A Democrat 'Boss'

MSNBC will now make her a journalist.

And she was making over $1M a year in salary. No wonder they need federal $$$.

* devolution

So... you're mad they fired her rather than elected her to a higher office?

Point ran right passed you. The one with the Democrat devotion is the professor. She embodies the essentials and might become president one day

Is that better or worse than voting for someone with 34 felony convictions and is an adjudicated rapist?

Ah yes. That symbolic scheme. You might as well get a desert with that:

imgflip.com/gif/9jlvyx

imgflip.com/gif/9rhb3c

imgflip.com/gif/9cnpmo

imgflip.com/gif/9a0381

imgflip.com/gif/9su8tq

imgflip.com/gif/9pwsq8

But is that better or worse than voting for someone with 34 felony fraud convictions and is an adjudicated rapist?

You mean vaguely "Liable for sexual assault?" and dismissed of all the charges he was initially accused of? like rape of two women, Mara-Lago boxes, insurrection and Georgia election interference? What they could get him on though, was a bunch of small things.
But like "RussiaGate" turned out to be, it's all scams.
I'd like to've seen all cases continued in court though, but the election got in the way which was smart timing of the Dems, who feed on raw speculation every day and stop reporting when all has come out.
The U.S is cooked and worthy of its 55th place on The 2024 Freedom Of Press Index

But you're still not answering; is it better or worse than voting for someone with 34 felony fraud convictions and is an adjudicated rapist? Oh, and I forgot- admitting to cheating on all 3 of his wives.

Sooo... which is it? Is a Harvard professor being fired for suspected academic fraud better or worse than voting for someone with 34 felony fraud convictions, is an adjudicated rapist, AND cheated to cheating on all 3 of his wives multiple times.

One is confirmed through a non-scam process. The other is a victim of the scam process - I'll take Trump

How do you know the Harvard process is a non-scam? It's a liberal institution, right? You've claimed the "democratic devotion is impressive." How do you know it's not Harvard that's being deceptive and the professor is the real victim here?

There's been no public trial. no evidence. Nothing. Just Harvard making a claim you immediately accepted without verifying anything. In fact, if you'd done any research into it you would have found out that this professor is currently suing Harvard for defamation.

By comparison, Trump's trials are now public records, so you can go and verify all of the evidence brought against him. All that evidence, btw, was the forms he filed with the banks compared to the tax forms he filed with the State of New York. You can go and verify ALL OF IT.

But you won't. Because you don't care about facts. You only want to feel right. Because it's about your feelings.

You make a good point. We should assume Harvard is lying and defund them further.

What’s an adjudicated rapist? No such thing.

Who was found GUILTY by a jury, for business fraud? TACO!

T.A.C.O.

Tds Always Creates Obfuscation