FOR ?

Are all your post just this stupid nonsense ?

I have to laugh when people think they can lecture Obama on the law. Obama, a Magna cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law and professor of Constitutional Law for years, knows more about the law than all of Congress put together.

Media Inquiries | University of Chicago Law School


Obama Left Mark on HLS |

News |

The Harvard Crimson

Who is lecturing OBAMA? Do you have a clue to what you are even saying?

Maybe you are trying to say people that know the law are incapable of violating it?

If course the truth is, a smart criminal is the most effective.

What about HW Bush and Ford?

They are the same as the democrats.

Why such a short time span? To fit what you wanted to show? A suggestion that ONLY the republican administrations have corruption?

Do you KNOW what it takes to get Magna cum Laude at Harvard? A C- average. That's right...

"All candidates for degrees with honors must have satisfactory letter grades (C– or higher) in a minimum of 96 letter-graded credits (prorated appropriately for students graduating with fewer than 128 credits passed at Harvard)."

Requirements for Honors Degrees | Harvard College Handbook for Students

You don't have to do SH!T to get Magna cum Laude at Harvard. Barely pass and get someone to recommend you.

Everything else about him is political too.

Obama looks great in comparison to Donald John Trump. I was no fan of Joe Biden however.

Not intended to sound or be racist...just an observation...and who knows it mat well be factual....

Obama is an expert at exploiting being the token minority statistical opportunity that fills out an organizations requirement to demonstrate diversity adherence.

For example what did he do to get his nobel peace prize? He was a black POTUS.

Does not mean or assure caliber of intelligence or knowledge or capability.

Similar to the watering down of standards in our schools today where the concept of no failures is promoted.
Everybody passes. Under achievers and non achievers get the same honors and documents.

Flaunting Obama's expertise is nothing more than parroting....it is not based on knowledge.

I know this will be turned into a racial debate....it is not racial. It is what has been happening and has been happening in America.

Jesus Christ, get your facts straight. You are quoting something for Harvard College, not Harvard Law School. And there are 3 different honors - Summa Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, and just Honors.


Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (the second highest honor available) in 1991. He also was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, a very prestigious honor.

On the other hand, Trump lied about being first in his class at Wharton. He did graduate after transferring in, not based on his marks, but because his family had "connections". He did not graduate at the head of his class, or with honors.

Anyone with a brain can listen to Obama and to Trump, and tell which one is the educated one. And no, it is not the orange guy that gets all his information from Breibart and Fox News.

"Graduation with Honors

1. A student who completes the requirements for the J.D. degree with distinction will receive the degree cum laude, magna cum laude, or summa cum laude.

5. The magna cum laude will be awarded to the next ten percent of the entire class.

6. The cum laude will be awarded to the next 30 percent of the entire class."

It seems half the class gets some kind of latin award. So, what is it worth?

Harvard Law Review

"Sixteen editors shall be selected through a holistic but anonymous review that takes into account all available information."

He got in for political reasons.

I cannot ID you but I m sure even with your use of PBR, you are not me.:D

You reference scopes.com, a site that usually deals with grammar, etc as your citation, but, I wonder if you meant to write snopes.com? If your intent was snopes.com then their claim lacks reliability and henc credibility

This site (snopes.com) receives numerous complaints of liberal bias, especially since has has links to CNN, New York Times, etc . Essentially what I am saying is who is fact checking the fact checker?

Their debunking of this story is incredible given that it is a fact that Russia purchased 20% of nations uranium during the Administration of Obama/Clinton the fact that Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a 90 minute speech for the Russians. And, the fact that the Clinton Charitable Foundation received millions of dollars from nefarious sources tied to Russia.

I do not know if these allegation are true or not true but if proven true are criminal in nature.

Yet even if the allegations against Trump, concerning a Russian connection,are true they are not criminal in nature.

Look back at previous Administrations they all have made contact with Russia, China, etc

The special counsel appointment was to stop Trump at all costs because Trump was not suppose to win and the Administrative State ( Deep State, etc) now have a lot of covering up to do because Trump did win and the malfeasance committed by the Establishment can't be swept under the rug ergo the Trump Derangement Syndrome distraction

Personal Best Regards:

Rubicon

As a long time critic, and opponent of both Clinton's, it bothers me no end when you back me into a corner, because more than political support or non support, I value Truth above all.

You obviously are a Fox fan, a Hannity fan and a fan of Alex Jones.

Your post is innacurate in so much.

First, as a lie of omission, you always, as do your heros I mentioned, that this uranium deal was begun under President Bush. It did not have seeds where you imply it did.

Next, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission approved this deal in 2010. The 20% figure represents of, at that time, current liscense holders to use "in-situ" production., which is simply one of two methods. That 20% has severely reduced with the issuance of more liscenses. The 20% was an ESTIMATE of license holders, not uranium, and has reduced because of more liscenses to less than 10%..

Remember, the original estimate was 20% of liscenses of ONE SINGLE METHOD OF OBTAINING URANIUM. NOT 20% of the uranium.

So, when you tell people that our government sold 20% of our uranium, THAT IS A LIE.

Add to that, nine-member interagency group, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State, needed to approve this deal. ALL members of that group have stated no Clinton was involved

Point is, you are simply fueling what is wrong in our social media dazed country.

I KNOW that you are getting this incorrect and false information from any of a few extreme, hard right sources. That includes Fox News, by the way. They have completely sold out.

It goes hand in hand with today's congressional hearings where we hear about the Russian...VERIFIED RUSSIAN...involvement in using our extreme right wing internet sites to propel lies, and to instill more hate. That includes inciting hate for our media because they report facts, but are called fake news.

You can determine why these lies continue, and why YOU promulgate them, but you are constantly being told that you are spreading false information while claiming the media lies. Yet you continue to simply use the extreme alt right messages from Fox or others, instead of paying attention to facts coming to you daily in most media outlets, and search for your own facts to balance.

Bottom line, this is one example, that you are living a lie. Nobody but the extreme alt right is saying what you say...everyone else knows it is a lie.

How can you give a crap about our country when you allow yourself to bend to such lies, and how can you pass yourself off as a smart person when you just accept crap.


The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’ - The Washington Post

Here's what we know about what Trump calls the 'Uranium to Russia deal' - LA Times

Here's what we know about what Trump calls the 'Uranium to Russia deal' - LA Times

The Hillary Clinton Russia Uranium One Conspiracy Theory Doesn’t Make Any Sense

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trum...s-uranium.html

I just do not understand why you appear not to give a damn about the investigation into Russian attacking us using cyber weapons, or actual traitors to our country. You words and efforts are restricted to defending Trump. You and others just continue to allow him and his minions to lead you around like a child, if he did nothing wrong, this vigorous defense is not needed. His strategy of attacking his critics using the same message does not apply here.

He is the President. I have no idea of what he did or didn't do, but this defense and attacks appear to have a reason. Fox News shouted Mueller credentials and now spend most of the day attacking him. Hannity, etal. have simply lost their minds. Allow this investigation to proceed and see where it goes.

It's Snopes not Scopes and it has, itself, been debunked. It has been proven that it cannot be trusted.

Robert Mueller is not investigating a person. He's not investigating the president or the Republican party. He is investigating a series of events. It is entirely possible that he may turn up something on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

One indictment doesn't mean anything.

DID you read any of the links in the previous post (41) at all ?

Suddenly the "nothingburger" becomes "doesn't mean anything" and may turn up "something on Hillary Clinton". Apparently you miss the fact that Hillary has been a private citizen for over seven years, has been investigated numerous times by Republicans, and the current Republican Congress has no further interest in all the Russian propaganda and lies about her. She is still being used as a deflection by Fox, but is never mentioned at all in that "main stream media" you are so dismissive of. Fox finds something, anything, to air EXCEPT a reasoned discussion of the Russian investigation. I exempt Shep Smith, the only responsible journalist employed by that "entertainment" channel.

Gotta love sheppy, the guy that played the GAY CARD to keep his job.