Trump Claims He’s a Victim of Tactics He Once Deployed

In other words, you couldn't dispute any of the points made in the article? Yeah, figured as much.

Trumptards are big on bluster and short on facts. Thanks for proving my point. :itsok:
There were no points made in the opinion piece. And you can’t support the implicit claim it made even though you are the one citing it and thereby adopting it.

Your burden shifting effort is fully exposed already. 😎

But it’s ok. I never expected a libtard such as you to support any of its contentions.

You idiots are very plodding and predictable like that. :itsok:
 
Which prosecutor did Brandon brag about having fired via the threat of withholding $1 billion worth of US loan guarantees?
That would be Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor that was widely regarded as corrupt both in and out of Ukraine to the point that the US State Dept personnel in Ukraine asked the administration to help to work to have him dismissed.
 
Of course. Firing Shokin was US foreign policy backed up by the EU and UN. How stupid are you?
Also backed by the international monetary fund.

And of course Biden was only doing what the boss (President Barack Obama) wanted him to do.
 
Oh. Vice President was the office you unclearly “meant.” Sure.


Actually, it does. But you wouldn’t recognize that fact with a flow chart at the ready. 😂

Ask an intelligent adult friend to assist you. Obviously, this is all far above you.
I had no idea I needed to specify what office Biden left in Jan 2017. I assumed you were vaguely familiar with who has been president and Vice President.

Being evasive is a sign of weakness, and I have a hunch you’re doing so to cover up your lack of actual knowledge. The prosecutor Biden worked to be dismissed is Viktor Shokin. That is what Trump was asking Zelensky to pretend to investigate in his infamous phone call.
 
Yes. It was Shokin. You’re making progress.
Your article that you mysteriously linked to is about Konstantin Kulyk. Up until now you’ve given no indication you have any idea Shokin even existed.
 
I had no idea I needed to specify what office Biden left in Jan 2017. I assumed you were vaguely familiar with who has been president and Vice President.
I assume you’re a retard and had forgotten that Biden wasn’t then President.
Being evasive is a sign of weakness, and I have a hunch you’re doing so to cover up your lack of actual knowledge. The prosecutor Biden worked to be dismissed is Viktor Shokin. That is what Trump was asking Zelensky to pretend to investigate in his infamous phone call.
Your hunches are as valueless as most everything you lost.

I will assist you since you seem unable to help yourself.
Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show





Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show





Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.
 
There were no points made in the opinion piece. And you can’t support the implicit claim it made even though you are the one citing it and thereby adopting it.

Your burden shifting effort is fully exposed already. 😎

But it’s ok. I never expected a libtard such as you to support any of its contentions.

You idiots are very plodding and predictable like that. :itsok:
LOL You keep claiming it is an opinion piece. It's not. It is a news analysis. With links to back up the statements they made.

But hey, prove me wrong. Prove that:
  1. This is an opinion piece and
  2. They got the facts wrong

Go ahead, retard. Let's see what you got. Let's see if you can disprove any of the points made in the article. You are a coward and a retard and so you won't. But, hey, surprise me. :auiqs.jpg:
 
LOL You keep claiming it is an opinion piece. It's not. It is a news analysis. With links to back up the statements they made.

But hey, prove me wrong. Prove that:
  1. This is an opinion piece and
  2. They got the facts wrong

Go ahead, retard. Let's see what you got. Let's see if you can disprove any of the points made in the article. You are a coward and a retard and so you won't. But, hey, surprise me. :auiqs.jpg:
I quoted the portion of it I asked you to support. The piece doesn’t appear to do so.

And again: it’s up to you to support it. I’ve already rejected your illogical and cowardly attempt to engage in burden shifting.

Your imbecility doesn’t surprise anyone. You offer constant proof of it.
 
I assume you’re a retard and had forgotten that Biden wasn’t then President.

Your hunches are as valueless as most everything you lost.

I will assist you since you seem unable to help yourself.
Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show





Ex-Ukraine prosecutor said he was told to back off probe of Biden-linked firm, files show





Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.
And why are we going to take the word of a prosecutor widely regarded as corrupt inside and outside of Ukraine?

Other than the fact that it’s politically convenient.
 
And why are we going to take the word of a prosecutor widely regarded as corrupt inside and outside of Ukraine?

Other than the fact that it’s politically convenient.
Pathetic deflection effort.

It’s what he said. Do you actually imagine that those he spoke about would admit it?

Nothing — from the timeline to the other facts — support your position.

Was Shokin actually corrupt? Or was he simply labeled “corrupt” by those he was trying to investigate?

For example: Our incumbent President is widely seen as being very corrupt. Since that’s true, I suppose YOU will now reject anything he has to say. Is that true? Or am I off base here? Because If I’m off base here, then your standards seem to be reliably only double.
 
Last edited:
Pathetic deflection effort.

It’s what he said. Do you actually imagine that those he spoke about would admit it?

Nothin from the timeline to the other facts support your position.

Was Shokin actually corrupt? Or was he simply labeled “corrupt” by those he was trying to investigate?

For example: Our incumbent President is widely seen as being very corrupt. Since that’s true, I suppose YOU will now reject anything he has to say. Is that true? Or am I off base here? Because If I’m off base here, then your standards seem to be reliably only double.
I know what he said. Do you think it’s impossible for him to be untruthful?
 
"Trump, attempting to rally his rabble of disaffected supporters, has played the victim card at every opportunity. He screams "Deep State" and "Witch Hunt" so often, you just know they'll soon be featured on red MAGA hats that Trump will eagerly sell for just $25. Supplies are limited! Get them now! They're going fast!"

"The former president held the world captive while in office with his constant whining and ranting. Like a toddler in a high chair spilling his food while soiling his diaper, Trump has perfected the art of the whine. The far right is screaming "Civil war," and Trump eats it up"

"Let them whine. They're as full of shit as he is. After five years of threats from Donald Trump, I can tell you one thing — the stray mentally challenged Trumper may be dangerous, but with so many of them facing prison time because of the insurrection, those who are still vaguely aware of reality are no longer so interested in taking up arms for a president who once wished his army generals were more like Hitler's"

The above is from an opinion piece I just read.
 

Forum List

Back
Top