't like it when any branch or anyone dares tries to take their independence, their specific Constitutional function away.  So, it was good to see the Chief Justice make his point publicly.  Whether or not how much coverage it got on the news.
 
Here's a brief news report on the event, with the segment of note coming around the 30-second mark.

Last week, I wrote here about the inexplicable problem Trump was causing for himself with a Supreme Court whose majority has shown it will bend far-over backwards to allow him to do most anything, including having the right to order Navy Seals to kill a political opponent.  (Well...“almost” inexplicable, because with Trump nearly everything is inexplicable, thereby making it pretty much normal.  And that's the explnation.)
 
“Why on earth,” I wrote, “would you do anything to alienate the Supreme Court and put that monumental support at risk????!!  And while nobody likes to be ignored and seen as insignificant – I have to believe the Justices of the Supreme Court are high on the list of those who not only don’t see themselves as 'nobody,' but as insignificant.  Either SCOTUS Justices see themselves as protectors of the U.S. Constitution or as arrogant upholders of their personal views on the law, politics and everything – for which are not only right, but always right, one of just nine people in the United who can decide what the law is, and not be contradicted for life.”
 
These are the six people in your pocket who you really don’t want to alienate, I added.  Especially when you can only afford to lose the support of just two.
 
Of course, that was all a guess on my part, as is pretty much everything I write.  (Though that’s also largely the case with most any political analysis, by anyone -- although the best is done with an abundance of expertise to back it up.)  A guess, but one based on what I hoped was common sense and an awareness of reality.

And then, within the past few days, that "abundance of expertise" from others began to flow in.

To start with, on Friday, there was a commentary written by Mark Joseph Stern, the legal analyst of Slate, who touched on the same subject, suggesting that these six conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, who give Trump his very safe majority, seem angry with Trump still trying to deport immigrants without due process, on which they’ve ruled.  He wrote --

"I think the majority that lifted [Judge] Boasberg’s restraining order truly believed Trump would heed its warning about due process and pause further AEA renditions until SCOTUS ruled on their legality. Instead Trump tried to sneak out migrants before courts could act. And now I think SCOTUS is pissed."

Stern continued:  "It is SO unusual for the Supreme Court to issue an order this late at night and honestly incredible only Thomas and Alito noted their dissents," and later added – and reiterated his earlier point -- "Also fascinating that SCOTUS rushed out the order before Alito could finish writing his dissent. That basically never happens! Again—majority seems pissed."
 
And Stern’s analysis was followed the next day, on Saturday, by a commentary from former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, an MSNBC legal analyst.  In her Substack article, she touched on the same subject and wrote --
 
"Trump is trying to break the government. To control all its levers, he needs a complicit judiciary to go along with a complacent Congress. The Supreme Court seems to have an inkling of the fix they’ve put themselves in, with Trump trying to accumulate power at the courts’ expense."
 
She described the actions that the Trump administration is taking get around the courts’ rulings – including the Supreme Court – all in an effort “to undercut the ability of the courts to act as a check on the executive branch and make it easier for Trump to range beyond the authority the Constitution affords to the president."
 
All of which gets to her point:  the Supreme Court sees this , and sees the attempt to undermine the authority of the courts.  Which explains, she wrote, why SCOTUS acted in such an unprecedented way the other day, to re-establish its authority, by a solid 7-2 vote.
 
"That’s how we got a middle-of-the-night ruling from the Supreme Court, with ACLU lawyers racing to the Court for emergency protection for their clients, which the Supreme Court ultimately granted.”
 
(And I especially liked her follow-up comment – not just for the point she made, but the barely-contained snark. “I’m tempted to point out that the Supreme Court brought this upon itself,” she added, “…but that would be petty on my part.")
 
Anyway, it was good to see these observations from such notable legal analysts.  It seemed clear to me that Trump’s actions risked, in Mr. Stern’ far-more pointed words than mine, “pissing off” the Supreme Court seemed phenomenally counter-productive, when you have not only that SCOTUS majority safely in your hip pocket, but also a majority that is there for life, and no amount of Trump retribution or Executive Orders can get them removed.  But when people who actually know what they’re talking about see and say the same thing, it means (hopefully) that as hellish as Trump’s actions are when attacking the court system, it risks coming at a very heavy price to him.
 
Which happily brings us back to -- “Why on earth would you do anything to alienate the Supreme Court and put that monumental support at risk????!!

With Judge James Boasberg saying that probable cause exists for him to consider contempt charges against the Trump administration over their refusal to act or even respond properly to his ruling that those deported by the Trump administration without due process, and when the administration is defying an order to get Kimbal Abrego Garcia returned from an El Salvador prison, the country is at the point we’re so used to now:  where we roll our eyes, sign and say, “That’s great, but…well, wait until it gets appealed to the Supreme Court and they overturn it."

There’s a problem here, though, for Trump.  The Supreme Court has already ruled in one of those cases, that Mr. Abrego Garcia must be returned to the United States.  And not only did their decision rule that, but the vote was 9-0.  So, there isn’t a whole lot of wiggle room there for defying the court.  
 
But there might be an even bigger problem for Trump in this case – which is saying a lot because defying a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling is a pretty massive matter.  And sets up a precedent for returning the other deportees.
 
And that problem for Trump is the risk of infuriating the Supreme Court.
 
The Supreme Court has its lowest approval rating in U.S. history.  And that’s largely because the Justices appointed by Trump, as well as those appointed by earlier Republicans, appear to have thrown away following the Constitution and the law, and instead are purely ruling according to their politics.  They were essentially in Trump’s pocket.  What he wanted, he has come pretty close to getting.
 
For goodness stake, Trump even got the Supreme Court to rule he had the right to order Navy Seals to kill a political opponent.  Supreme Court rulings largely helped keep Trump out of prison, or at the very least least from being convicted of federal felonies.  (They couldn’t do anything to keep him from getting convicted of 34 state felonies…)  All of which significantly helped him get elected again to the White House.
 
Why on earth would you do anything to alienate the Supreme Court and put that monumental support at risk????!!
 
And yes, I can imagine possible reasons for a Trump.  One is that he likely doesn’t think they will ever rule against him.  Another is that Trump has shown that he really doesn’t ever consider the actions of others.
 
Of course, the problem for Trump is that the Supreme Court already has ruled against him on returning Mr. Abrego Garcia.  By a vote of 9-0.
 
And while nobody likes to be ignored and seen as insignificant – I have to believe the Justices of the Supreme Court are high on the list of those who not only don’t see themselves as “nobody,” but as insignificant.  Either SCOTUS Justices see themselves as protectors of the U.S. Constitution or as arrogant upholders of their personal views on the law, politics and everything – for which are not only right, but always right, one of just nine people in the United who can decide what the law is, and not be contradicted for life.
 
Those are people you don’t want to alienate, most especially the six you have in your pocket.  All the more so when you can only afford to lose the support of just two.
 
I don’t think Trump will lose the support of “his” Justices on everything.  I don’t even know if he’ll lose their support on anything.  I just know it’s a massively dangerous and foolish thing to merely risk losing the support of two of six people who hold your future in their hands.  Especially when they’ve already voted 9-0 against you once.  And you’re defying them.

And to be clear, when I say I don't know if Trump will lose the support of his six Justices on the Supreme Court...that works both ways.  Because I don't know that he won't lose their support on many things.  Or all.

If you didn’t see Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver last night, the Main Story was on tasers.  It's an interesting story, and often pretty funny -- though for a lot of it, my reaction was sort of "...okay, yes, and...??"  But as the report develops, they move into other areas, and that's where it kicks in the most.
​

On this week’s ‘Not My Job’ segment of the NPR quiz show Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, the guest contestant is Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.  Her conversation with host Peter Sagal is a total, enthusiastic and even surprising joy – though they don’t talk about the law (albeit do touch on the Supreme Court), but mostly discuss her great love of theater and her (then) upcoming walk-on appearance in the Broadway musical “& Juliet.”  But the highlight may be when she talks about being in a college production at Yale of the musical “Little Shop of Horrors” with panelist Mo Rocca.  Followed by a story about doing a scene in acting class there with Matt Damon.  It’s all wonderful.
 
This is the full Wait, Wait… broadcast, but you can jump directly to the “Not My Job” segment, it starts around the 18:15 mark.