Liverpool Lou

You are either completely clueless about security matters or you are trolling. Or perhaps I just know more than you do about the content of your comment!

The DoJ is an organization, it is not an individual. I'm well aware of that.

Nonsense, Pence was not "almost hanged"...Jesus...

Believe what you want... I was there. Read what I posted. I didn't contradict what you reported a happening in your car, what I did say was that just because the others in that car didn't belt up doesn't mean that it is "FACT" that every other Thai is the same.

Really? Compared to which organization? I'm not comparing it to any other organisation. I am saying that the FBI has been proven to have conducted itself in a corrupt manner in the very recent past.

OK, lets assume you are correct, how is any past conviction for corruption by the FBI relevant? The mere fact that questions have been asked exonerated Trump? Oh, I see now. You're just scratching around to find any reason to excuse Trump or cast doubt on his accusers. Unless you can keep the discussion limited to this incident and the documents then you are off topic and deflecting. "OK, lets assume you are correct, how is any past conviction for corruption by the FBI relevant? I am correct. If the FBI has proved to have been corrupt in the past (it has) it doesn't say much for it going forward and its involvement with this case, does it? "The mere fact that questions have been asked exonerated Trump?" Exonerated from what? He hasn't been charged with anything to be exonerated from! "You're just scratching around to find any reason to excuse Trump or cast doubt on his accusers". Not at all. I'm commenting on what some ill-informed posters are saying here. "Unless you can keep the discussion limited to this incident and the documents then you are off topic and deflecting". All my comments are related to this thread so your assertion that they are "off-topic and deflecting" [sic] is wrong. Since when have you been authorised to tell other members how to post?

Oh..............lol Oh, oh. I did not comment on the honesty of the Director, I clearly referred to the FBI as a whole. I did say that his character could change even if Trump appointed him, I didn't say that it had.

Well you can look at the evidence they've gathered and wait for the outcome or speculate on the honesty of the FBI director? I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented based on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

Are you saying the items taken were not listed on the receipt and the FBI took other things? Your a little off base with that thinking. No, I did not say that.

Yes indeed, from Trump’s own handpicked director whom he described as impeccable character and man of integrity. What change? There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it? You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?

Just because it happened in the car you were in does not make it a "FACT" that it happens, generally, with all Thais, that is a groundless assertion.

Bashers will always bash even though casting aspersions on Thais as a whole is against the forum rules!

No, you're right, he wasn't, but the evidence was there and was revealed publicly after his death as was the covering-up that was done for him.

"Sorry, Mr ex-president (he couldn’t even get that right), that’s what cops do to toerag criminals". So Trump has been convicted of something, has he, and is, therefore, a "toerag criminal" [sic]? Webfact, I think you'll find that Trump has no criminal charges against him.

You'll only be able to use it at places/machines that accept UnionPay cards. Just get a BBL Mastercard (that they've been issuing for years, it's nothing new).

Because it says so in the attached receipt of items taken with the warrant……..lol Must be true, then, from the always reliable and honest FBI..

Might be because they are TOP SECRET Being Top Secret doesn't mean that an indication of the contents without disclosing secret details can't be given.

Top secret, they’ve not been declassified. How would you know that?

Oh, are we talking about Hillary again?? Better ask the poster who started it, I just responded to his comment, but, what if we are?

The fact that the lawyer signed a declaration to the justice department that there were no documents there is pretty incriminating. Only if they've actually found something relevant! Did her statement say that there were no documents at all? Of course, it didn't, because the FBI knew that there were documents of some description left there after their June visit that they asked to be kept padlocked.

"Agents removed 11 sets of documents, including some marked "TS/SCI", a designation for material that could cause "exceptionally grave" damage to US national security." ...with no details of what the documents are, or what they actually contain!

Has not yet led to criminal charges. I know. That's what I've been saying.

Well reports of top secret documents being recovered. ...with no details of what the documents are, or what they contain.

Look at the thread title. We all know he hasn't been charged yet. I can read and I've seen the title, thanks. Some posters clearly don't know that he's not been charged.

There's an awful lot of evidence that's out in the public domain. The endless lying, the Mueller investigation evidence (which certainly did not exonerate Trump of wrongdoing), the January 6th committee evidence, tax and banking records in New York, Georgia election officials sworn testimony and recorded phone calls documenting Trump's behavior, the "top secret" documents seized during the execution of the search warrant at Mar-al-Lago. There's a clear pattern of conduct, more than enough evidence to draw conclusions about his character and integrity. And absolutely nothing that has led to any criminal charges. "The endless lying, the Mueller investigation evidence (which certainly did not exonerate Trump of wrongdoing), the January 6th committee evidence" What? Sarcasm, yes?