no substance there. basically a a harvard law prof he gave up his impartiality and gravitas a long time ago... speculating that a person could be compelled to testify. Which is true.. but either tribe or the author left an important point out. a court could only compel testimony if the court could say for sure the person had no legal jeopardy for their testimony. a court can't compel someone to testify against their per the 5th amendment.. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" a pardon in one area... would not remove a person's 5th amendment right in other areas.
Discussion of pardons, etc is a media plot to get people to assume the conclusion that criminal conduct obviously exists. No such proof yet, after 1 1/2 years of diligent investigation. How much longer?
Trump is at a crossroads. He can continue to play Deep State game and see his administration accomplish nothing and his supporters drained by legal fees and witch hunts. Or he can go on offense and take control. Fire Mueller, convince Sessions to resign, fire Rosenstein, demand action on the wall and infrastructure. Go to voters directly and ask them to put pressure on congress. Hearing various establishment figures on Sun morning shows say what a bad idea that would be convinced me they are terrified of it.
You are aware that most voters don't support him right? Voters gave his opponent millions more votes and more voters disapprove of him than approve.
You do understand, don't you, that Trump is one of five minority Presidents in the Nation's history. Going to the voters won't help him. His approval rating is a reflection of "the voters." Unfortunately for Trump there is no electoral college to determine public opinion. Look at the Senate vote on the sanctions Bill, if you want to get a feel for Trump's support among Republicans. He's complaining that the Republicans are not supporting him. He's toast. The medical care stuff is a Republican issue. That's one thing. The Sanctions Bill is an anti-Trump thing. Look at that vote!
Ever notice your arguments are nearly always circular? --coming back to a point that has zero relevance. Sure Hillary won in Calinoisyork, but fortunately that is not the way things work in these united states. It does show one of the reasons that lefties won't allow Trump to be Pres. ---Sour grapes.
your argument is wrong o 1. FACTS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories The popular vote in an American presidential election was first fully recorded and reported in the election of 1824.[1] Since then, 19 presidential elections have occurred in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.[1] The following is a list and description of those elections in which a candidate won the election with a plurality of the popular vote. The elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 are not on this list because in those elections the winning candidate actually received less than a plurality.[2] 2. half the country does not vote anyway so winning or losing a popular vote by a million illegal voters in CA and NY does not mean anything in terms of his taking the message to the people. I would argue that his message resonates with 70% of the people. Although he himself may not.
When AAA says Trump should tell voters to put pressure on congress it is very relevant that the voters didn't vote for Trump nor do they approve of Trump