Hillary Clinton’s latest jab at President Trump smells like a pot calling the kettle black. The former Secretary of State accused Trump of shady pay-for-play over a proposed luxury jet “gift” from Qatar to replace Air Force One temporarily. Critics, however, are quick to remind her of the Clinton Foundation’s cozy ties with foreign donors, including Qatar.
Breitbart reported that Clinton slammed Trump for allegedly accepting a Boeing 747 from Qatar, a move she claims screams corruption. The Trump administration is reportedly in talks to take the 13-year-old “flying palace” for Air Force use, with plans to transfer it to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation by Jan. 1, 2029.
Qatar’s Media Attaché, Ali Al-Ansari, called reports of a “gift” inaccurate, saying no deal has been finalized. “No one gives a $400 million jet for free,” Clinton posted on X, implying Trump’s motives are anything but pure.
Oh, the irony. Her foundation pocketed a cool $1 million from Qatar while she was Secretary of State, raising eyebrows about her pay-for-play past.
The Clinton Foundation’s Qatar donation isn’t just a footnote—it’s a glaring red flag. Peter Schweizer’s book *Clinton Cash* exposed how foreign governments, including Qatar, funneled hundreds of millions to the foundation during Clinton’s tenure. Accepting millions from foreign powers is fine, but a jet transfer is where she draws the line.
Critics on X didn’t hold back, tearing into Clinton’s hypocrisy with surgical precision. “Cry me a river,” Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) posted, pointing out the millions Qatar and others donated to her foundation. It’s hard to take Clinton’s moralizing seriously when her track record is so murky.
“What did Qatar want from you?” asked Jerry Dunleavy of Just The News, echoing a question many are asking. The Clinton Foundation’s dealings, including $3.4 million earned from speeches tied to Keystone Pipeline banks, suggest a pattern of influence peddling. Glass houses, Hillary—watch those stones.
Trump, never one to shy away from the spotlight, touted the jet deal on Truth Social as a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE.” He called it a “very public and transparent transaction,” a bold claim for a deal still under legal review. The U.S. Air Force would foot the bill for transferring and modifying the jet to meet presidential standards.
Qatar’s Al-Ansari pushed back, insisting the jet isn’t a done deal. Discussions between Qatar’s Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense are ongoing, with legal teams still hashing out details. So much for Trump’s “transparent” victory lap.
Still, the jet itself is a stunner—a 13-year-old Boeing 747 dubbed a “flying palace.” It’s set to temporarily replace Air Force One while the Air Force tweaks it to meet military specs. If the deal goes through, it’ll eventually land with the Trump Presidential Library Foundation.
Clinton’s outrage feels like a calculated jab from a playbook she knows well. “Nobody donates millions without expecting something,” one X user fired back, flipping her logic against her. The Clinton Foundation’s history of “strong-arming” charity watchdogs, as reported by multiple outlets, doesn’t exactly scream integrity.
Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle joined the pile-on, quipping, “Oh, you would know how it works, wouldn’t you?” Clinton’s selective memory about her foreign dealings is almost comical. Actions have consequences, and her past is catching up fast.
The Trump administration’s talks with Qatar are far from secret, unlike some of Clinton’s foundation dealings. Sources say the Air Force will handle all costs, and the jet’s transfer is being vetted by both nations’ legal teams. Transparency isn’t the issue here—Clinton’s double standards are.
Clinton’s attempt to paint Trump as corrupt falls flat when her record is under the microscope. The $1 million Qatar donation to her foundation wasn’t exactly a selfless act of charity. What did Qatar expect in return, one wonders?
Trump’s jet deal, if it happens, will be a military-to-military transaction, not a backroom handshake. Qatar’s hesitation to call it a “gift” suggests they’re as cautious as the U.S. about optics. Meanwhile, Clinton’s foundation took cash with far less scrutiny.