This Is the Most Obvious Corruption Ever (w/ Sen. Brian Schatz)

Summary

Bulwark Takes: This Is the Most Obvious Corruption Ever (w/ Sen. Brian Schatz) Release Date: May 14, 2025

In this episode of Bulwark Takes, host Sam Stein engages in a comprehensive discussion with Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii about the alleged corruption surrounding a $400 million plane gift from Qatar to the United States. The conversation delves into the implications of such a gift, the political fallout, and the broader context of integrity in governance.

---

1. Introduction to the Corruption Allegation

Sam Stein opens the conversation by addressing the central issue: a proposed $400 million plane from Qatar, reportedly intended as a gift to the President of the United States. He highlights the gravity of the situation and seeks to understand the current status of the plane.

[00:00] Sam Stein: "Sam, you've led a resolution to condemn this plane. Can you update us on its status?"

2. Senator Schatz's Condemnation of the Plane

Senator Brian Schatz vehemently criticizes the proposed gift, labeling it as blatant and gross corruption. He emphasizes the symbolic importance of Air Force One and argues that accepting such a gift from a foreign government undermines its significance.

[00:40] Senator Brian Schatz: "This is the most blatant, obvious, ridiculous, gross corruption that I've ever seen in my entire life."

3. The Nature of the Corruption

The discussion transitions to the broader implications of accepting gifts from foreign entities. Stein raises concerns about the open nature of the corruption and the accusations Democrats face for allegedly overlooking the ethical breach.

[01:12] Sam Stein: "We're being accused of being suckers for not seeing the virtue of accepting this plane."

Schatz dismisses any justification for the gift, irrespective of its intended use, arguing that no foreign gift should be accepted due to the inherent conflict of interest.

[02:04] Senator Brian Schatz: "Nobody should take a $400 million item from a foreign country. And that's the end of the conversation."

4. Political Reactions and Republican Responses

Stein queries whether there were any internal debates within the Trump administration about refusing the gift, noting the absence of such discussions in media reports.

[03:55] Sam Stein: "There was no one who said, you know what, maybe this isn't actually the right thing to do."

Schatz expresses disappointment in Republican colleagues who have failed to recognize the corruption, highlighting a lack of bipartisan acknowledgment.

[06:23] Senator Brian Schatz: "We recognize that when it's not our leader, when it's our leader, only about 50 some odd percent of the people recognize, like, dude is ripping you off."

5. Emoluments Clause and Legal Implications

The conversation shifts to the legal framework surrounding such gifts, specifically the Emoluments Clause. Schatz explains that any foreign gift of this magnitude constitutes an emolument, requiring congressional approval.

[08:19] Senator Brian Schatz: "The emoluments clause doesn't just say you can't take a foreign bribe. It says you can't have any foreign entanglements of any financial nature."

He references past efforts by Dick Blumenthal to litigate similar issues, which were dismissed but indicates plans to readdress the matter.

[09:14] Senator Brian Schatz: "I've talked to Dick Blumenthal and he's very anxious to re-litigate this because at a minimum, Congress should ratify this."

6. Leveraging Legislative Tools for Accountability

Schatz discusses potential legislative actions that can be taken to hold the administration accountable, such as forcing reports on human rights compliance related to foreign countries like Qatar.

[10:41] Senator Brian Schatz: "Any member can force a report on the human rights violations of any country that with which we have a security arrangement."

He highlights the discovery and utilization of obscure Senate rules to prompt votes and ensure that officials are held accountable on issues of corruption and foreign influence.

7. Comparing Corruption: Plane Gift vs. Crypto Meme Coin

In a lighter yet critical comparison, Stein asks Schatz to evaluate which corruption is worse: the $400 million plane or the so-called "Crypto Trump meme coin dinner."

[12:44] Senator Brian Schatz: "The meme coin is not Bitcoin. It's not real currency or even cryptocurrency. It is the equivalent of opening up a Swiss bank account and saying, hey, if you'd like to just remunerate me for fund, you can. So I think that's pretty squarely corrupt."

Schatz concludes that while both are egregious, the plane is more tangible and easier for the public to comprehend as a symbol of corruption.

8. Concluding Remarks

The episode wraps up with Stein acknowledging the severity of both corruption cases and thanking Senator Schatz for his insights.

[13:37] Sam Stein: "Senator Brian Schatz, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it."

---

Key Takeaways

• Blatant Corruption: The proposed $400 million plane from Qatar is seen as a direct and egregious act of corruption, undermining the integrity of American symbols like Air Force One.

• Legal Framework: The Emoluments Clause serves as a critical tool in preventing foreign entanglements and ensuring that any gifts or financial dealings with foreign entities are subject to congressional scrutiny.

• Bipartisan Accountability: There is disappointment in the lack of bipartisan recognition and action against such corruption, with Senator Schatz emphasizing the need for collective responsibility.

• Legislative Actions: Senators are exploring various legislative avenues, including forcing reports and re-litigating past cases, to hold officials accountable and prevent future occurrences.

• Public Perception: The tangible nature of the plane makes the corruption more recognizable to the public compared to more abstract forms like cryptocurrency schemes, though both are deemed highly corrupt.

---

This episode underscores the ongoing battle against corruption in high offices and the legislative measures necessary to uphold integrity within the government. Senator Brian Schatz’s candid discussion provides valuable insights into the challenges and strategies involved in addressing such significant ethical breaches.

Transcript

[Sam Stein]

Hey guys, it's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bulwark, and I'm joined by Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is here to talk about all the times he's been bribed with a 400 million dollar plane and, and other bribes he may have been asked to accept during his time in office. But in all seriousness, we're going to talk about the plane from Qatar and we're going to get into that and what Democrats may or may not be able to do about it. All right? So Senator, obviously this is a big deal. We have this proposed gif, although I guess there are reports that the plane is already in Texas. So I'm not sure what we know about the status of the plane. Maybe you can eliminate that you have led a resolution to condemn it.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

This is the most blatant, obvious, ridiculous, gross corruption that I've ever seen in my entire life. You don't have to be. I'm not a lawyer. You don't have to be all fancy pants to understand how ridiculous it is that a foreign government is going to say, hey, we'll take care of Air Force One for you. Air Force One is a symbol of the United States where Air Force One is one of the most recognizing symbols of the office of the presidency, and so on and so forth. Therefore, be it resolved that we shouldn't do this.

[Sam Stein]

That seems pretty straightforward. But I just want to talk sort of about the larger picture here, which is it's fairly open corruption and we are being accused of being suckers for not seeing the virtue of accepting this plane.

[Unnamed Speaker 1]

People who view that luxury jet as.

[Sam Stein]

A personal gift to you, why not.

[Unnamed Speaker 1]

Leave it behind your ABC fake news, Right? Why not? Only, Only abc. Well, a few of you would, let me tell you, you should be embarrassed asking that question. They're giving us a free jet. I could say, no, no, no, don't give us, I want to pay you a billion or 400 million or whatever it is. Or I could say, thank you very much.

[Sam Stein]

Is there a situation in which you think the plane could be accepted if it maybe wasn't for Trump's library use after the fact? Or is this just plain don't do it? It's awful. It's bad. Not just bad optics, but it's bad politics.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

Yeah, it's corrupt. There are no circumstances under which a $400 million gift of any kind for any president from any foreign entity is appropriate. So, like, that should be the beginning and the end of the conversation, right? More to the point, yeah, they are trying to lawyer around it by saying a really specific thing, which is, this is not actually a gift to the President. It's a gift to the United States Air Force. And after that, it'll be remitted to a nonprofit. Oh, what nonprofit is that? It's the Trump Foundation. And so this is an aircraft that he will be able to ride probably for the rest of his life, paid for by the country of Qatar, he says.

[Sam Stein]

He says, to be clear, he'll never ride it in his post presidency. It's going to be in the. The library, which we know he cares deeply about. Like, Ronald Reagan has an Air Force One in his library.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

Sure. Anyway. And, you know, I feel like we're getting caught up in the details here. Like, don't think a $400 million thing of any kind doesn't matter if it's an aircraft. And I, like, I actually think part of the problem that we Democrats have is, like, we want to make new arguments. We want to make clever arguments. So some of the new and clever arguments are. And they're true. Right. Are that that Air Force One is a mobile situation room. It is a mobile Oval Office. It is also a press briefing room. And none of those things should be built and paid for by a foreign entity. And it would probably cost some number of hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions of dollars to basically dismantle an aircraft bolt by bolt, make sure there are no transistors or bugs or anything in there, and then reconstitute it. But again, we're missing the damn point. It's not that this bribe shouldn't be taken because it's impracticable. This bribe shouldn't be taken because it would be a big hassle or security concern. Nobody should take a $400 million item from a foreign country. And that's the end of the conversation.

[Sam Stein]

Right. And it seems like they didn't. When I originally read the ABC News story about this, what struck me was there was never a line, was like, the Trump administration considered that maybe they should just refuse. Like, it was. It was all like, can we do this? Can we make sure there's a legal rationale for doing this? And if we can, then of course, we would accept. There was no one who said, you know what, Maybe this isn't actually the right thing to do to get a little bit, like, into the, you know, we. Not weeds, but the speculative business here. Are you surprised at all that it actually was publicized?

[Senator Brian Schatz]

No, because I actually think one of the things we need to understand is how much impunity this president is operating with does think you are. I mean, the thing he said was, I forgot which old golfer he quoted, but it was like Sam Snead.

[Unnamed Speaker 1]

You know, there was an old golfer named Sam Sneed. Did you ever hear of him? He won 82 tournaments. He was a great golfer. And he had a motto. When they give you a putt, you say, thank you very much. You pick up your ball and you walk to the next hole. A lot of people are stupid. They say, no, no, I insist on putting it. Then they putt it and they miss it and their partner gets angry at them. You know what? Remember that? Sam Snead.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

Sam Snead, yeah. Before my time. But you know, when someone gives you a gimme, you take it. Otherwise you're kind of a sucker. And his view is, if someone gives you a free thing, what are you? A sucker, right? And he literally, I think literally does not understand why it would be improper to take a free thing from a foreign country. And so their grift and their graft is so complete, so sort of totalizing that they literally, when they go to the Middle east for business deals, like the Washington Post articles, like the headline was like, the focus of the Middle east trip is business. And that is, you know, turning an absolutely corrupt enterprise into a kind of euphemistic focus on, you know, free market opportunities for Americans. Not for Americans, it's for him and his cronies. And I do think if we were in any other country, or I should say if this were happening in any other country, that we Americans would be able to, on a bipartisan basis go like, well, that's corrupt. That is the kind of dictator who just goes around, enriches himself and impoverishes everyone else. We recognize that when it's not our leader, when it's our leader, only 50 some odd percent of the people recognize, like, dude is ripping you off.

[Sam Stein]

I think it's more than 50. I think it's more than 50%. I think there are plenty of Republicans who are like, I mean, I guess maybe my bar is so low, but I was a little bit intrigued, let's say by some of your colleagues yesterday saying on the Republican side saying this, he shouldn't do this, like Ted Cruz.

[Unnamed Speaker 1]

The plane poses significant espionage and surveillance problems. So, so we'll see how this issue plays out. But, but, but I certainly have concerns.

[Sam Stein]

And Ron Johnson were both like, now, yes. Tommy Tuberville was like, go get him.

[Unnamed Speaker 2]

Freeze. Freeze.

[Sam Stein]

Good.

[Unnamed Speaker 2]

You know, we don't have a lot of money Right now to buy things like that. We've got two ordered. I don't know the legalities of it. If it's legal for him to accept that gift and be able to fly on that for the next four years or three and a half years, I think it's great.

[Sam Stein]

But, you know, the other ones were like, this is not a. You should just don't do it. Like, it's not. And even Ron Johnson was like, I'm uncomfortable with this. So I actually disagree. I think it's a little bit more than 50%.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

Well, you know, from your lips to God's ears. I have just been disappointed year over year over year with these guys. They will, you know, their moment of courage is to go like, I don't know about this. And then if he goes through with it, they'll be like, well, it turns out Pam Bondi had a letter.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah, Who? Pam Bondi, who used to lobby for Qatar, has, Yes, I will say Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, was. Has been asked about this for. For a day and a half or so today. He was quoted as saying, it's not my lane.

[Mike Johnson]

My understanding is it's not a personal gift to the President. It's a gift to the United States and other nations give us gift all the time. But I'm going to leave it to the administration. They know much more about the details that. Okay, I'm just. It's not my lane.

[Sam Stein]

And in fact, I do think it is his lane.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

That's right. I mean, look, it's all of our lane. If you're an elected official or if you're an American, it is in everyone's collective interest to do something about an American president accepting a $400 million.

[Sam Stein]

Well, what can you do besides letters of condemnation?

[Senator Brian Schatz]

Is there anything, I mean, now this is a little bit in the weeds, but this is a foreign emolument. This is a consideration. And, and remember, the emoluments clause doesn't just say you can't take a foreign bribe. It says you can't have any foreign entanglements of any financial nature. You can't have deals with foreign countries, even if they are at sort of arm's length market value. All of those deals are subject to approval by the United States Congress. So I know Dick Blumenthal in the first Trump term tried to basically say, look, these things are all emoluments, which is to say inducements or in some instances, bribes. And they are. They're subject to congressional approval or disapproval.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

I was a co signer on that lawsuit, it got kicked for standing, which I think is preposterous, because if the Congress who has this authority to approve or disapprove of an emolument is not in a position to approve or disapprove.

[Sam Stein]

Because it's never being deprived of the execution of your own laws. So. Yes.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

So we're gonna, we, I think we're, I'm not the lawyer here, but there is going to be another swing at this because this is quite clearly the.

[Sam Stein]

Are you saying you're saying that because people, your colleagues have talked about taking another swing or you're just speculating here?

[Senator Brian Schatz]

No, I've talked to Dick Blumenthal and he's very anxious to re litigate this because at a minimum, Congress should ratify this. And look, they've got the, they've got the votes in the Congress to ratify the gift. Right. And that is what happens when there's a foreign country that wants to give the United States of America something, that it gets submitted to Congress as an emolument. And if it's kind of on the level and looks to be in the public interest, we can all vote for it.

[Sam Stein]

Right.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

That's fine.

[Sam Stein]

Well, Chuck Schumer, so that's interesting that Senator Blumenthal is going to do that. And definitely we'll follow up with him on that. Some Minority Leader Schumer is putting a hold on DOJ nominees until, I guess, they refuse the gift. I am announcing a hold on all.

[Senator Brian Schatz]

DOJ political nominees until we get more answers.

[Sam Stein]

It's tough to say how effective that would be because I don't know how many nominees they're putting forward at this point in time. But essentially they wouldn't be able to fast track anyone that they want to put forward. And you've done that similarly for, I believe, for some State Department nominees. Totally different issue, but it does seem like there's few levers. But are there any ones that you feel like could additionally be pulled or is that it?

[Senator Brian Schatz]

There is one lever that Tim Kaine pulled on the El Salvador question, and we're, I think, going to vote today on that. So there is a, is a kind of arcane statute, but it basically says that any member can force a report on the human potential, human rights violations of any country that with which we have a security arrangement. And so the cool thing about that is it's privileged, which means that you don't have to be in the majority to force a vote. So it takes 14 days, but after you file it, we must vote and so we're voting to basically ask for the State Department to do an analysis of whether El Salvador is in compliance with our federal human rights expectations. We can do the same thing for Qatar or any other country. So one of the things that's happening, you know, in this era is that everyone is kind of scrubbing all the Senate rules.

[Sam Stein]

I know. Who knew this one existed?

[Senator Brian Schatz]

Yeah. And I've got a bunch of Senate experts on my staff that are constantly doing this. But Tim found this one, as he did, emergency declaration that is causing prices to go up via the tariffs. And so increasingly, you're going to see Senate Democrats force votes in ways that are kind of unusual because the assumption is the majority leader controls when we vote and what we vote on. That is true 90% of the time, but we're going to live in that 10% of the time that where we're going to make sure that they are on the record on the question of El Salvador or cutter or, or tariffs.

[Sam Stein]

And that's the key. It's not that you expect Marco Rubio or the State Department to produce a very sort of overboard over the top and clear and objective analysis like they're going to. They won't do that. But you do put them on the record by forcing that vote. All right, last question. And I don't want. I'm not trying to do this to sound cheeky about it, because this is like sort of an honest debate that's happening, which is between the gifted plane and the Crypto Trump meme coin dinner. Which one is worse?

[Senator Brian Schatz]

I think the. I mean, I don't know by dollar amount how corrupt the meme coin is in terms of whether it exceeds the 400 million. I think it probably does. And the meme coin, like, you know, you kind of have to understand how crypto works. The meme coin is not Bitcoin. Right. It's not real currency or even cryptocurrency. It is the equivalent of opening up a Swiss bank account and saying, hey, if you'd like to just remunerate me for fund, you can. So I think that's pretty squarely corrupt, I will say, because, you know, politics has to do with communications. The plane itself is easier to remember. It is easier to understand. To think about Air Force One sort of sponsored by Qatar, is a little easier to understand than a meme coin or a sort of crypto scam. They're both really gross and egregious. I think the airplane is a little easier for people to kind of wrap their minds around.

[Sam Stein]

I would agree with that. Although the meme coin thing is crazy. Like, legit crazy. All right. Senator Brian Schatz, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.