What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Agree. The Americans are far too fond of the Framers' intent when crafting and even those of generations later when amending the Constitution. As an 18th-century effort to provide the scope and extent of Government vs State & Individual rights? The US Constitution is a noble effort. It is also very much of its time, and whilst jurists struggle to reason out the "framers intent"? They ignore that those intentions were shaped in an 18th-century world.

Constitutions are a great tool; they must be living documents. Subject to amendment to meet the needs and mores of new generations, the bar for changing a constitution should be high, but I do feel in the US? The bar is too high, and the difficulty in attempting a change that doesn't directly serve members of Congress' interests ensures no real effort at such a change has been made in over 50 years. Even the most recent amendment, in 1991, resulted from 202 years of limbo.

Imagine if we held the articles of the Bunreacht as sacrosanct. No Divorce, no marriage equality, Articles 2 & 3 persisting and blocking the GFA's settlement, the entry into the EEC and the further referenda on constitutional change for the EU treaties, Abortion rights, Nationality and other issues that were amended by way of referenda.

Those changes reflect an Irish realisation that our Constitution is broadly a good document. It can always be better, or at the very least, if not "better", that it can be amended to be more reflective of our society its needs and be reframed accordingly.

The US and its reverence for the original document is IMHO very much at odds with the framer's original intention for the Constitution to be a broad strokes document with review and amendment as the need arose. Indeed, in the 1st 25yrs of the US Constitution, whilst the framers were still framing ;) It was amended 12 times (13 if you count the 27th which passed in 1991, after being proposed in 1789). Almost half of the 27 amendments to the constitution, occurred in its 1st 25yrs. with 13(14 counting the 27th) in the intervening 220 years. No Constitution is so perfect that it never needs changing. The Yanks see that as anathema though and, I do think that the seditious efforts of Trump & Co demand at least the revisiting of the processes and laws that he almost subverted.

It of course, wont happen but, its an area of jurisprudence I have great interest in, despite my having no dog in the fight other than wanting to see a stable and secure US.

Not to forget the wisdom that every villain is the hero of their own story. That doesn't mean they're not still a villain.

Why should Trump have his intent so considered when murderers rarely get to say they genuinely thought they were doing the world a favour by slaying their victim and have that claim be treated seriously. The only instance where the latter is given real consideration is when said murderer is pleading insanity.

If Trump uses intent to justify heinous actions, despite little credible evidence for and much against, is he then basically admitting a delusional mindset or even an insane one? I mean... he probably could do that and not have it particularly hurt his numbers since about half of America's likely voters are right there with him.

In all the cases so far, Trump has singularly failed to put forward any credible evidence of any of his positions.

He spouts whatever rubbish he thinks will work to get him off the hook, it is magnified by the media and by his supporters to a level where one could be forgiven to actually think it is credible, but when faced with actual legal process the entire facade disappears.

No position Trump has in terms of his legal position should be given any credibility until he can actually demonstrate it in a court.

It's all about delaying things long enough for him to become President again. It's the only hope he has of squashing all or most of the cases against him.

There's no way he'd be running again if the threat of prison time wasn't hanging over him. He (probably correctly) believes that the Presidency can be used as a nice shield against his indictments. It's why it's so important for at least one of these cases to go to trial before the election. Having him take office again and the cases against him disappear would be catastrophic for the rule of law.

even if he lost and got convicted he'd tease running in 2028 just to keep sending out fundraising emails

Project Veritas lied about voter fraud, I hope you're sitting down for this

Oh we would definitely continue. Not just for the fundraising grift (which I suspect he’ll become increasingly dependent on over time), but also because this is his whole “bit” now.

He used to be an 80’s property magnate…but then that went to hell when the harsh light of reality showed the world how thick he was.

He used to be a reality TV character that gleaned some renewed fame for himself, but those days well and truly over thanks to his current “bit”.

Which is: Hard done by Ex-President / Rightful President who was cheated / Presidential hopeful. The second he gives up on running (or worse: endorses someone else) it’s all over. He’ll be an old has-been with maybe the most unhinged of the MAGA loons sticking with him.

Once it’s no longer possible for him to be their President / Dictator/ King, I suspect many of the MAGA crowd will move on. He’s only useful to them if he can present a possibility where their brand of stupid can be stapled across the face of the US. If Trump can’t do that anymore it over for him.

And all because Citizen Trump demanded it...

Maybe someone could propose a motion in the House allocating military and financial aid to Russia?

And they might give a subvention to the Russian electoral committee while they are at it.

It would be less hypocritical than just blocking Ukraine's lifeline.

It's completely mad on their part. Biden is a very weak candidate. So they are going to nominate the man who has lost to him in the past and will very likely lose again. They are throwing away a very winnable election. They could have had the first woman president, Asian American president or both. Instead a re-run of 2020.