Indeed.

 

It was September 1986, and Annabel Hill, 66, was facing an auction where she would lose the farm that had been in her family for five generations.

Hill’s husband, Lenard, had committed suicide eight months earlier, 20 minutes before a scheduled auction, in a last-ditch attempt to save his property with life insurance money. The life insurance money wasn’t enough, covering only $175,000 of debts than ran in excess of $300,000, from two years of a drought that Hill said had ruined their livelihood. Even when several hundred acres of the 1,300-acre Waynesboro, Georgia, farm were sold, the now-widowed Annabel still found herself deep in debt and facing an auction.

That’s when real estate tycoon Donald Trump and a series of other personalities stepped in to help save Hill’s farm.
The push to save Hill’s farm began with Frank Argenbright, a well-regarded Atlanta businessman. Argenbright had helped another farmer keep his land, according to reports. Argenbright asked Hill to appear at a news conference with him in the city. That news conference made its way onto NBC’s Nightly News and was watched Trump.

“I saw a story on the news about Annabel Hill, who’d hit bottom,” The Donald writes in his book The America We Deserve.
“It was a very sad situation, and I was moved,” Trump writes in The Art of the Deal. “Here were people who’d worked very hard and honestly all their lives, only to see it all crumble before them. To me, it just seemed wrong.”

Trump reached out to Argenbright, who was able to put Trump in touch with bank that held Hill’s mortgage.
“The next morning, I called and got some vice president on the line,” writes Trump. “I explained that I was a businessman from New York, and that I was interested in helping Mrs. Hill. He told me he was sorry, but that it was too late. They were going to auction off the farm, he said, and ‘nothing or no one is going to stop it.’”

It was then, Trump claims, he decided to talk tough to the banker.

“That really got me going,” he writes. “I said to the guy: ‘You listen to me. If you do foreclose, I’ll personally bring a lawsuit for murder against you and your bank, on the grounds that you harassed Mrs. Hill’s husband to his death.’ All of a sudden the bank officer sounded very nervous and said he’d get right back to me. Sometimes it pays to be a little wild.”

“An hour later I got a call back from the banker, and he said, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to work it out, Mr. Trump.’”

At a press conference at the entrance to the Burke County Courthouse where the foreclosure sale was set to begin, Argenbright and members of the Hill family discussed their plan to save the farm. Neighbors and friends of the Hills, who had planned to console the family after their sale, were instead “stunned” with the news of a rescue plan, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Argenbright and Trump had put up the money with Federal Land Bank that morning for a 30-day option to purchase the farmland. The auction was called off less than two hours before it was to begin.

“It was a business decision that waiting a month doesn’t put the bank in any worse position, and [the earnest money shows] that this is no sham,” the bank’s manager said. “In this case, there was a lot of cooperation and effort on their part. We don’t always get that in foreclosure cases.”

Annabel Hill told the media her husband “would be overjoyed with the idea that the land will be saved. Truly, I don’t believe he will have died in vain, because one of these days this land will be coming back to the Hill family, and crops will be raised on it again.”

During the 30-day option period, a donation drive to collect the $187,000 necessary to pay the debt was launched. It instantly took off, thanks in no small part to Trump’s celebrity and his connections.

“By the end of the week, we’d raised $40,000. [Don] Imus alone raised almost $20,000 by appealing to his listeners,” writes Trump in The Art of the Deal. After a successful swarm of donations the debt still stood at $78,000.

That was when Trump offered to help pay half and Dallas farmer and landowner Tom McKamy matched Trump’s offer.
“Financially this was obviously no big deal,” writes Trump in The America We Deserve. “But in human terms, there aren’t words to express what Annabel Hill gave to me. Most of us have a few things in life we would never give back, no matter what. Helping Annabel is that way for me.”

That Christmas, at the atrium of the Trump Tower, The Donald and Annabel Hill, flanked by the media and others who had donated, burned Hill’s mortgage.

“It feels wonderful, it really does — especially at this time of the year,” Hill said. ‘I’m just so grateful to these men. It’s really hard with the main person in your family gone. This kind of eases the ache a little bit.”

”I never gave up hope. Farmers don’t ever give up hope,” Mrs. Hill added.

“It was unreal, almost like my mom was Cinderella,” Hill’s daughter Betsy told BuzzFeed News. “We couldn’t believe that we were going up to New York to actually meet Donald Trump in person and sit down and have a meal with him. He was just precious to help save our farm. It was just like we couldn’t believe it.”

“It’s nice to see that other side of a big real estate, investor and businessman to want to help such small, little unknown people,” she added.

At the Christmas event, Trump, struck a similar chord to what he says today.

“We give a lot of money to foreign countries that don’t give a damn about us, but we don’t help the American farmers,” Trump said.

Annabel Hill passed away at the age of 91 in 2011. She said about the motives of Trump’s charity, “the only way I can explain it was God touched his heart.”

Trump kept in touch with Hill for a while after the mortgage burning.

“I would see Annabel, whether it was in church or whether, you know, out in the community and she was always saying, ‘Well, you know I’m praying for Mr. Trump, I am praying for Mr. Trump,’” Marty Baker, a pastor at the local church, told BuzzFeed News. “And she just, you know, really stayed in contact with him some and continually just prayed for him.”

“I saw a side of him that was very caring, very sincere,” Argenbright told Lost Tycoon author Henry Hurt in his book.

“He would call her up and check on her [even after the publicity died out]. There was no feeling of, ‘well, Frank, okay, you’ve done the deal. Annabel’s gone. The publicity is over with. There’s no benefit to Donald Trump now.’ Not any of that ever.”

The Hills, according to Annabel’s son, Jim, who spoke with BuzzFeed News by phone, had never heard of Trump before he called up their family.

“It was a small Southern town,” Jim Hill said.

Jim Hill said that after their farm was saved, the family became the unofficial spokespeople for farmers losing their lands to banks in foreclosure.

“She sort of kind of became the spokesperson of the entire group of farmers that committed suicide or were losing their properties or losing the remainder of their properties,” he said.

Leonard Hill, Annabel’s son, who currently lives on the farm, says the family is deeply indebted to Trump.

“I’ve got three daughters and it allowed them to grow up on the farm,” Leonard Hill told BuzzFeed News. “We have been very blessed, very blessed.”

“My wife was pregnant with our youngest daughter when Mr. Trump came into the picture, and she grew up and decided to be a lawyer and went to the Catholic law school in Washington, D.C., and probably would not have been able to do that without Mr. Trump,” he stated.

“We about lost our names, I wouldn’t even know who I was. It was a tremendous blessing.”


http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/donald-trump-once-saved-a-womans-farm-from-foreclosure#.ieMK8mJ87

Court Removes Injunction on Planned Parenthood Video, New Video Immediately Released






Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell ruled on Friday afternoon the Center for Medical Progress has First Amendment rights to release videos it covertly took of StemExpress executives talking about buying aborted baby tissue from Planed Parenthood. Almost immediately afterwards, CMP released a new video that among other thing showed the StemExpress CEO Joking about receiving entire dead babies from Planned Parenthood (over lunch).

This latest video is only two minutes long and is more of a trailer of things to come. Most of its content was made up of bits and pieces of previous videos. The one new section featured Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is seen laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. As she paid the check, Dyer is laughing about how shippers of the aborted babies should give a warning to lab workers to expect such a whole (intact) baby.

“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.

“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “They don’t want to open the box and go ‘Oh my God!'” Dyer adds.
Once the CMP videos began to be released, StemExpress realized a lunch they had back in May was probably an undercover sting, so they sued to preemptively block those videos from being seen.  Judge O'Donnell issued a restraining order barring CMP from releasing any videos showing current or former Stem Express employees, at the end of July - then rescinded the order today.

The Center for Medical Progress isn't off the hook yet because the Judge say that even though they couldn't' be prevented from releasing the video, it was likely that StemExpress prevail in its lawsuit claiming its privacy was violated.

Earlier this week StemExpess announced it was cutting all ties with Planned Parenthood, but denied that it had done anything wrong.

The newly-released video is below, but expect more to come next week.


http://www.mrctv.org/blog/court-removes-injunction-center-medical-progress-immediately-releases-8th-shocking-planned-parenthood-video

Hillary planning to “educate the public” on the natsec classification process





To get in front of these headlines, the Clinton campaign is plotting a three-pronged pushback strategy. The first, described by Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri in an interview with The Huffington Post, is an end-of-summer effort to educate the public on the classification process for national security material. The second, coming when Congress returns from recess, is to aggressively pivot to policy announcements, from economic and women’s issues to President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, which will receive a vote in September. The last is to “go on offense” on Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, which the campaign sees as the ultimate target of her Republican critics…

In attempting to soothe jittery Democrats, aides have begun highlighting Oct. 22 as a moment that could bring clarity — if not some finality — to the email story. Clinton will head to  Capitol Hill that day for testimony before the House committee investigating the 2011 consulate attack in Benghazi. And the presumption that she’ll do well under questioning is matched only by the conviction that House Republicans will grow over-eager under the camera lights.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-clinton-campaign-is-in-the-barrel-they-have-a-plan-to-get-out_55d76df0e4b08cd3359c0858?2ihpvi

Ubuntu Kylin for China

Ubuntu Kylin is an official flavour of Ubuntu. It is a free PC operating system created for China and complies with the Chinese Government procurement regulations. It includes all the features you’ve come to expect from Ubuntu, alongside essential Chinese software and apps. The interface has been designed specifically to put Chinese users first — and with new support for touch screens and HiDPI monitors, it runs beautifully on all kinds of hardware.

http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/ubuntu-kylin


http://www.businessinsider.com/china-wants-to-replace-microsoft-apple-and-android-software-by-october-2014-8

Yet they all will travel in private jets, not skype, they all will read printouts published on tons and tons of paper, not PDFs on their smart phones. They will meet and agree to tell us how we should behave to save the planet: we should stop breathing.

57% REPUBLICANS BELIEVE TRUMP WILL BE NOMINEE...


Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has captured the public’s attention for better or worse, and his bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, once seen as a pipe dream, is now a topic of serious discussion. So for the near future at least, Rasmussen Reports intends to track Trump’s race for the White House in a weekly Friday feature we’re calling Trump Change.

Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year, with 25% who say it’s Very Likely. That compares to 27% who felt a Trump nomination was likely two months ago when he formally announced his presidential bid, a finding that included just nine percent (9%) who said it was Very Likely.

At that time, Trump ran near the bottom among the 12 declared GOP candidates. Now he leads the pack of Republican hopefuls which has grown to include 17 prominent contenders.

Among all likely voters, 49% think Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee, including 17% who say it’s Very Likely. That compares to 23% and seven percent (7%) respectively in the earlier survey. Forty-eight percent (48%) now say Trump is not likely to win the nomination, with 21% who feel it is Not At All Likely.

Forty-two percent (42%) of Republican voters say Trump is unlikely to be their party’s standard-bearer next year, but that includes just 15% who say it’s Not At All Likely. That’s down from 29% who said a Trump nomination was Not At All Likely two months ago.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.

"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.

The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.

The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.

The State Department has said it does not know whether the inspector general is correct. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation into the security of the copies of the emails outside the government's control.

FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.

In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.

"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.

The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.

The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.

"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".

State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.

Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.

John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.

A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.

If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.

The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.

Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.

With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Sometimes government’s dishonesty, incompetence, wastefulness, and misguided nannyism combine to make a perfectly ridiculous story. Today’s comes to us from Florida, where the Ocheesee Creamery is being forced to dump gallons upon gallons of good, natural skim milk because the state is requiring the business to label its good, natural skim milk “imitation” because they haven’t added anything to it.

Paul and Mary Lou Wesselhoeft have been fighting this in federal court with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, which had formerly allowed them to sell their skim milk while calling it skim milk. No one seemed confused by this except the state government, which changed its requirements.

The Institute for Justice is helping the Wesselhoefts take on the state, arguing they should not be prohibited from telling the truth about their product.

DACS has decided what is commonly known as skim milk—whole milk with the cream skimmed off—cannot be called “skim milk” unless it is artificially injected with vitamin A. DACS has demanded that Mary Lou either inject vitamin A before she can call it skim milk, or use a confusing and misleading label that calls it something it is not: Non-Grade ‘A’ Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed. Mary Lou suggested other labels that would ensure customers her skim milk is only pasteurized skim milk, not just a “milk product,” but DACS rejected each one.

As the AP reports, the judge in the case seems confused by the government’s position, not the act of calling skim milk skim milk:

Webster’s dictionary defines skim milk as simply “milk from which cream has been removed,” with no mention of added vitamins. But Department lawyer Ashley Davis told a judge consumers expect whole milk and skim milk to have the same nutritional value and that the Wesselhoefts’ skim milk is nutritionally inferior because vitamins are removed when the milk fat is removed.

“Ocheessee’s product is imitating — literally imitating — skim milk,” Davis said.

Judge Robert Hinkle said he’s not so sure consumers expect skim milk to have the same nutritional value as whole milk.

“You know something’s been removed in order to make it skim milk,” he said.

Hinkle also seemed to have problems with the word imitation.

“It’s hard to call this imitation milk. It came right out of the cow,” Hinkle said. “Anyone who reads imitation skim milk would think it didn’t come out of a cow.”


I’m with Hinkle. Doesn’t it seem like common knowledge that skim milk is whole milk with a bunch of delicious fat removed (I have my own issues with allowing skim milk to be called milk, but it’s a personal peeve that need not be adjudicated by the state, and I digress)? We all understand they’re not the same product, nutritionally, and that’s precisely why some people choose skim over whole.

The Wesselhoeft refuse to add extra stuff to their all-natural product because the tiny creamery got into business to sell and all-natural product. Their commitment to natural products was just fine with consumers, but now the government’s actions a threatening this small business and the livelihoods of those who work there:

The dairy was selling 200 to 300 gallons of skim milk a week at $5 a gallon before the state ordered them to relabel it or stop selling it.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/20/govt-to-creamery-your-milk-is-entirely-too-natural-to-not-be-labeled-imitation/


--------------------------
Baffling...

Trump wonders: What if I demanded that CNN donate $10 million to charity to do their debate?






His participation in the Fox debate surely doubled and maybe even tripled the expected audience. If you’re CNN and he demands $10 million for charity to get him to show up, you say yes.

If you’re CNN and he demands that Wolf Blitzer make fart noises with his armpit for his amusement to get him to show up, you say yes.

And you do this secure in the knowledge that every other Republican candidate onstage wants him at the debate too, no matter how annoyed they might have grown with his shtick, because these opportunities to introduce themselves to huge audiences of people who’d otherwise never watch a political event are pure gold.


As he bids farewell, he has a final thought, something he has been mulling over. It’s about that massive audience for the first Republican debate on Fox News, which he credits almost entirely to himself. On Sept. 16, CNN will host the next debate, under the direction of Jeff Zucker, the man who helped launch Trump’s NBC show, The Apprentice. Trump has no doubt it will be huge.

“Here’s my question: So if I go to CNN and I say, Look, you’re going to have a massive audience, and if I say to them, I want $10 million for charity, nothing for myself, what happens? I’m not showing up, right?” he says. It’s a rhetorical question, the wheels of entrepreneurship are turning, the joy of being Trump dancing on his face. “I’m not showing up unless you give $10 million to cancer, to this, to that. You pick 10 great charities, $1 million per.” He’s not sure just how far the rules of democracy can bend, how big his ambitions can grow. “If I’m in it, they’ll get this crazy audience, and they’re going to make a fortune since they’re selling commercials every time we take a break. Would you ever say to them, would you ever say, I want $10 million for AIDS research, for cancer, for this type or not, or is it too cute?”


Actually, CNN would have to turn that down, I assume, since the debate is ostensibly a news event and not entertainment, right? They’re not hiring Trump to be an actor on a show; they’re covering a discussion of national policy by presidential contenders. If he makes a financial demand and they meet it, they’re admitting that Trump’s candidacy is so valuable to them that they’ll actually pay to keep him front and center in the race, which means they’re really not covering it objectively. But then, the fact that Trump would raise this hypothetical shows why it’s hard to dislike him even if you think he’d be a trainwreck as a public servant. What he’s really doing here is reminding everyone that cable news is mostly spectacle and entertainment and that ratings, as always, are king. The fact that CNN would be forced to turn him down to pretend that none of that is true — ethics come first, surely! — makes the whole idea a sort of inchoate “Magic Christian” prank. See why Trump’s enjoying himself so much? Between stunts like this and those stream-of-consciousness press conferences he’s giving on the trail, he seems to be having more fun than any presidential candidate in modern history. Which, ironically, was supposed to be Jeb Bush’s thing — he was the guy who vowed to run “joyfully,” yet he spent last night in New Hampshire making a low-key, almost half-hearted attack on Trump for not being a conservative. You can barely even hear him in the clip that his team posted. Right around the same time, Trump accused Bush in front of a crowd of reporters of putting his audiences to sleep. And you know, that clip does seem a bit soporific.

Speaking of having fun, do we need to talk about Trump’s photo with the bald eagle for Time magazine? It’s a perfect example of Trump/media symbiosis. I guarantee you, when Time’s editors came up with that idea, they intended it as a goof in the Colbert mold on the idea of Republicans getting googly-eyed over nationalism and its symbols. It’s their sly way of suggesting that Trump is a sort of campier version of Putin, the strong man who’ll tame the country that’s gotten out of control. (Iowahawk imagines Trump as a blend of Qaddafi and Liberace with a little Bernie Sanders thrown in, which is even campier than “campy Putin” would be.) But you can’t shame Trump this way; it’s free publicity even if it’s making a joke at his expense, and some Trump fans will take the image at face value and love him even more for it. He wins and the media wins. That’s the essence of Trump.



http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/20/trump-wonders-what-if-i-demanded-that-cnn-donate-10-million-to-charity-to-do-their-debate/

˙ǝslǝ ǝuoʎɹǝʌǝ op ʎǝɥʇ ǝʞᴉl ɯᴉɥ ɥʇᴉʍ dn pǝɟ ʇǝƃ oʇ ǝldoǝd ɹoɟ ƃuol ǝʞɐʇ ʇ,uoʍ ʇI ˙sǝᴉlddns ɟo ʞɔoʇs ɹnoʎ ǝɹɐdǝɹd uǝɥ┴ ˙uᴉ sʇǝƃ ǝɥ lᴉʇ ʇᴉɐM ˙uᴉ ʇǝƃ ʇou ʇɥƃᴉɯ ǝH ˙ʍou 'sɹǝuuɐq puɐ sɹǝʇsod ,,dɯnɹ┴ dɯnp,, ǝɥʇ uo ǝɯᴉʇ ǝʇsɐʍ ʇ,uop

'um', 'uh' 11 times in 97 seconds...


The Clinton campaign is still groping for two sentences to put together to explain why Hillary’s email server was wiped clean.

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri appeared on CNN moments ago to try again to come up with an answer. Instead, it was largely rambling and incoherent.


“When did she decide to delete all — you know, half of the emails she effectively engaged in during her four years as secretary of state,” Wolf Blitzer asked Palmieri.

“She had her, um, she had — what happened was she — state department came to all the former secretaries of state last fall to ask for — to ask for whatever records they may have because they realized that, um, uh, they didn’t becau- because, uh, not just Hillary Clinton but other secretaries of state may have used personal email they may not have captured everything.

“So she had, she asked, uh, her lawyers to look at this so she had some legal minds on the case to see which emails were state department and which were personal and, uh, turned over the state department ones, uh, anything that was business related and, and then chose not to retain the ones that she, the ones that were personal,” Palmieri said.

“On that point,” Blitzer responded, “why wouldn’t she want to keep her own email records — maybe there were some fun, cute emails — why would she need to wipe all that clean?”

“She deglided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when shew as secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer,” Palmieri said.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-spox-stumbles-and-mumbles-over-deleted-emails/

There are some things you just can’t do in politics, not at the presidential level, anyway.

This is a game like any other, with rules honed over decades by the pros in blue blazers clutching focus-group results: Be likable. Don’t make enemies. Respect the party elders. Avoid funny hats. And never wear white bucks or French cuffs to the Iowa State Fair, a flyover fantasy­land of cholesterol and common decency where the life-size butter cow grazes behind glass with the life-size butter Uncle Pennybags from Monopoly.

That’s why Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker wore jeans to pose atop the hay bales this year. Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina featured pink plaid—­Farmer Jane meets Disney princess—and Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton dug up a blouse of blue gingham, hoisting her pork chop on a stick like a blue ribbon for authenticity. They all played it well, adhering to the sacred promise that if they pretend to be like everyone else, voters might think they actually are.


Then a buzzing came across the sky. A $7 million Sikorsky helicopter, sent over six states in at least four hops by its billionaire owner, descended in tight circles on the crowd, the name of the Republican front runner for the 2016 presidential nomination emblazoned on the tail. Donald John Trump, at roughly 25% in the national GOP polls, about twice his nearest rival, emerged in Des Moines with his golden mane encased in a big ruby baseball cap, his cuffs flashing diamond links and his shoes shining brighter than bleached teeth.

The state trooper in charge of the event told the governor that in all his years working the fair, he had never seen a candidate mobbed like Trump. All the competition could do was stick to their scripts. When someone asked Clinton if she had noticed Trump circling overhead, she claimed ignorance. “I was just looking at the people,” she said. Trump, for his part, didn’t pretend to care much for the pork chop on a stick. One bite and he put the silly thing down. The rules have changed. He didn’t need it.


http://time.com/trump/

State Department Issues New Rules In Bid To Stop Employees From Talking To Press About Hillary’s Email Scandal…



The State Department has quietly issued a new policy that some insiders view as designed to keep employees from freely speaking to Congress or the press about Benghazi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email controversy.

The State Department issued 19 pages of revised rules about official clearance for speaking, writing and teaching on July 27.

The new rules, first reported by Diplopundit, a blog that unofficially watches State Department leadership and management issues, say in part: “Employee testimony, whether in an official capacity or in a personal capacity on a matter of Departmental concern may be subject to the review requirements of this subchapter. Employees should consult with the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Adviser or [U.S. Agency of International Development’s] Office of the General Counsel, as appropriate, to determine applicable procedures.”


http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/19/state-department-clamps-down-on-speaking-to-congress-or-press/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


--------------------------------------------
Hillary's turd spreads up...