Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "Justice Department looking to interview senior CIA officials" video.

@Retrostarscream What are you talking about? Trump never abused power, as in how he didn't do anything illegal. Nobody can touch him FBI under Obama organized a spying on a political campaign based on insufficient grounds, lack of evidence, and biased agenda, that is illegal and we're punishing them now. Idiot! The difference between Trump firing Comey and FBI spying is that Trump had the authority to do that without having to explain and the FBI doesn't have that authority unless it can explain.
2
@Retrostarscream Listen, pal. I just debunked your myth. You can't attempt to obstruct, obstruct is an act that happens immediately, just like you can attempt to commit perjury, study, pal. Stop typing propaganda nonsense. And immunity goes off after the term but there's no case anymore, what case? They just declared no crime, Mueller report declared him innocent, Mueller gave up his title by not giving out a conclusion, therefore Barr made that conclusion, it's the law. Study. Mueller's job wasn't to charge people, it was to find out crimes, he didn't find any. You found it, you say that there is, you don't, you say that there isn't. No middle ground nonsense, it's called distracting. And your entire previous comment, I debunked them too, pal. Read, the policy doesn't matter, you're hired for doing a report, which includes a conclusion, Ken Starr, Mueller didn't finish, he gave up and therefore the roles go to Barr, who declared no obstruction, no collusion as in lack of evidence, and if you're not guilty then you're innocent. If you're gonna keep typing a myth and pretend that it's a fact, i suggest staying quiet would be the better option.
2
@Retrostarscream Hey listen, kid. I know you're desperate but just don't be a troll here. I just refuted all your sources as in pointed how you're lying about the source. Those aren't sources, those are you lying of what the source actually means. 1. According to the McGhan story and Donald Trump telling him to deny the story of The President ordering to terminate the Special Counsel. This entire interpretation of Mueller and yours is based on a slippery slope definition. The definition of obstruction. Obstruction means perverting of justice, and you need to prove that the action of telling McGhan to tell a version of the story that McGhan doesn't feel comfortable with, or even that McGhan interpreted in an entire different way, therefore leading to misunderstanding of what the meeting is about and what he was told to do, is not related to "justice" at any point. So if The President told his son to say that they served Polish Vodka instead of Russian Vodka would also be obstruction? It relates to the Russian connection, think a bit pal. The detail of whether The President tell Don McGhan to say this or that, doesn't matter at all, because what he say, is not related in anyway to the investigation or any of the charges. That is my analysis to refute that passage of The Mueller Report, you know what this is called, it's called thinking, not just quoting false information like you. 2. That second paragraph you quoted about prosecuting somebody after office. That's just total irrelevant, Mueller there just typed a standard line, announcing himself to have executed his job properly, which is his opinion alone. That statement about " conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available", what, SO IF THE PRESIDENT HAS IMMUNITY AFTER OFFICE THEN THEY WILL NOT CONDUCT A THOROUGH FACTUAL INVESTIGATION? OR IS IT THEY WON'T PRESERVE ANY EVIDENCE? President has no immunity after office, but in order to charge them for the same crime as the crime that has already been investigated, they need to have declared him guilty in the report, Mueller didn't do that, Ken Starr did that, and in that case, if Clinton wasn't acquitted by the Senate, he would've been prosecuted after office. In Trump case, you can't charge him, you have nothing, what crime? You have an example up for suggestion and no conclusion, except for the conclusion that had to be made because of Mueller's incompetency, by Barr saying that he's not guilty. So yeah, they can preserve evidence, there's nothing to charge him. Mueller's words in that paragraph is just basic procedures. 3. Your thesis of Mueller Press Conference, THAT IS HIS FALSE OPINION. KEN STARR DID IT WITH CLINTON, IF MUELLER DIDN'T COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY, HE FAILED TO DO HIS JOBS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW HE FEEL, THE FACT IS THERE, MUELLER GAVE UP HIS CREDIBILITY WHEN HE REFUSED TO FINISH THE WORK. It doesn't matter how Mr. Incompetent feels , if he can't conclude guilty, by his conscious calling or moral calling or whatever, by the Constitution of the United States, he declared that Donald Trump is innocent, as in how every citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Clear? Pal, stop posting lies that you made up. 4. "The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing". Again, this is his opinion alone, The Constitution require a different process to remove the President from office, but to ACCUSE, NO IT DOESN'T NEED A DIFFERENT PROCESS TO ACCUSE. DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE FEELS IF THIS IS FAIR OR NOT, THAT IS THE LAW AND THERE'S NO SUCH LAW BAN HIM FROM MAKING A CONCLUSION, HE GAVE UP. So yeah, pal, stop posting lies that you made up. Finally, if you already know that your argument are dumb as hell and you're still typing it because you're trolling, I suggest going back to school, small time troll.
2
@Retrostarscream For negligence to a major abuse of power of the FBI under his presidency. Clear?
1
@Retrostarscream Oh, and about prosecuting after office, I dare you to, what charge? Who's gonna do it? You just did 5 separate investigation and none of it came out as guilty, so what are you gonna do after office? Saying that you reopen it, who's going to do it and how? The Department of Justice just publicly announced that there's no obstruction or collusion. You're going to base the charge on what? Remember, not being able to indict somebody doesn't mean you can't declare that person guilty. If you have declared that person innocent then you can't use the same thing to charge him after their term. Study, pal.
1
@Retrostarscream No, pal, once again you're lying about what it means. That opinion is based an interpretation that the constitution includes a segment provide The President a power that go beyond normal laws in cases necessary or not worth mentioning. That opinion is not against the law, it is the law. And his job is not to indict anything, his job is to find crime and if can do do, prosecute it, he chose not to, therefore he gave up his role. Study some law, pal.
1
@Retrostarscream You posted from the source and then you lie about what it means. You're trolling, right? Hey, pal, anybody can be related to the investigation and any of them could say anything on matters that doesn't relate to the investigation. You can't charge somebody of lying about how they eat lunch. IDIOT! Pal, the report is his opinion plus his finding, you never studied law, haven't you? What would he say? I did this job incompetently. At any report, they need to state what they have done, and if Mueller didn't add the adjectives before the word, he's just being normal, but Mueller isn't normal, he's heavily biased. And if that is just his opinion then it doesn't matter, that opinion came with another opinion that he can't declare guilty, or he won't declare not guilty and it's the same. Study. The OLC opinion DOESN'T MATTER. That opinion regards to action being taken, not findings or what you can conclude, you're a troll, right? Ken Starr did it with Clinton, stop taking a fake excuse. And the last thing idiot, about opinion in court of law, yeah it does matter, they can use their own opinions to lie and in the court of law a lawyer like me will just debunked your lies.
1
@Retrostarscream You're making up a fake excuse concerning a guidlines, not even a written law. To cover for what? Your desperation? Pal, if you're gonna keep typing the same lines that I had already destroyed with actual facts and logics, not lies. I suggest going back to school, small time troll.
1
@Retrostarscream No, a prosecutor kob is first to find crime, made conclusion and then indict, you can't indict somebody without making the conclusion whether they're guilty or not, so yeah, your argument crumbled on it self. It's a solid proof that Mueller is heavily biased, not giving conclusion, that's not finishing his job on purpose, holding press conference to not say anything new except raising the concern of Congress capability of removing Presidents from office, but taking no question at all to clarify. Yeah that is biased, or if you want to have absolute proof, yeah, it's life, pal, you can never have that. But if you won't settle for the bias case which can be made without any difficulty, I'll go for the incompetent in not doing his job. Not giving out conclusions? 40 officers to raid a man and his deaf wife? Hiring people who had records of personal dislike for the subject of investigation. Anything else? Pal, if you're going to call those proof opinions, then fine, but remember my "opinions" at least make sense, as in how you can't poke holes in it, but your opinions are lies that I had destroyed. Go somewhere else, small time troll.
1
@Retrostarscream And that's obstructive how? If The President of The United States deemed that Mueller violated the laws due to conflict on interest, it's his prerogative to fire Mueller, you want to check the law? McGhan didn't feel comfortable doing so, he decide to resign, so The President's subordinate felt uncomfortable carrying out a completely legal order, so your case is? Pal, The President could order for Mueller to be fired, check the law. So it's obstruction because what? The President told somebody to lie about things that had nothing to do with the investigation? He can tell Mcghan to fire anybody and then tell him to say that the President ordered McGhan to get some chicken, no legal violation there, the special counsel can't charge people who lie about the things that the Special Counsel have nothing to do with. Study, pal, you're just trolling.
1
@Retrostarscream Pal, you raise a question, that's your question, the law itself doesn't require the President to explain to you for no reason. The President can order anybody to do anything as long as it is under his power. He can ask a White House intern to call Attorney General and ask him to fire Mueller, just because he feels like it. The power of the vote from the people allows him to do so. And the conflict of interests are clear, Trump pointed them out multiple times. Unnecessary raids that feature multiple agents, leaking content to biased fake news organizations, using tactics to prosecute things that had nothing to do with any matter of the investigation, oh and hiring a team full of investigators not belong to a third party. Clear enough? You're just ignoring proof, want to study pal? And your little thesis at the end, totally wrong, it's his right. Go ahead, Mueller performed an incompetent job, Trump wants him to be fired, it's called common sense, you want to check the law again? Pal, idiot. Like I said, if you were trolling, go back to school, small time troll.
1
@Retrostarscream When he's lying intentionally during an investigation, when he made or direct a physical threat to the prosecutors or witnesses in order to change their testimony or direct somebody else to lie about things that actually matters to the investigation. Study pal, you can't charge people for obstruction when they lie, you can only charge them when they lie about things that matter and not under their right to do so. Which is none of the case here.
1
@Retrostarscream Yes, he did asked McGahn to change account, but for political reason. If you're new to politics, you should know that any action taken directly by The President will be under scrutiny of the fake news media. He has every right to ask that, he also have the right to ask for McGhan cooperation, nobody can hold him for doing something that isn't limited anywhere. Mueller's investigation isn't into how The President fire a counsel, it's about Russian Collusion and crimes relating to it. But check the law, because The President has every right to fire Mueller, then that action itself is not even remotely related to the investigation. He asked McGhan to lie to the public, to tell the press a different story, a story that wouldn't make much a difference because anybody could pointed out that Muller was doing a heavily biased job, I just did, it's just that the story of somebody else firing Mueller would look better than The President firing Mueller. Study, pal, it's not a crime. He asked how can he fire Mueller, they told him that it is his right to ask somebody to do so. I don't think it's lawful, I know that it is lawful. Department of Justice is under the Executive Branch, and The President, as the head of the executive Branch has the right to fire anybody he feels appropriate. If you don't agree with the action that he's taking, you can vote against him, for now other voted against you and that's it. It is lawful, study, pal.
1
@Retrostarscream Again, pal, false assumption right there. You're linking the fact that what had happened behind the stage to what Sean Spicer tell reporters. First off, reporters don't have any roles here. Spicer could've told them that the earth is flat and nothing will come to him. So there that is done for for your thesis, at least do some research. Next, Rosenstein said to officials that he won't participate in putting out a false story, you assume this as a proof for what The President had asked him to do, which can't be proven. Following a reasonable interpretation of a story isn't putting out a false story, but yet those 2 are really close to each other. You can't prove what it is, because the "story" here is about subjective arguments between the President and Rosenstein, which can interpret differently if there were false communication between the two. You can't prove anything. And even if the President had directed Rosenstein to tell a fake story, then it can't be charged as obstruction because it doesn't relate to any crime and it's not lying to the investigator, as in how he's talking to the Press and not Mueller. It's the President authority to fire Comey, if he did through an intern or secretary then it would still be legal. You can't charge people of obstruction if they're lying about what they're given the right to do, and what they did isn't even related to the subject of the investigation or toward the investigators. Your case has crumbled even more here. So yeah, pal, law isn't just about quoting stuff that you have no idea what they are. Study!
1
@Retrostarscream Great, that's your thesis? So? Like I said before, just because McGhan feels doesn't mean that it is. Department of Justice is branch of the Executive, and as the head of the Executive, The President outrank McGhan, probably by quite a lot. So, anything? Your boss feel that there is enough evidence, you do not, you resign, it's your's boss duty and right to act in what he believes. Clear, pal? Donald Trump has every right to fire Comey, you can't argue that just because a subordinate disagree then it means obstruction, no you just simply can't. Study some law, pal.
1
@Retrostarscream Because there isn't enough outright, pal. You know what it's called, intelligent. Those people at the high end are biased but not stupid. You see, they steer you into their narrative, there are proof of conflict of interest, I just pointed them out, but it's not enough to absolutely confirm something that can only be confirmed by mind-reading. So yeah, like I said, Donald Trump has the right to fire them, and if you feel that there aren't enough reasons, vote, I'll vote against you and countless other will, as they had done before. Clear? Study some law pal.
1
@Retrostarscream Great, so your thesis is what on the interference? A few ads on social media cause the Clinton to lost 70 electoral votes, it's like 10 states with the population of nearly 20 million voters, is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's rich, pal. Go study some actual law and politics. I voted for him because he's the right choice, and his results proved that I was right, GDP growth, record low unemployment, jobs which Obama lost have returned, China is going down, Technology thief are being arrested. So what's your point, Clinton lost because she lack a few social media post? She got the entire news network that have the viewership of 6 million every night, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, why she still lost? How about the left wing media interference in our election? Does those Russian ad run false information? Maybe, but then aren't voters the one who decide the information to be true or not? Who supervise whether the main stream media provide true information, nobody, they've been providing false information for 2 years. So yeah, pal, study, you're just being desperate.
1
@Retrostarscream You do realize that information is the truth being hidden, right? By saying that you won't accept the truth just because somebody else discover it for you then you're just lying to yourself? Which grade are you in? And he also concluded in the report that there isn't any collusion, you're citing the reason which lead to the investigation, you're trolling or what? The Steele dossier is mostly unverified, read it pal, one of the claim in that piece being rejected by the Mueller report, so you're just what? Listen pal, I don't whether you're dumb, stubborn, or dumb and stubborn, you've been destroyed, every single thing you claim crumbled down as I knocked them down with facts and logic, and now you're just typing the most ridiculous assumption that I also knocked down easily. If you've lost, I suggest staying silent and not being desperate about it.
1
@Retrostarscream Perhaps you'd live better learning something, pal. Only the idiots have trust when the agencies show clear incompetent and corruption. The people keep them in check, that's how we stay free, idiot. Go ahead, move to a country like China, they have trust, remember how there was a protest where the government used ammo on civilians, tanks and stuff, but because they got "trust", nobody ever knows about it. Pathetic, pal.
1
@Retrostarscream No, you are pal, you're ignoring the truth because it doesn't fit your narrative, I pointed out holes in their report, holes in their analysis, because I see those holes, as in how I think before I decide, you should try it too, go to school. Or you know, go to China to see how trusting will be like
1