38 Comments
User's avatar
SteveB's avatar
1dEdited

"...a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE"

Air Force One isn't just a luxo-jet, it's a military plane, with defenses from surface-to-air missiles, military communications systems, all of that needs to be fitted to the new plane, and at what cost? It's the military, so I'm guessing it can't be done for less than $100 million. How many cancer researchers is that?

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

They straight up said DOD would have to retrofit it. Even they know it's not free of charge. They just know their base won't give a shit.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

Also, "their base won't give a shit" has been the standard for nearly 10 years now, and it's true he's done mostly OK by it, I just wonder if there might come a day when the opinions of people who do give a shit actually count for something. You may say I'm a dreamer...

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

I kinda think we may be seeing some of that now with prices going up. But even before that, people who were stanning elon were (quite reasonably!) questioning some of his actions, specifically cutting CFPB funding.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

They've already given out the contract for the retrofit. How much will it cost? I don't know, they won't say.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

The legalistic approach (emoluments clause, etc.) comes naturally to Congressional Democrats, but I'd like to suggest there's a much simpler populist approach: This is the only thing he cares about, scoring himself a sweet new jet, while people in Arkansas who lost the double-wide in a tornado get zero help from their President (second part can be filled in with any one of hundreds of examples.) Where is his attention directed? What's really important to him? Look up there, it's a plane.

Expand full comment
Rick Massimo's avatar

You can only have two dolls and five pencils. But I can have a $400 million jet.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

TWO jets, actually.

Expand full comment
Anthony Allen's avatar

"Democrats need to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, file lawsuits, and make this the centerpiece of their oversight agenda" Yes Alex, I'll take "things which should so obviously happen it makes my eyeballs hurt yet alas, they won't because: reaching across the aisle" for $500 please.

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

*long, exasperated sigh*

Expand full comment
B J Sutherland's avatar

Taking any kind of 'gift' from the bone-saw Prince of Quatar should be a NO NO, nevermind a $400 million airplane PALACE. Pam Bondi, the US Attorney General, is saying this is all OK as she seems to continue her work as a registered foreign agent and lobbyist for the Embassy of the State of Qatar while earning $115,000 per month during that time.

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

A small quibble - "bone saw prince" would be Saudi Arabia. I'm sure the prince of Qatar has done plenty of rotten things but I don't believe that to be one of them.

Expand full comment
Whipstitch's avatar

Politifact, in today's Milwaukee journal Sentinel:

Trump wants to deport American citizens. A house committee refused to bar funds for this purpose. Eric Swalwell and other democrats pointed to this vote as enabling Trump's power grab.

But this specific vote didn't make it legal for Trump to deport citizens. Therefore "the Democrats are lying."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/may/06/eric-swalwell/democrats-mislead-judiciary-vote-deport-citizens/

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

Bothsides! Bothsides!

Expand full comment
Matthew's avatar

This latest violiation is absolutely outrageous, of course, but the emoluments clause certainly was rendered dead (at least with respect to Trump) in the first administration--the D.C. hotel alone . . .

Expand full comment
Kevin Castro Riestra's avatar

It really grates on my nerves when Trump and his courtiers say they'll do something blatantly illegal "in full compliance with all applicable laws." They did it when raising the possibility of sending US citizens to El Salvador too. They're building deniability plausible only to their supporters and overly credulous media figures who want to deny what's happening.

Expand full comment
Joseph Mangano's avatar

I wasn't aware of Pam Bondi's Qatar ties. Just when I thought this situation couldn't get more infuriating, Trump & Co. have found a way.

Expand full comment
Gillian Rosheuvel's avatar

Emoluments Clause? What Emoluments Clause?

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

I saw some Republican was lying (but I repeat myself) and claiming this is "saving the taxpayers $400 million", but WE'RE STILL PAYING BOEING FOR THE NEXT AF1. Which we need to do, if we intend to have any Presidents after Trump (which may be an open question in the minds of Republicans, I guess.)

Expand full comment
Frank Lee's avatar

It is the property of the US government, not Trump. Calm down you easily triggered liberals.

Idiot leftists in my community turned down a free MRAP vehicle that police and fire needed because a railroad runs through the middle of the town and includes tankers of stuff that can derail and explode, and the MRAP has a contained environment they can use to rescue residents stuck in the chaos.

Instead, the city spent $900,000 on a commercial version of the same vehicle... money we did not have... just to sooth the triggered liberals over their objection to a "vehicle of war"... even though the MRAP would have been pained with rainbows to make them happy.

It is so damn expensive to calm the easily triggered emotions of liberals. I would prefer we spend in on their needed therapy.

Expand full comment
Steve Caldwell's avatar

You should pay attention to the details -- from today's Electoral Vote news and commentary website:

"But it is actually much worse than that. The plane is only going to be loaned to the federal government (which will then spend tens of millions of dollars modifying it to have the proper security and communications measures). At the end of Trump's term, it will then be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, which will be the permanent owner.

All of this stinks seven ways to Sunday. To start, the federal government does not need 'donations,' especially of such a high-profile nature, and especially from a foreign government. Beyond that, the whole 'Trump presidential library foundation' is very obviously meant to mislead people. Most Americans, and presumably 99% of readers of this site, know that the Reagan Presidential library has the Air Force One that the Gipper flew on. So, this Qatar 'deal' is designed to look like the same thing.

However, the Air Force One at the Reagan library is not only a non-functional plane, it also belongs to the library. And the library belongs to the National Archives and Records Administration, which means the plane actually belongs to the federal government. By contrast, this Qatari plane would be fully functional, and would belong to the Trump presidential library foundation, a charitable organization/PAC under the control of one Donald J. Trump. Put simply, Trump's name might not appear on the pink slip (or whatever color airplane-ownership paperwork is), but the Qataris would nonetheless be giving him a personal, luxury airplane for him to use for the rest of his days, even after he is no longer in office."

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/May12-1.html

Expand full comment
Frank Lee's avatar

Naw. It is still the property of the US government, and the property of the people. You can attempt to spin it to satiate your TDS, but that is the fact.

What is the alternative? Maybe we would pay your favored WEF globalist friends and buy a new Airbus jet and pay to retrofit it. That would cost many hundreds of millions of dollar more, but then you would not be triggered by it.

That is the point... liberals waste a lot of money over their triggering.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

"What is the alternative?"

Um... USING THE PLANE HE ALREADY HAS?

Expand full comment
Frank Lee's avatar

Planes do not last forever. I understand that the recommendation is to update Airforce One as it getting long in the tooth.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

Note how the MAGA cultist can become an instant expert in ANYTHING - in this case, aircraft longevity - when the defense of Dear Leader requires it.

Myself, I'll defer to the experts in the United States Air Force, who say the current AF1 is safe and airworthy til its planned replacement in 2028.

There's no crisis here except Donald Trump's desperate need for bribes.

Expand full comment
Steve Caldwell's avatar

The "Trump presidential library foundation" isn't the Federal government.

And that Trump-owned and controlled foundation will be the owner of the donated jet after Trump leaves office.

This is totally different from the Reagan Library getting possession of a former Air Force One jet.

The Reagan Library is part of the NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) which part of the Federal Government.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. And the facts don't support your opinion.

Expand full comment
Frank Lee's avatar

LOL. Did MSNBC give you that information?

The Trump Library is only a website at this point. Have you noted that he is still in office. That website is administered by the national archives.

It fascinating how you libs make up fake facts to feed your Trump derangement. It is like I am watching the zoo animals feed.

Expand full comment
Steve Caldwell's avatar

The Trump Library Foundation is not the same entity as the Trump Library:

"The Trump administration is preparing to accept a superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar as a gift to be used by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One for presidential travel until shortly before Trump leaves office, according to four sources familiar with the planning.

Two of the sources also confirm that ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation once the president ends his second term."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-will-accept-luxury-jet-qatar-use-air-force-one-rcna206111

Perhaps you should take a minute to read this news coverage -- the jet isn't going to the US government at the end of Trump's term. It's going to private entity that is owned and managed by Trump.

Your opinions should be grounded in fact. And one fact here is that the Trump Library (federal government) is not the same as the Trump Library Foundation (a private entity that allows another nation to bribe a sitting President).

Expand full comment
Frank Lee's avatar

The Reagan library and all Presidential libraries are private foundations. They are managed by the national archives. What is wrong with you?

Expand full comment
TooLateToBeBad's avatar

Weak shit from a weak man. Rough time for TPA to show up in Frank's troll rotation.

Remember: Trump's dick is so far up Frank's ass that there is nothing he will not defend about the administration. It's the only satisfaction he has these days with his business failed, wife missing, and kids unwilling to speak to him.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

Hey, didja notice how nothing he said was connected to the story about Trump and the plane? Gosh, I wonder if he just has these rants saved in a Word doc and then just pastes in something, more or less at random. We're now serving the same purpose that the poor ex-Mrs.-Frank once served, having to listen to whatever tape recording gets triggered.

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

It's really incredible to me (not that incredible) that poor misguided frank can't see the difference between his definitely true story of the MRAP and the foreign country's offer of a free plane to the sitting president.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar
13hEdited

Hey, the man works with the material he's got.

Expand full comment
Pamela's avatar

This is outrageous. When will it end?

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

Jan. 20 2029?

Expand full comment
Pam's avatar

The whole Constitution appears to be dead, so by extension the emoluments clause already was anyway.

Expand full comment