Couldn't even follow the ask in your first sentence.
It also came with a request for no-downvotes... What's next? A request for only responses that agree with me?
Here's my request: Upvotes only. Please don't respond.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "nonsensical and incoherent"
Examples?
> when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.
Uhm...have you mixed Trump up with someone else. It is Trump who loves to bring spurious lawsuits. When Trump is on the receiving end it is almost always not a spurious lawsuit.
> Examples?
I don't think there is much point debating with someone who doesn't actually follow the news.
None of these are "lawfare". The only one that could even remotely maybe be called that was the retention of classified documents, because other Presidents have also retained documents they were not allowed to, as have others such as Vice Presidents, so it might give the initial appearance of Trump being singled out for something that ex-officials are usually not punished for.
However, in those cases either the ex-official or their staff discovered that they had documents they were not allowed to have and immediately notified the government and arranged to securely return the documents, or if it was the government that discovered it and as soon as notified the ex-official immediately returned the documents.
Only Trump refused to return the documents, despite many requests and warnings that it could result in criminal charges.
This was widely reported. When you said "follow the news" did you only mean Fox or Newsmax or whatever shows up on your social media feeds?
Ah yes, boxes upon boxes of national secrets retained to discredit John Bolton who is, coincidentally, going to be convicted for doing the same.
Well, for that and possibly to share with certain guests.
I would say that despite whatever pardons (which I believe can only be federal, not state?), he pro-actively gives himself and colleagues, family etc when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap.
In that regard, having massive personal wealth makes some kind of sense.
However - they're all at it to some degree across both sides of the aisle - Pelosi, Crenshaw etc etc.