I believe that it is illegal, yes (I’m not a lawyer). But that is the point. They can “buy” a bunch of cheap useless stuff from him instead of giving him money. That’s the essence of money laundering. Do something that superficially looks legitimate so that you can move a bunch of money that would otherwise be illegal.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure but they can buy "art"

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They can buy a million gold shoes that never get shipped.

[–] jumperalex@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck it. Ship them. They still aren't worth $100k and don't cost more than 100c. The grift is complete.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But then they'd have to spend money on shoes to send to Russia, instead of not paying their lawyers!

[–] jumperalex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

#truth

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

They can't give, but they can purchase.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 9 points 1 month ago

I believe that's the fallout from the Citizens United ruling. There are also "Dark money" PACs that are called as such because they can keep the contributions anonymous, but these PACs are allowed to donate unlimited funds to the campaign as long as there's no "coordination" between the PAC and the candidate...

Our government is for sale.