I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term.

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.

//edit// deleted the alleged "Whataboutism"

▲

drcongo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> No whataboutisms

Couldn't even follow the ask in your first sentence.

▲

gadders 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's only the last sentence, and I've deleted it for you. Why not engage with the thrust of the argument?

▲

optimisticedits 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What about, how the ask is completely nonsensical and incoherent?

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.

	▲	bogwog 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Whataboutism is what's known as a "fallacy" in debate. Wikipedia has a nice list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "nonsensical and incoherent"
	▲	drcongo 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It wasn't my post, but I read it as "please don't downvote the answers"