This demonstrates a lot of faith in institutions which really ought have lost the benefit of the doubt. The ruling in Snyder v US has significantly raised the burden of proof for bribery charges, and it's easy to find examples of Trump enriching himself in office.

I never said it was worth $1M. But it's not infeasible that it's over $100k in value as just an couple of ounces of gold are $10k.

> That would be a phenomenally stupid and obvious violation of bribery law.

Nope, that's how crazy weak the US bribery laws are. The only time they really sort of kick in is when it's done on behalf of a foreign nation.

To be convicted of current US bribery laws, you essentially need a written note that says "I am giving you this so you can in an official capacity pass this piece of legislation". McDonnell v. United States gutted any sort of accountability for bribery.

But further, Trump v. United States (2022) has granted the president extra immunity so long as he's doing things in an "official capacity".

It's a violation of what bribery laws should be, but not what they actually are.

> And if Trump does keep it as a personal gift, it will be included in a financial disclosure report.

Or what? You think his personal lawyer who heads the DoJ is going to prosecute him?