The out in the open $400 million dollar fraud and

why it should have ramifications for the law license of Pam Bondi. As a general rule transactions that evade a law and go "around" it using multiple parties for the benefit of one individual are generally required to be "arm's length" transactions as it involves the individual receiving a benefit. In other words the individual is not directly involved in the transactions.

In this case Crumb The 1st is directly involved in every step of this proposed aircraft, it's transfer to the "government" and then it's transfer to the supposed "library". There are several problems here and some of course have been discussed while others have not.
First is the construct of this deal to evade the Emoluments Clause and apparently to evade a gift tax by having the government eventually "donate" the plane to the "library" which would supposedly be a non-profit but that tax exempt status might be another kettle of fish for another day.

Simply put, the question of whether an out in the open fraud has been constructed for the benefit of an individual appears to be reasonable. The Attorney General cannot plausibly claim no knowledge of the deep involvement of Crumb The 1st with this plane. It is public by way of Crumb the 1st himself. All planned out and public to eventually benefit himself personally since he would have control of the "library". In fact digging into that involvement would be a part of the due diligence a lawyer would be required to give when analyzing the legality of such transactions because that involvement is central to determining the "arm's length" nature of the proposed steps and whether the overall plan would be legal.

It is clear on it's face that Crumb The 1st is involved in the first instance of the proposed transfer to the US government, the use by the government and then the "donation" to his "library". Therefore it is clear that a serious question of fraudulent conveyance of a benefit, conspiracy to evade tax law and a lawyer rendering a legal opinion enabling a fraud should be asked.

Just because a lawyer says something is legal doesn't make it so. Any lawyer taking part in constructing a scenario that gives a blessing to evading the law, while knowing there is evidence on the face of the matter that the individual who would benefit from the transactions is obviously and publicly involved in the details of the transaction and therefore disqualifies any "arm's length" designation, is in question of participating in an attempt to defraud as well as violations of attorney conduct.