The $28M to Melania personally is the tell. Amazon could've made this documentary for $5M and marketed it for $10M and still gotten whatever political cover they wanted. Instead they structured a deal where most of the money flows directly to the president's wife. That's not sloppy negotiating, that's the point. Someone at Amazon legal signed off on creating a paper trail that looks exactly like what it is.
In the last decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that bribery is de facto legal and impossible to prosecute (Kelly v. United States, McDonnell v. United States, FEC vs. Ted Cruz). And those were against relative nobodies, they certainly aren't going to permit charges against anyone in this administration.
None of those three cases have to do with bribery, at least not receiving bribes for official action. Here's some nuance: Kelly concerns retaliation, McDonnell concerns whether hosting meetings and events amounts to official action, and FEC concern the limit (was $250,000) on the amount of post-election contributions which may be used to repay campaign debts.
It's also worth noting that Kelly was unanimous and FEC upheld the ruling of the district court which the FEC had appealed.
"Now isn't the time for recriminations for behavior long in the past, now is the time for forgiveness. Time to reach across the aisle in unity, time to heal the nation." - Democrats
Newsom is starting to get it. But it's lividly clear that a straight shot to the Democratic Presidential nomination, and probably the White House, is embracing the new Presidential powers Trump and the Roberts Court have spun up to pursue Democratic policy goals and retribution against MAGA's least popular.
I've heard that one of the advantages of this administration is that you don't need data or convincing arguments -- just bribery and flattery. If you're OK with bribery and flattery then you'll find this administration much easier to work with. Getting your way is a simpler path.
There's enough to allow their followers to pretend it's all on the level, and for people who aren't paying much attention to ignore it. A direct bribe would make that quite a bit harder.
Even if it was, there are other ways to go. The emoluments clause would be my guess. This term is the auction off America plan. Go read the NPR article on the gutting of nuclear safety rules. https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/g-s1-107650/up-first-newslett... Who needs easy access to nuclear reactors? Tech billionaires possibly... Would you want to live next to a Grok data center? Iterate quickly and fail fast is not really compatible with nuclear reactor design. At least rocket debris a relatively short window of danger.
it turns out all you need to do is 1) blatantly ignore/violate the law, 2) have appointed justices to the court who will provide you will full immunity while in office (Trump vs United States)
As this is HN, I wonder what this implies for technology companies as a whole. It's easy to see how the Trillion dollar companies are engaged in this e.g. Tim Cook attended the premiere.
And we see how crypto companies court the Whitehouse through various mechanisms.
How might this factor into "mere" unicorn startups? I think it does but not sure how.
My guess is that if you're an early stage startup that isn't an AI company already worth billions, you can probably ignore this as noise and focus on building product. It's reasonably likely that by the time your startup is sufficiently large, there will be a new administration (because it takes a few years and presumably he will not be president in 2029).
I think one implication is that ad-driven tech companies are at great risk. In a political system where National Champion businesses are selected/assisted on the basis of bribery, advertising becomes irrelevant. Why spend money advertising Widget X when this widget is already the only one that's officially sanctioned?
Yeah, the mods usually hide behind “light moderation actions” while letting the “special” subset of audience they have cultivated run rampant and unchecked with quasi moderator abilities.
This poster was in Schönhauser Alle Arkaden, in Prenzlauer Berg; in Prenzlauer Berg diskutiert man typischerweise, ob das Bio-Sauerteigbrot noch „authentisch“ genug ist, und die Hauptfragen am Straße sind nur "Haben Sie eine Feuerzeuge?" (or possibly "du", as I'm British, I have to think carefully about du/Sie, I don't naturally recall it).
Melania, in one word, "Egal". In two words, "Völlig egal".
Still, for those that feel that way I can only recommend Klemen Slakonja's First Lady Melania Trump: sLOVEnia biopic that follows her return to the land of both her and Laibach's origin.
In this specific case a hook or device to draw people in and perhaps watch a significantly shorter alternative biopic that might appeal to a Berlin audience who like to drag Melania.
I mostly don't blame Amazon.
If the mob boss demands $10M in protection money in order to allow your $2.5T business to operate, you pay, especially if that mob boss happens to be the head of federal law enforcement.
Maybe we shift a bit of focus towards Congress, supreme courts and frankly voters who are apparently OK with this.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, Justice Robert’s wife earned $10 million as a “consultant.” The compensation made her one of the highest-paid legal recruiters. That's another "Melania movie".
I agree that we should be blaming the voters who decided that naked bribery and corruption is an American value (moreso than, say, their bleating about gun rights), but…
The people most capable of fighting back, and who ultimately have the most to lose in a kleptocratic, authoritarian state, apparently to be cowards and losers. Bezos and Jassy could tell the administration to pound sand, given how critical AWS is, and that Amazon is part of the like, 4 companies propping up the teetering stack of cards holding up the thing this administration (and its weaponized voters) think represents “the economy”. But they won’t, because they’re a bunch of feckless children, desperate for scraps.
Beyond a bribe it's just wicked propoganda at that. Was just stunned at this review,
> So, what’s the point? How does this superficial, wilfully deceitful reality readjustment serve the sociopathic ascension of Trump’s will (because everything has to)? Watching Melania get fitted for expensive clothes in gaudy rooms, or talk up how extravagantly staged she demands her balls be - and both happen a lot in Brett Ratner’s unrelentingly boring feature doc debut - only strengthen perceptions of her as a chilly, lifeless socialite wannabe.
Ok, ice burn mostly so far. Expected. But:
> And I realised then what the point was - Trump is tightening his family business’ grip on the White House beyond his years and before our eyes. MELANIA is not the story of the First Lady of American politics, but the imagining of the first homeland monarch in U.S. history. This is not a film concerned at all with the America of today; it is propaganda that serves the formation of a future non-democracy.
I'm all too afraid that there is something truly wicked this boring dry flop of a movie will accomplish, over time, for some incredibly infernal anti-Democracy forces in the world. That one of the top 3 richest men in the world would give a messely couple million bucks for an anti-Democracy pro-Regal pro-Imperial project like this is perhaps unsurprising, beyond the simple dimension of grift it obviously presents.
The difference here is Melania Trump currently represents the Office of the First Lady of the United States, an official government position in the White House.
When Obama, Harry & Megan made their documentaries, they were private citizens.
Obama also never 'joked' about a third term or diverted funds into private accounts or accepted a gifted 747 plane. How can one think that trumps corruption is just about the same level as others...
Are you really trying to argue that
A) Trump never advocated for a third term
B) (simultaneously) Trump advocating for a third term is no different than any other politician's posturing.
Awareness and ignoring are two different things. And I'm as far from a right winger as I can imagine. You on the other hand have shown your cards. No politician's word is worth a damn. Learn that and you'll be much happier.
No one is arguing that the US has never been a corrupt nation, that's always been a given.
Many are just making the simple observation that the great grifter, some say the greatest of all time, has really taken the US bribery game up to the highest levels, easily a magnitude, if not two, beyond anything seen before.
It's truly impressive stuff. It's made a big impression on many about the globe.
Do you really not see the difference here? It's amazing how hard people will try to bOtH sIdEs this administration.
1) Obama was not in office when this advance was given. What favors could Penguin Random House have been trying to bribe him for?
2) The Obamas were paid a $65M advance on their books, which while a huge sum it was actually seen as a reasonable investment at the time given the expected popularity of those books[1]. Both books were insane hits and sold like crazy. "A Promised Land" sold ~900k copies _on the first day_[2]. They almost certainly earned out on advance and are probably continuing to rake in more from sales.
3) This Melania movie is widely expected to have very poor sales. While making unpopular movies isn't in itself a crime, the amount paid in royalties to her does not look to any reasonable person like a sound investment. At least, not if you expect your return to be in ticket sales or streaming fees.
Michelle's Becoming sold 14 million copies. I don't see any recent figures for Barack's A Promised Land, but the initial 3.3 million print run sold within a month, and there is another volume in progress.
Big difference is being out of office. I expect Trump to get a ton of money after leaving office, because people like proximity to fame, but I don't like the stench when he's in office and has direct political influence.
That said, Trump also investigated Obama for the Netflix deal. Will he investigate Melania now?
Being out of office is irrelevant. "Do this for me now, I'll make sure you're taken care of when you retire." This is so common the revolving door in government is a well worn trope.
As far as I can tell no executive branch agency investigated the Netflix deal.
> This is so common the revolving door in government is a well worn trope
On TV and Reddit. In the real world you’re not getting policy outcomes today for a handshake of a payout tomorrow without someone in office to guarantee your end.
Except if they back out of the deal after getting what they want, they'll never be able to make this kind of deal ever again.
Regardless, the revolving door is well known. It's been talked about since the 1800s. There's a wikipedia page for it. Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't change the fact that it happens and is quite common.
> if they back out of the deal after getting what they want, they'll never be able to make this kind of deal ever again
If someone is stupid enough to go running their mouth on a bribery gone bad, or one willing to give on policy in exchange for promises, you either didn't need to bribe them or are wasting your time and money.
These deals don't happen that way because they can't. It's why e.g. Bob Menendez winds up with gold bars, Melania is being paid now and Trump's crypto is being purchased and sold.
> the revolving door is well known. It's been talked about since the 1800s
Sure. But not in the way you describe. You hire the ex politician not to pay them back for a favour earlier but to curry favour with the folks still in power.
> Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't change the fact that it happens and is quite common
Straw man. Nobody said it doesn't happen. Just that the way you're describig it is wrong.
I think they implied the following argument, or something along the lines
1. Assume that Amazon knows the future
2. Then spending $250M on Rings of Power is a bad decision
3. Therefore paying $28M to Trump is also just a bad decision, and not a bribery
I personally don't think that 1 holds, or that 2 implies 3.
